Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[Rip]

For you Kav

Appropriation:

 

Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist.

 

 

See how Pop artists seized on and critiqued celebrity culture.

 

Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects. It is a strategy that has been used by artists for millennia, but took on new significance in mid-20th-century America and Britain with the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of popular images through mass media outlets from magazines to television.

So if artists had been doing it for millenia, how is it 'new' and 'challenging'? Because more people started doing it? Shouldn't that make it less significant, not more?

That's the thing with 'Artspeak'-if you actually analyze what theyre saying, it makes no sense.

 

You could try reading past the bolded type. After the word millennia.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[kav]

For you Kav

Appropriation:

 

Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist.

 

 

See how Pop artists seized on and critiqued celebrity culture.

 

Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects. It is a strategy that has been used by artists for millennia, but took on new significance in mid-20th-century America and Britain with the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of popular images through mass media outlets from magazines to television.

So if artists had been doing it for millenia, how is it 'new' and 'challenging'? Because more people started doing it? Shouldn't that make it less significant, not more?

That's the thing with 'Artspeak'-if you actually analyze what theyre saying, it makes no sense.

 

You could try reading past the bolded type. After the word millennia.

Yes I assumed 'new significance' meant 'more people started doing it'.

[Rip]

For you Kav

Appropriation:

 

Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist.

 

 

See how Pop artists seized on and critiqued celebrity culture.

 

Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects. It is a strategy that has been used by artists for millennia, but took on new significance in mid-20th-century America and Britain with the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of popular images through mass media outlets from magazines to television.

So if artists had been doing it for millenia, how is it 'new' and 'challenging'? Because more people started doing it? Shouldn't that make it less significant, not more?

That's the thing with 'Artspeak'-if you actually analyze what theyre saying, it makes no sense.

 

You could try reading past the bolded type. After the word millennia.

Yes I assumed 'new significance' meant 'more people started doing it'.

 

As one of my art history teachers said." You know when you assume, you make an "A S S" out of "U" and "M E"

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[kav]

For you Kav

Appropriation:

 

Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist.

 

 

See how Pop artists seized on and critiqued celebrity culture.

 

Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects. It is a strategy that has been used by artists for millennia, but took on new significance in mid-20th-century America and Britain with the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of popular images through mass media outlets from magazines to television.

So if artists had been doing it for millenia, how is it 'new' and 'challenging'? Because more people started doing it? Shouldn't that make it less significant, not more?

That's the thing with 'Artspeak'-if you actually analyze what theyre saying, it makes no sense.

 

You could try reading past the bolded type. After the word millennia.

Yes I assumed 'new significance' meant 'more people started doing it'.

 

As one of my art history teachers said." You know when you assume, you make an "A S S" out of "U" and "M E"

I assume the Sun will rise in the morning. I assume if I get something at a store I have to pay for it. I assume a LOT of stuff, every day, and I don't think it makes me an .

If you assumed nothing you wouldn't be able to leave your house in the morning-you'd have to check every detail of your life, that you still had a job, that your credit card wasn't canceled, that your neighbor wasn't waiting for you with a gun-it would never end...

[Rip]

Tell me more assumptions.

 

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[kav]

Tell me more assumptions.

I assume I'm not gonna die every day so I dont give all my stuff away

I assume when I cook food it gets hot

I assume my car will start

I assume no one is gonna throw a chicken through my window

I assume China wont disappear tomorrow

It just goes on and on

[MrBedrock]

What I don't understand are people who appear to be intelligent, buying into it hook, line and sinker.

 

Maybe you aren't intelligent enough to understand.

 

(Please excuse this response. I tried to convince it not to post itself. It wouldn't listen.)

[kav]

What I don't understand are people who appear to be intelligent, buying into it hook, line and sinker.

 

Maybe you aren't intelligent enough to understand.

 

(Please excuse this response. I tried to convince it not to post itself. It wouldn't listen.)

Well but that's the line they used in Emperor's New Clothes-only 'intelligent, refined people' could see them...

[Jeffro.]

I love the forgettable whole argument. wildly_fanciful_statement. He wants to praise RL while at the same time denigrating the source. RL didn't have mess without the panels he modified.

 

Uh yeah, because he couldn't have created his own images if he wanted to. But, that wasn't (part of) the point of Pop Art. RL didn't have jack without the panels he modified? He was doing interesting work before his comic paintings and he did a lot of interesting work afterwards as well. But, go on and tell me how he was nothing without those comic panels.

 

I only wish he had given credit to the source material, that's all.

 

If he did and I missed that info, please point me in the right direction so I can educate myself.

[Logan510]

What I don't understand are people who appear to be intelligent, buying into it hook, line and sinker.

 

Maybe you aren't intelligent enough to understand.

 

(Please excuse this response. I tried to convince it not to post itself. It wouldn't listen.)

 

 

Probably not

[Jeffro.]

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

 

Did he take a Heath (or any other artist for that matter) panel and explicitly give credit to Heath?

 

 

[Bronty]

^ I agree

[wombat]

If it was just a "throwaway panel" that no one cared about why not just come up with his own in the first place? Just make a generic panel and then have at it.

[Transplant]

The point. You seem to have missed it.

[Speedy-D]

The defense of Rob Lichtenfield or whatever is that "spoons" name is..

is indefensible in a comic book chat room

Russ Heath is revered in the comic community and here on these CGC boards, a lamb among wolfs

to defend the wolf on a comic chatboard is frankly as about as low down as possible

awesome!!!

[wombat]

The point. You seem to have missed it.

 

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from?

[Speedy-D]

The point. You seem to have missed it.

 

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from?

They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels.

[wombat]

The point. You seem to have missed it.

 

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from?

They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels.

 

But that was my point. He could have just made his own "panel" and said it came from a comic book. No one would know the difference. And no one would be arguing if he "stole" it.

 

Not that I understand anything about pop art or whatever it is so maybe that doesn't work.

Edited November 12, 2014 by wombat

[Speedy-D]

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

 

Did he take a Heath (or any other artist for that matter) panel and explicitly give credit to Heath?

 

Credit for specific panels may have been given at some point, but let's say no. Did he readily acknowledge that he took panels from comics? Yes. Did he go into detail about the particular panel? No.

 

Everyone can agree on this. How to interpret it or internalize it is up to you. Maybe it's rank theft done by a hack pulling a scam on art snobs. Maybe it's a hack thinking he has a good idea but he's wrong. Maybe it's an earnest artist trying to do his thing and succeeding. Maybe not succeeding. If we're not going to trust what he says himself about his inspiration and intent, that's cool. But really, no point in debating right? Just enjoy enjoying his art, or enjoy hating it.

 

[Speedy-D]

The point. You seem to have missed it.

 

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from?

They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels.

 

But that was my point. He could have just made his own "panel" and said it came from a comic book. No one would know the difference. And no one would be arguing if he "stole" it.

 

Not that I understand anything about pop art or whatever it is so maybe that doesn't work.

I suppose he could have done that. Just as Warhol could have made his own soup can labels and painted those. But no, that's not what the point was so it would not be the same thing.