Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[delekkerste]

Oh, and Roy didn't "get four million dollars" for Whaam! That's just factually incorrect. It was purchased for £3,940 in 1966 from Lichtenstein's dealer. So, at most he pocketed a few thousand bucks for his cut.

[delekkerste]

 

Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reexamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is Lichtenstein's work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue that Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.

 

- Aman619, 2011

[Aman619]

Yeah. It's just like DC with say Action 1. They got a few pennies each when they sold it, and not a dime on each resale of any of the printed copies. It was the galleries ( dealers) and investors (comics fans) who Mae the long green in each case.

[ComicConnoisseur]

 

Roy Lichtenstein made a career copying comic book panels and selling them as pop art for millions. Now, one of his victims speaks out.

 

In this strip, veteran artist Russ Heath discuss his feelings toward Lichtenstein's Whaam! being based on one of his panels from DC Comics' All-American Men of War #89. Many of Lichtenstein's works were copied from comics, including works by legendary artists like Joe Kubert and Jack Kirby. Heath drew the piece in support of The Hero Initiative, a non-profit which gives support to comics professionals in need. The charity has helped figures such as ailing Rocket Raccoon creator Bill Mantlo, after a hit and run in 1992 left him requiring full-time medical care.

 

Source

Good post.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

And, just wait til gene comes home and posts on the subject!!

 

 

In any case, we've debated this topic at length before:

 

The Definitive Roy Lichtenstein Thread to End All Roy Lichtenstein Threads in the OA Forum

I will have to check that thread out. It sure does make for interesting debate. (thumbs u

Edited November 8, 2014 by ComicConnoisseur

[kav]

If Heath had painted the exact same paintings as Lichy they would have been worth zip-fine art is more about being in the in crowd than what you actually produce. Those paintings are valuable because Lichy was a known accepted artist. Not because of their content. Enter this circle and you can hock a loogie on a canvas and it will be worth big bucks.

[Wally's Comics]

I like Lichtenstein, but I do believe that there should have been credit and compensation for any work that his "modeled" this paintings after.

 

I compare this to samples of music that got halted after the late 80's where an artist had to give recognition and compensation to the work. The Beastie Boys created one of the best rap albums of all time with their release of Paul's Boutique, but that LP had more stolen samples than any other album before

and became the poster child for reasons why artist had to protect their works.

 

Vanilla Ice was the one 1st to be really publicly called out after the new rulings and he had to pay and give credit and has been the standard ever since.

 

I see no difference.

 

(thumbs u

[kav]

Unfortunately the 3 year statute had run out before people discovered Lichy's source panels.

[DeadpoolJr.]

All revisionist history and nonsense. Let's say Lichtenstein did "the right thing" and contacted DC for the rights to the Whammm panel. DC would have had to cover the receiver so Roy didn't hear them laughing, and the fee would have been like $50. AND Riss Heath wouldn't have seen a dime!

 

Is that what would have been okay by you guys crying foul??

 

And, having secured the rights Roy would have been free and clear to sell the paintings and never share another penny. Somehow I think you'd still be saying DC and Heath were left out of the money, even though it was a fairly negotiated exchange.

 

 

So, it's silly to be so upset now, fifty years later because if how things worked out. Heath is near broke NOT because Lichtenstein ripped him off, but because the comics industry did! Never paying enough money so the artists and writers to save up for retirement...

 

But gee, in this economy, lots and lots of professions don't pay enough either. Maybe Lichtenstein is to blame there too.

 

Why is it silly to be upset fifty years later, how do you know he wasn't upset before? Seeing your work get copied and sold without a mention is something that anybody would get angry about it doesn't matter how much time went by when that piece you worked, and taken on gets considered to be so iconic. Also its not just the money, if Lich had asked permission to use it then people would have been ok with it, because at least he acknowledged that he was using the work from another artist, and that $50 fee you said it would cost would be nothing for him. But no he didn't even do that, but hey I guess since it wasn't you he stole from its ok right?

[DeadpoolJr.]

