Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[comix4fun]

Never let anyone tell you what you should love or not love whether it's a guy on a message board

 

Only weirdos love guys on message boards.

 

 

 

[Aman619]

Everything can and is judged. The argument lies is WHO gets to be the judge. A select few? Or anyone of us as we see fit.

 

In a court of law and many other reas, I think we'd agree that education and certification is vitally important. But in art? Not so much. Allow each of us to decide what we like to look at, or buy. And let history sort out what was GREAT, and what was a passing phase.

 

And, there again, is a great fallacy: "Allow each of us to decide what we like to look at, or buy", as if that isn't precisely what is already happening.

 

No one making the argument that art should have standards has said you can't, or shouldn't, be able to decide what you like to look at, or buy.

 

How many art galleries, at least in the west, have been raided by the police, the art seized, and the patrons arrested...?

 

Who is stopping ANYONE from deciding what you like to look at, or buy...?

 

Answer: no one. No one at all.

 

Expressing a dissenting opinion about the quality and execution of the art you like to look at or buy is a FAR, FAR cry from actively PREVENTING you from doing so.

 

What you REALLY mean by "allow" isn't "allow" at all...what you REALLY mean is "Everyone should have the right to call any random piece of lint on their navel a piece of art, and if you don't agree, you shouldn't be allowed to say so."

 

If a person is DISSUADED from making an "art" purchase because of someone else's opinion...as educated and as informed as it may...or may not...be....then that person really didn't appreciate that piece of art for its own sake, did they?

 

If you want to call a random nosehair sticking out of your nose "art", feel free. No one is stopping you. You can do it all you want.

 

But the real issue isn't whether YOU get to call it art. The real issue is that you demand everyone ELSE THINK it's art, and dismiss anyone who says "this isn't art. It doesn't conform to ANY standards of artistic form."

 

Who, then, is really trying to control whom...?

 

 

Having a nice day? You're putting way too much effort into what I post. I'm not stopping anyone, or demanding anyone think a lawnmower is what THEY CONSIDER art. It's the professor who is advocating for others to come to their senses and abde by HIS standards... The ONLY true artworks... And to dismiss all the rest of the that "passes for artwork" nowadays. I think he's wrong.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Everything can and is judged. The argument lies is WHO gets to be the judge. A select few? Or anyone of us as we see fit.

 

In a court of law and many other reas, I think we'd agree that education and certification is vitally important. But in art? Not so much. Allow each of us to decide what we like to look at, or buy. And let history sort out what was GREAT, and what was a passing phase.

 

And, there again, is a great fallacy: "Allow each of us to decide what we like to look at, or buy", as if that isn't precisely what is already happening.

 

No one making the argument that art should have standards has said you can't, or shouldn't, be able to decide what you like to look at, or buy.

 

How many art galleries, at least in the west, have been raided by the police, the art seized, and the patrons arrested...?

 

Who is stopping ANYONE from deciding what you like to look at, or buy...?

 

Answer: no one. No one at all.

 

Expressing a dissenting opinion about the quality and execution of the art you like to look at or buy is a FAR, FAR cry from actively PREVENTING you from doing so.

 

What you REALLY mean by "allow" isn't "allow" at all...what you REALLY mean is "Everyone should have the right to call any random piece of lint on their navel a piece of art, and if you don't agree, you shouldn't be allowed to say so."

 

If a person is DISSUADED from making an "art" purchase because of someone else's opinion...as educated and as informed as it may...or may not...be....then that person really didn't appreciate that piece of art for its own sake, did they?

 

If you want to call a random nosehair sticking out of your nose "art", feel free. No one is stopping you. You can do it all you want.

 

But the real issue isn't whether YOU get to call it art. The real issue is that you demand everyone ELSE THINK it's art, and dismiss anyone who says "this isn't art. It doesn't conform to ANY standards of artistic form."

 

Who, then, is really trying to control whom...?

