Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[Prince Namor]

Gene, just think if we discussed In Advance of the Broken Arm by Duchamp or Rauschenberg's Erased de Kooning.

 

The debate brought into the early 20th century by Duchamp is; should art reflect an artist’s skills, or even be handcrafted by the artist. Duchamp stated that an artist could create simply by making choices.

 

Artists like Duchamp were key in shifting “retinal” (pleasing to the eye) artwork to the “intellectual” thereby challenging traditional notions that beauty is a defining characteristic of art.

 

Pop art (which first came from Britain) is challenging the art world, focusing upon the popular Mundane (low art) and raising it to a high. Its moot if the pop artist grabbed Health, Abruzzo, Kirby or a Lollypop ad. It is important that he something grabbed something mass produced and considered not art.

Production, process and mass culture are now a focal point. Ben day dots, irony and witt are now the key elements in the context of a running dialog within the art gallery.

 

Do people think of Tony Abruzzo when they think about the Ben Day dot process or do they think about Lichtenstein?

 

The irony lost is the many criticisms in the thread are in fact what continues to give these pieces life.

 

But Lichtenstein didn't originally admit he took those pieces from another source did he?

And THAT is the point.

Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

 

How someone feels about if it's 'good' or not is a futile exercise. It's all opinion.

 

Fact: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

 

 

[comicwiz]

I guess what impresses me the most is whether or not the artwork and artist changed the way the world (art world, world at large etc) thinks about things

 

You might be on to something - this is exactly what I meant by "contemporary ethics":

 

'Buzzard' Director On Why It's Good to Steal From Your Inspirations

 

Advice for first-time filmmakers?

 

"Don't be afraid to steal from others. Some of the most popular scenes in my films are lifted straight from other directors. Just make it your own."

[kav]

Well technically Lichtenstein wasn't a comic artist and he was painting comic panels-everyone knew he was borrowing the format at least - apparently it was unimportant whether he came up with them himself or copied them because no one asked. They just appreciated the idea of him taking something common and making it art, which is what pop art is.

[delekkerste]

But Lichtenstein didn't originally admit he took those pieces from another source did he?

And THAT is the point.

 

Except that he did admit that he sourced the images from comic books. In fact, that was the point.

 

“The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content. However, my work is entirely transformed in that my purpose and perception are entirely different." - Roy Lichtenstein, 1964

[ft88]

I really don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't use the word stealing but we all get the idea.

 

Is the issue the money or the fame/adulation?

 

If its the money, I guess that comes down to the liberty for RL to create whatever he wants and someone paying any amount they choose. I know this opens the can of worms of IP law and clearly folks have differing views on that, lawyers and laymen alike.

 

If its the fame/adjulation, then I guess the world writ large comes down on the side of RL by a long shot.

 

Either way I tend to side with RL.

[Rip]

Gene, just think if we discussed In Advance of the Broken Arm by Duchamp or Rauschenberg's Erased de Kooning.

 

The debate brought into the early 20th century by Duchamp is; should art reflect an artist’s skills, or even be handcrafted by the artist. Duchamp stated that an artist could create simply by making choices.

 

Artists like Duchamp were key in shifting “retinal” (pleasing to the eye) artwork to the “intellectual” thereby challenging traditional notions that beauty is a defining characteristic of art.

 

Pop art (which first came from Britain) is challenging the art world, focusing upon the popular Mundane (low art) and raising it to a high. Its moot if the pop artist grabbed Health, Abruzzo, Kirby or a Lollypop ad. It is important that he something grabbed something mass produced and considered not art.

Production, process and mass culture are now a focal point. Ben day dots, irony and witt are now the key elements in the context of a running dialog within the art gallery.

 

Do people think of Tony Abruzzo when they think about the Ben Day dot process or do they think about Lichtenstein?

 

The irony lost is the many criticisms in the thread are in fact what continues to give these pieces life.

 

But Lichtenstein didn't originally admit he took those pieces from another source did he?

And THAT is the point.

Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

 

How someone feels about if it's 'good' or not is a futile exercise. It's all opinion.