His drawing are also inferior when viewed side by side with the originals

 

If you're comparing the drawing quality of Lichtenstein to the original comic book artists, you're asking the wrong question (plus you're just wrong anyway; Lichtenstein's versions were much more evocative than the throwaway panels he swiped). Lichtenstein at this point in his career (he only did these paintings for a few years out of a glorious multi-decade career) was all about turning everyday commercial images into art. Taken out of a nondescript comic book and blown up to huge size with vivid colors, Ben-Day dots, etc., and putting it into a gallery setting? It's as much about the idea as it is the execution. Seeing one of RL's paintings in a gallery or a museum evokes a much difference response from staring at two identically sized images on David Barsalou's anti-Lichtenstein website (which, I'm sorry, is just pointless and preposterous).

 

Comics historian Arlen Schumer has some things to say about this latest round of Lichtenstein-bashing:

 

Here we go again! Dean, the "blame" for Russ Heath's old-age situation should be placed where it belongs: not at Lichtenstein, who made legitimate fine art out of Heath's found-art, commercial panel (the very definition of pop art), but at the very comic companies who used Heath as a full-time freelancer, and never paid royalties or benefits or anything that longtime company employers should provide workers like Heath who gave their best years, blood, sweat and tears to them. Instead, we get the usual boogeyman-blaming of Lichtenstein. OK, so maybe back in his early years Lichtenstein should've credited his sources (his Estate credits them in shows & catalogs now)--but no one was doing that back then, or in the early years of music sampling either. But in NO WAY does Lichtenstein owe ANY of his comic book sources ANYTHING. Blame DC and Marvel Comics for never doing the right thing by their artists or writers.

 

Again, let's separate what RL "should've" done from what he "had" to do, and still "has" to do, legally, ethically and morally. Led Zeppelin didn't credit the blues songs they "covered" for their 1st album in 1969 (credited as Page-Plant "originals") until they were hauled into court decades later.

 

Roy Lichtenstein's work is the VERY DEFINITION of pop art itself: the idea that everyday objects and motifs/ideas/forms from our commercial and popular culture environment could be legitimate areas of artistic study and exploration as valid as the more traditional ones of the "natural" world (landscapes and still lifes) and the inner imagination (abstract expressionism). Lichtenstein chose the world of comic art for his particular pop art, and produced a body of work that turned out to be his life's work. Through his artistic transformation of his "found" art subject matter (what Pop shared with the Dadaist/surrealists like Duchamp)--not the pejorative of "tracing comic panels," "ripping them off," etc.--Lichtenstein explored many of the most classic artistic subjects of culture, society, relationships, image, identity, perception--and art itself, in a complete turning inside-out of the art-imitates-life-imitates-art moebius strip that both confounded and won over art critics, and is the source of a kind of humor in his work.

 

He also makes a great point (can't find his exact post on Facebook) about how comic book fans have this perception that the fine art world snubs their noses at them, and yet, So because he spend more time copying one panel then some one else who did a whole book and making it bigger where he can add or in some cases less detail thats makes him better? Nope.

[Prince Namor]

75 years in and still no respect for the people who REALLY create the comics.

And isn't that what it's ultimately about here?

Just an acknowledgement of where the art came from?

 

Is it any surprise it led to this:

Can Appropriation Artist Claim Copyright Over Artwork Appropriated From The Same Original?

 

Or that the Lichtenstein people, very soon after, 'ok'd' the album cover - meaning it wouldn't go to court.... ah, if only....

[JollyComics]

We have learned from many lessons.

 

My wife who was the graphic designer created one simple logo that went selling over 1 million dollar. She got nothing but paychecks.

 

That panel became DC's property so Russ Heath got nothing but the paychecks. DC didn't do anything about Lichtenstein's painting. The painting was done in 1963. Ever since, no one ever mentioned about the possibly lawsuit.

 

Quoted from Whaam! - Wiki: Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.

 

That is how the business does.

Edited November 8, 2014 by JollyComics

[Prince Namor]

We have learned from many lessons.

 

My wife who was the graphic designer created one simple logo that went selling over 1 million dollar. She got nothing but paychecks.