 

 

Having a nice day? You're putting way too much effort into what I post. I'm not stopping anyone, or demanding anyone think a lawnmower is what THEY CONSIDER art. It's the professor who is advocating for others to come to their senses and abde by HIS standards... The ONLY true artworks... And to dismiss all the rest of the that "passes for artwork" nowadays. I think he's wrong.

 

Yes, I'm having a great day, thanks!

 

But...again....you've missed the entire point of the video. The professor is not advocating HIS standards. He is advocating OBJECTIVE standards.

 

From the video:

 

"Quality in art is not merely a matter of personal opinion, but to a high degree...objectively traceable." - Art Historian Jakob Rosenfeld.

 

And:

 

"The idea of a UNIVERSAL (note the word used there) standard of quality in art is now usually met with strong resistance, if not open ridicule."

 

...which is precisely what has happened here. The professor specifically and directly contradicts the very claim that you make against him here, namely, that anyone is trying to force anyone else into a SPECIFIC set of PERSONAL standards!

 

Whether you are purposely misrepresenting the video, or simply don't know better, the truth is, you're misrepresenting the video and what this man has said. That's not reasonable or reasoned discourse.

 

 

[1950's war comics]

A brand new modern art museum opened in East Lansing a few years ago ,.. the building architecture itself is the only thing that is not completely unremarkable.

I could write a novel dispelling this museums so called "modern art" but a few examples. : a whole medium sized room was filled with typewritten pages,.... I asked the guy working there what it was? come to find out , some nobody had another person record every single word that the nobody said for an entire week, and printed it out on 8X11 pages that now fill the entire room of

an art museum. this was not art,... it was pure garbage, and 100% conceited garbage at that.

another example,... in a large room was a very nondescript, long, pinkish plastic snake-like thing with white things on the top of it, it took the entire length of the room.. I asked the guy what it was and come to find out it was about 5000 used dentures connected and half-melted, I felt ashamed to be in the same room as this piece of "spoon" and left,.. these are just normal everyday example of the so-called modern art in this museum.

 

will give more examples later.....

[delekkerste]

For my pal Kav.  

[kav]

[the blob]

Not sure when the strip was done, but if heath was 84, and he's now 90, lichtenstein had been dead for a solid 13 years already.  I guess that doesn't change being pissed off, but you're pissed at a dead guy.

and, as someone else pointed out, he didn't sell that painting for $4 million. probably $20K (I have no idea what pop art prices were in 1963) although maybe licensed prints and posters of it sold for that much.

wikipedia says that particular painting is based on an irv novick panel, or was novick the inker and they're just wrong?

anyway, I'm not sure how i feel about it.  of course, heath didn't own the copyright in it, he signed that away

 

I have no idea if heath is still functional as an artist, but can't a guy like that do alright selling his work, doing commissions, etc., or am i vastly overestimating the market for this stuff?  i know 15 years ago when herb trimpe was in a bad way these old time artists couldn't do it so well, but now with the internet in full bloom and so on?

[the blob]

On 8/9/2015 at 7:51 PM, 1950's war comics said:

A brand new modern art museum opened in East Lansing a few years ago ,.. the building architecture itself is the only thing that is not completely unremarkable.

I could write a novel dispelling this museums so called "modern art" but a few examples. : a whole medium sized room was filled with typewritten pages,.... I asked the guy working there what it was? come to find out , some nobody had another person record every single word that the nobody said for an entire week, and printed it out on 8X11 pages that now fill the entire room of

an art museum. this was not art,... it was pure garbage, and 100% conceited garbage at that.

another example,... in a large room was a very nondescript, long, pinkish plastic snake-like thing with white things on the top of it, it took the entire length of the room.. I asked the guy what it was and come to find out it was about 5000 used dentures connected and half-melted, I felt ashamed to be in the same room as this piece of "spoon" and left,.. these are just normal everyday example of the so-called modern art in this museum.