 

Fact: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

 

 

He discussed sources in various interviews about how close he needed to be to the original works. There are interviews in late 63 or 64 shortly after he made Whaam! and Drowning Girl. Close reproduction was part of the process. It's not a hidden or a sinister element. Its par for the course. I do not think he mentioned them by name, but I'm not sure if Duchamp mentioned the name of the Snow shovel company either.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[Rip]

But Lichtenstein didn't originally admit he took those pieces from another source did he?

And THAT is the point.

 

Except that he did admit that he sourced the images from comic books. In fact, that was the point.

 

“The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content. However, my work is entirely transformed in that my purpose and perception are entirely different." - Roy Lichtenstein, 1964

 

Ah thanks, there are other interviews also.

 

 

[DeadpoolJr.]

But Lichtenstein didn't originally admit he took those pieces from another source did he?

And THAT is the point.

 

Except that he did admit that he sourced the images from comic books. In fact, that was the point.

 

“The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content. However, my work is entirely transformed in that my purpose and perception are entirely different." - Roy Lichtenstein, 1964

His purpose- to make money, and get famous

His perception- Since its not art "cultured" people value it far game.

[delekkerste]

Gene, just think if we discussed In Advance of the Broken Arm by Duchamp or Rauschenberg's Erased de Kooning.

 

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

 

It's a throw away line, or it can make you think in circles.

 

[Prince Namor]

But Lichtenstein didn't originally admit he took those pieces from another source did he?

And THAT is the point.

 

Except that he did admit that he sourced the images from comic books. In fact, that was the point.

 

“The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content. However, my work is entirely transformed in that my purpose and perception are entirely different." - Roy Lichtenstein, 1964

 

That quote was, of course, after his originality was called into question.

 

He did not disclose until pressed on the issue.

 

He was trying to hide the fact that he had 'manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.'

[Prince Namor]

I really don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't use the word stealing but we all get the idea.

 

Is the issue the money or the fame/adulation?

 

 

It's neither.

 

The issue is: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

 

 

[delekkerste]

That quote was, of course, after his originality was called into question.

 

He did not disclose until pressed on the issue.

 

Now you're just making it up as you go along. His originality was called into question because he was reproducing actual objects, like panels from comic books (and stenographer's notebook covers, local advertisements, etc.) At no point did he attempt to conceal this fact. Sorry if that totally undermines the flimsy straw man you have attempted to create.

[kav]

If I could manipulate someone's art claim it as my own and get rich and face no consequences, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Blame the art world that gave him the stamp of approval, not him.

[Prince Namor]

That quote was, of course, after his originality was called into question.

 

He did not disclose until pressed on the issue.

 

Now you're just making it up as you go along. His originality was called into question because he was reproducing actual objects, like panels from comic books (and stenographer's notebook covers, local advertisements, etc.) At no point did he attempt to conceal this fact. Sorry if that totally undermines the flimsy straw man you have attempted to create.

 

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

[Rip]

Putting aside the colorful history, why would he need to hide it?

Admitting sources didn't hurt his career.

[Prince Namor]

Putting aside the colorful history, why would he need to hide it?

Admitting sources didn't hurt his career.

 

I have no idea of his motives, just that he manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

[delekkerste]

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

 

So, in other words, you've got nothing that says he hid and denied that he used existing comic panels. Because we know that didn't happen and was, in fact, the antithesis of what he was trying to do with Pop Art.

 

As for the Life Magazine article, that was the art world's equivalent of "Dewey Defeats Truman".

[Logan510]

Putting aside the colorful history, why would he need to hide it?

Admitting sources didn't hurt his career.

 

Of course not. He was praised for elevating the source material as comics were viewed as utter garbage, so what he did was seen as an improvement.

 

 

 

Thank goodness

[Rip]

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

 

So, in other words, you've got nothing that says he hid and denied that he used existing comic panels. Because we know that didn't happen.

 

As for the Life Magazine article, that was the art world's equivalent of "Dewey Defeats Truman".

Here is the Life Magazine article. I like it, it's a famous one.

http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[Rip]

That quote was, of course, after his originality was called into question.

 

He did not disclose until pressed on the issue.

 

Now you're just making it up as you go along. His originality was called into question because he was reproducing actual objects, like panels from comic books (and stenographer's notebook covers, local advertisements, etc.) At no point did he attempt to conceal this fact. Sorry if that totally undermines the flimsy straw man you have attempted to create.

 

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

 

Can you post the John Copland interview so we can see it?