 

That panel became DC's property so Russ Heath got nothing but the paychecks.

 

That is how the business does.

 

What simple logo did she create that sold for over a million dollars?

[JollyComics]

We have learned from many lessons.

 

My wife who was the graphic designer created one simple logo that went selling over 1 million dollar. She got nothing but paychecks.

 

That panel became DC's property so Russ Heath got nothing but the paychecks.

 

That is how the business does.

 

What simple logo did she create that sold for over a million dollars?

 

My wife corrected me. She did the photograph for Sam's Club. Her company got the account with Sam's Club that went over 4-6 million dollars. She didn't get the credit. She is no longer with the company. Four founders sold the company to Flower's Baskets for over $50 million dollars.

 

It always sucks when you did something and got nothing. Sweat, blood and exhaust for nothing.

Edited November 8, 2014 by JollyComics

[delekkerste]

If Heath had painted the exact same paintings as Lichy they would have been worth zip-fine art is more about being in the in crowd than what you actually produce. Those paintings are valuable because Lichy was a known accepted artist. Not because of their content. Enter this circle and you can hock a loogie on a canvas and it will be worth big bucks.

 

Except that Roy Lichtenstein was a nobody - an art teacher at Rutgers - who, in becoming a pioneer of Pop Art, had to fight the same battles with the Art Establishment and general public in the early 1960s that fanboys are still waging 50 years later. The New York Times called him "one of the worst artists in America", while Life Magazine asked, "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?", answering itself by saying, "For some of America's best known critics and laymen, the answer to the above question is a resounding YES." Of course, over time, his innovation and importance was recognized by the art establishment, while his style and iconography (as with Pop Art in general) have become entrenched in pop culture. It's only a small group of comic book fanboys who still think he's just a plagiarist and scam artist.

 

 

So because he spend more time copying one panel then some one else who did a whole book and making it bigger where he can add or in some cases less detail thats makes him better? Nope.

 

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.

[Jeffro.]

75 years in and still no respect for the people who REALLY create the comics.

And isn't that what it's ultimately about here?

Just an acknowledgement of where the art came from?

 

Exactly. God forbid, he actually gave credit to the original artists of the panels he used. We all know that the original artist would not have received an extra dime as a result but acknowledgment by RL of the originals would have been appropriate.

[kav]

If Heath had painted the exact same paintings as Lichy they would have been worth zip-fine art is more about being in the in crowd than what you actually produce. Those paintings are valuable because Lichy was a known accepted artist. Not because of their content. Enter this circle and you can hock a loogie on a canvas and it will be worth big bucks.

 

Except that Roy Lichtenstein was a nobody - an art teacher at Rutgers - who, in becoming a pioneer of Pop Art, had to fight the same battles with the Art Establishment and general public in the early 1960s that fanboys are still waging 50 years later. The New York Times called him "one of the worst artists in America", while Life Magazine asked, "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?", answering itself by saying, "For some of America's best known critics and laymen, the answer to the above question is a resounding YES." Of course, over time, his innovation and importance was recognized by the art establishment, while his style and iconography (as with Pop Art in general) have become entrenched in pop culture. It's only a small group of comic book fanboys who still think he's just a plagiarist and scam artist.

 

 

So because he spend more time copying one panel then some one else who did a whole book and making it bigger where he can add or in some cases less detail thats makes him better? Nope.

 

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.

Every successful fine artist was once a nobody and ignored. I'm talking about once they become accepted-and that acceptance often has nothing to do with their actual work-it can be paint spatters or a crucifix in urine.

[That Ron Dude]

There are some very interesting points made.

 

Thanks for putting up the Russ Heath page. It was interesting to read about how he is doing these days. Also thanks for the reference to the Brian Bolland situation.

 

I have always taken it that Lichtenstein was doing drawings of 2-dimensional objects. I have gone from pole to pole thinking that he ripped people off and that he was just doing interpretive paintings of someone else's design work, sort of like Warhol's soup cans. I don't even know who designed the soup cans; you probably don't know either. Whoever it may be probably feels a little funny about their part in Warhol's career.