 

will give more examples later.....

everything is subjective.  i was an economics and art major in college.  the professors did not push us to produce nonsense.

on the other hand, my brother was a poli sci and sculpture major in a different school, one that has a big art program (I majored in art at an engineering and pre-med school..the failed pre-med and physics types became lawyers or got MBAs).. he made these incredible sculptures, incredibly finely detailed, unique, really cool looking, beautiful...it had been his passion since like age 3...he would build these incredible micro city scapes...but abstract, on a 2 square foot island (we grew up in manhattan..) I assure you, most people here would be like "wow"... anyway, all of his professors would krap all over him because they were not political and they were too decorative and attractive.. they would prefer a found object (found garbage) installation protesting something in a white room that someone threw together in 2 hours over a piece that he had worked on for weeks.  anyway, he stopped pursuing it when he graduated, they had turned him off to art so much.  i  actually think he could have been really successful with it, but he wound up making so much money not long after graduating he never looked back.  it turns out he was a really good headhunter.

Edited March 20, 2017 by the blob

[Rip]

2 hours ago, the blob said:

everything is subjective.  i was an economics and art major in college.  the professors did not push us to produce nonsense.

on the other hand, my brother was a poli sci and sculpture major in a different school, one that has a big art program (I majored in art at an engineering and pre-med school..the failed pre-med and physics types became lawyers or got MBAs).. he made these incredible sculptures, incredibly finely detailed, unique, really cool looking, beautiful...it had been his passion since like age 3...he would build these incredible micro city scapes...but abstract, on a 2 square foot island (we grew up in manhattan..) I assure you, most people here would be like "wow"... anyway, all of his professors would krap all over him because they were not political and they were too decorative and attractive.. they would prefer a found object (found garbage) installation protesting something in a white room that someone threw together in 2 hours over a piece that he had worked on for weeks.  anyway, he stopped pursuing it when he graduated, they had turned him off to art so much.  i  actually think he could have been really successful with it, but he wound up making so much money not long after graduating he never looked back.  it turns out he was a really good headhunter.

Oh yeah, now this was a fun thread.

[1950's war comics]

They ended up filming  some of "Batman vs Superman" at the new modern art museum i was talking about in this thread (the Eli Broad Museum)

 The building itself is a work of art, the exhibits inside, which change often are invariably....... *spoon*

[kav]

4 hours ago, the blob said:

everything is subjective.  i was an economics and art major in college.  the professors did not push us to produce nonsense.

on the other hand, my brother was a poli sci and sculpture major in a different school, one that has a big art program (I majored in art at an engineering and pre-med school..the failed pre-med and physics types became lawyers or got MBAs).. he made these incredible sculptures, incredibly finely detailed, unique, really cool looking, beautiful...it had been his passion since like age 3...he would build these incredible micro city scapes...but abstract, on a 2 square foot island (we grew up in manhattan..) I assure you, most people here would be like "wow"... anyway, all of his professors would krap all over him because they were not political and they were too decorative and attractive.. they would prefer a found object (found garbage) installation protesting something in a white room that someone threw together in 2 hours over a piece that he had worked on for weeks.  anyway, he stopped pursuing it when he graduated, they had turned him off to art so much.  i  actually think he could have been really successful with it, but he wound up making so much money not long after graduating he never looked back.  it turns out he was a really good headhunter.

After my stint at art school I switched majors to chemistry and didn't draw for 5 years.  Yep them art instructors excel at their jobs for sure!!

[kav]

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/06/22/man-arrested-punching-monet-painting/

[Lantern]

On 11/8/2014 at 5:04 PM, delekkerste said:

The power of a Lichtenstein is not derived from the lines swiped from the original comic panels. If he wanted to, he could certainly have created his own - but, that wasn't the point of Pop Art. But, that's beside the point - the power of Lichtenstein's comic paintings is derived from taking the original panel out of context and re-purposing it, as well as transforming it into a larger size, with brighter colors, thicker lines and Ben-Day dots to simulate mechanical/photographic reproduction as if it were done by a commercial printer. It was innovative, breakthrough stuff at the time, and has since become an important, iconic part of art history. The source material, on the other hand, was not innovative or important in any way, shape or form.

For the longest time I was on the Heath side of this argument.  Over the past few years, however, I've had the opportunity to view a pop art exhibit in Dallas that included a Lichtenstein and a full Lichtenstein exhibit in DC, which included not only numerous examples of his pop art pieces but his other works of art too.  I am now in the Lichtenstein camp.  If you have not had the opportunity to view a  Lichtenstein painting in person, I highly recommend it.  I was surprised how taken I was by the art and its presence in the room. 

[Niko1975]

Let's say Roy Lichtenstein would have done things right back in 1962 when the painting was made , he would

have ask DC for the rights of reproducing a panel of the comic book " all American men of war "  for how much ? 100 $.

Lichtenstein's  paintings   sold for roughly a 1000 $ back in the days.

 

[NoMan]

Thanks for whomever posted that video. I laughed pretty hard.

I take street photos as a hobby. I used to subscribe to an arts/photo magazine called "Blind Spot." It came out about 6 times a year and had a hefty price tag: $25.00 an issue. I enjoyed it with its articles and analyzation of some of the woks of the masters: Winogrand, etc. 

However, they changed editorship and one issue had 19 pages of blank pages and an article about the artist who produced the blank pages and so on. I canceled my subscription.

Just so this post has some comic-book substance: Tales To Astonish #27 is going to become the new grail of all collectors. It is THE BOOK.

[NoMan]

On August 9, 2015 at 4:51 PM, 1950's war comics said:

A brand new modern art museum opened in East Lansing a few years ago ,.. the building architecture itself is the only thing that is not completely unremarkable.

I could write a novel dispelling this museums so called "modern art" but a few examples. : a whole medium sized room was filled with typewritten pages,.... I asked the guy working there what it was? come to find out , some nobody had another person record every single word that the nobody said for an entire week, and printed it out on 8X11 pages that now fill the entire room of

an art museum. this was not art,... it was pure garbage, and 100% conceited garbage at that.

another example,... in a large room was a very nondescript, long, pinkish plastic snake-like thing with white things on the top of it, it took the entire length of the room.. I asked the guy what it was and come to find out it was about 5000 used dentures connected and half-melted, I felt ashamed to be in the same room as this piece of "spoon" and left,.. these are just normal everyday example of the so-called modern art in this museum.

 

will give more examples later.....

I think I saw the room full of typewritten pages piece at a museum in Washington DC in the early 80s. I believe the work is from the 30s. Not saying it's good or bad, just I think that is what I saw.

[NoMan]

That floating rock thing is a big deal here in Los Angeles.

We are a proud people!

[delekkerste]

7 hours ago, Lantern said:

For the longest time I was on the Heath side of this argument.  Over the past few years, however, I've had the opportunity to view a pop art exhibit in Dallas that included a Lichtenstein and a full Lichtenstein exhibit in DC, which included not only numerous examples of his pop art pieces but his other works of art too.  I am now in the Lichtenstein camp.  If you have not had the opportunity to view a  Lichtenstein painting in person, I highly recommend it.  I was surprised how taken I was by the art and its presence in the room. 

The D.C. exhibition was great.   

 

Roy Lichtenstein - Drowning Girl, 1963

Photo taken May 2015, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, New York

 

Roy Lichtenstein - Sleeping Girl, 1964

Photo taken May 2013, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

 

Roy Lichtenstein - Blam, 1962

Photo taken February 2012, Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut

 

 

[kav]

Idea for a piece called 'painting the artist didn't paint' and there's nothing there on the wall.

[kav]

"I see this as an imagining-each viewer is free to create his or her or hir piece in their own mind-free to share it or not as they see fit.  This unshackles the boundaries imposed by more tangible works of art and accesses directly the heart of the creative process."  Dimensions 5' by 8'.  Price $23,000,000.

Edited March 21, 2017 by kav