 

Reading the very articulate arguments here, I confess that I now have mixed feelings about it.

 

I recently read a book called, "Baby Let me Follow you Down" by a folk singer named Paul Clayton. Bob Dylan has often been accused of ripping off his version of the song that the book was named for. Clayton says that if it wasn't for Dylan mentioning him in the talking at the start of the song, he would be completely forgotten. He got no money from Dylan, though.

 

There is also a story about Dave Von Ronk being ripped off by Dylan for "House of the Rising Sun". Von Ronk has said that the story is now better known than any of his songs.

 

It would be nice it we could all look at people messing with our creations the way Von Ronk and Paul Clayton have. Me, I would want to cut Dylan's sweetbreads off, and you can bet there was a time that those two men wanted to, too. But time, frustration, and going public can make people humble.

 

I think Russ Heath's strip, ultimately, is taking the high road.

 

 

[Aman619]

All revisionist history and nonsense. Let's say Lichtenstein did "the right thing" and contacted DC for the rights to the Whammm panel. DC would have had to cover the receiver so Roy didn't hear them laughing, and the fee would have been like $50. AND Riss Heath wouldn't have seen a dime!

 

Is that what would have been okay by you guys crying foul??

 

And, having secured the rights Roy would have been free and clear to sell the paintings and never share another penny. Somehow I think you'd still be saying DC and Heath were left out of the money, even though it was a fairly negotiated exchange.

 

 

So, it's silly to be so upset now, fifty years later because if how things worked out. Heath is near broke NOT because Lichtenstein ripped him off, but because the comics industry did! Never paying enough money so the artists and writers to save up for retirement...

 

But gee, in this economy, lots and lots of professions don't pay enough either. Maybe Lichtenstein is to blame there too.

 

Why is it silly to be upset fifty years later, how do you know he wasn't upset before? Seeing your work get copied and sold without a mention is something that anybody would get angry about it doesn't matter how much time went by when that piece you worked, and taken on gets considered to be so iconic. Also its not just the money, if Lich had asked permission to use it then people would have been ok with it, because at least he acknowledged that he was using the work from another artist, and that $50 fee you said it would cost would be nothing for him. But no he didn't even do that, but hey I guess since it wasn't you he stole from its ok right?

 

 

you misunderstood me as I wasn't specific. Im calling out the defenders of Heath here, not Heath. His cartoon reads whimsical to me and more as a thank you to Hero Alliance than a serious gripe against Lichtenstein. He has a good point to make, and made it well.

 

But ask him back then, and over his career and he'd say that as hard as he worked on every job he did in comics, it was throwaway work. None of these guys felt working in comics in the fifties was all that grand. And if the "swells" in the gallery world thrilled at the reuse of one his panels, back them Im sure he was laughing at how dumb the rich were…. and not that he had created a masterpiece with panel six on page 7 of a story he drew late one night.

 

I think he thinks it would be "nice" to have seen some of that money, but not that he is entitled to any of it, just as he's not seeking a piece of every Haunted Tank slabbed comic that resells on Heritage. Its the so many comics fans who are bent out of shape far more than the actual artists I was speaking to.

 

 

[Davenport]

My wife corrected me. She did the photograph for Sam's Club. Her company got the account with Sam's Club that went over 4-6 million dollars. She didn't get the credit. She is no longer with the company. Four founders sold the company to Flower's Baskets for over $50 million dollars.

 

It always sucks when you did something and got nothing. Sweat, blood and exhaust for nothing.

Artistic types immersed in their work and not being math-heads, getting taken advantage of, is probably a story as old as time.

 

There's a great documentary on Netflix well worth seeing: 'Drew: The Man Behind the Poster'. One 'trusted partner' could never get around to returning any originals when asked. Always had an excuse and diverted his attention off by throwing more work at him. Twenty-five years later, long after they parted ways, all his originals showed up at auction and he had to sue the guy for their return. Crazy stories like that sprinkled throughout his life's journey.