Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[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.

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.

 

But I assume Warhol took something everyone would recognize on purpose. Seems like the panel was something no one would specifically recognize.

 

Would that really have changed things? Would it not have sold for all that money if people realized it was never really a comic but something he made himself? Just to be clear, that is a serious question. I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of 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.

Now I kinda want to determine all his source material and add them to my collection.

[kav]

Whaam! adapts a panel by Irv Novick from the "Star Jockey" story from issue #89 of DC Comics' All-American Men of War (Feb. 1962).[24][25][26] The original forms part of a dream sequence in which fictional World War II P-51 Mustang pilot Johnny Flying Cloud, "the Navajo ace", foresees himself flying a jet fighter while shooting down other jet planes.[27][28] In Lichtenstein's painting, both the attacking and target planes are replaced by different types of aircraft. Paul Gravett suggests that Lichtenstein substituted the attacking plane with an aircraft from "Wingmate of Doom" illustrated by Jerry Grandenetti in the subsequent issue (#90, April 1962),[29] and that the target plane was borrowed from a Russ Heath drawing in the third panel of page 3 of the "Aces Wild" story in the same issue #89.[30] The painting also omits the speech bubble from the source in which the pilot exclaims "The enemy has become a flaming star!"[31]

 

Seems Heath is also claiming credit for something he didn't do....

[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.

 

But I assume Warhol took something everyone would recognize on purpose. Seems like the panel was something no one would specifically recognize.

 

Would that really have changed things? Would it not have sold for all that money if people realized it was never really a comic but something he made himself? Just to be clear, that is a serious question. I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of it.

It's a good question, and a good point about the difference between Warhol and Lichtenstein's work. To be honest, I don't know. My gut says it's important that it's taken from real, published throwaway commercial art, but I can't articulate why yet.

 

I'm trying to think of a comic image he could have used with anything close to the universal recognition of a Campbell's soup can. There probably isn't one.

 

Actually, I can't even say for certain that every single one of his "panel paintings" has a real published analog, but I'd be surprised if it didn't. At least the stuff from this particular period.

[Rip]

Yes, It wasn't just Heath.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Whaam!%27s_substituted_attack_plane.jpg

 

Jerry Grandenetti's part also.

 

 

Irv Novick is also one to tell tall tales as well.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Rip

[Bronty]

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.

 

But I assume Warhol took something everyone would recognize on purpose. Seems like the panel was something no one would specifically recognize.

 

Would that really have changed things? Would it not have sold for all that money if people realized it was never really a comic but something he made himself? Just to be clear, that is a serious question. I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of it.

 

I don't think it would have any effect on price. Why bother creating a new panel though? I would have done the same thing in his shoes. He should have credited his sources but he he did change enough about them to make them his own. Someone just painting the image at scale wouldn't have included the Ben Day dots - the whole inclusion of those dots is as good as saying "I copied this from a comic book (or intended for it to look like a comic)."

 

Again, I think a credit was due but the idea that he brought nothing to the table isn't correct either.

[kav]

Thank god he didn't use Ben Gay dots

[Bronty]

Thank god he didn't use Ben Gay dots

 

There was one post you had in this thread that had me laughing out loud, but this one needs some work

 

Seriously though - don't you agree? Including printing process marks is as good as saying "this image was printed previously" (or intended to look that way).

[kav]

Thank god he didn't use Ben Gay dots

 

There was one post you had in this thread that had me laughing out loud, but this one needs some work

 

Seriously though - don't you agree? Including printing process marks is as good as saying "this image was printed previously" (or intended to look that way).

definitely

I'll work on my material too

[RockMyAmadeus]

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]

[Rip]

You are on to something (thumbs u

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Someone else's work-for-hire product, one panel out of a totally forgettable whole, was the starting point for something he transformed into art which most educated people outside of a handful of indignant comic fans consider to be truly great.

 

 

Most educated people think it is truly great? Do they?

 

I'll bet a lot of otherwise educated people don't even know the source material. These same people probably think RL created these images himself, instead of basing them off the works of others.

 

I do love the qualifier: "most educated people outside of a handful of indignant comic fans"...so GP's allowing that there are, in fact, educated people who also happen to be comic fans, indignant or otherwise.

 

That does nothing for the terrible logical fallacy invoked...the classic "argumentum ad populum" (appeal to popularity)...with the implication being that if you don't think the art is "truly great", the odds are pretty good that you're not "educated." How do you even prove such a claim...? You can't; it's impossible, which is why it is used by poor debaters.

 

 

The truth is, there are vast swaths....veritable plethoras....of educated people who have never even heard of Rob Lichtenfield (sorry, couldn't resist) and have never seen his art...nor 5th, 10th, or 50th generation derivatives of same.

 

The world has changed a whole lot in 50 years.

 

[Speedy-D]

Way to kill the thread RMA!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Way to kill the thread RMA!

 

My work here is done.

[1950's war comics]

Yes its time for this thread to end,

The copycat so called pop artist RL's name should never be mentioned on these boards again... except in disgrace, to refer to him by name is an insult to all who cherish comic collecting, to call him merely "spoon" is not severe enough.

[namisgr]

Yes its time for this thread to end,

The copycat so called pop artist RL's name should never be mentioned on these boards again... except in disgrace, to refer to him by name is an insult to all who cherish comic collecting, to call him merely "spoon" is not severe enough.

 

Who, Roy Lichtenstein?

[MrBedrock]

Yes its time for this thread to end,

The copycat so called pop artist RL's name should never be mentioned on these boards again... except in disgrace, to refer to him by name is an insult to all who cherish comic collecting, to call him merely "spoon" is not severe enough.

 

Who, Roy Lichtenstein?

Roy Lichtenstein would be proud!

[namisgr]

Yes its time for this thread to end,

The copycat so called pop artist RL's name should never be mentioned on these boards again... except in disgrace, to refer to him by name is an insult to all who cherish comic collecting, to call him merely "spoon" is not severe enough.

 

Who, Roy Lichtenstein?

Roy Lichtenstein would be proud!

 

You mean the Roy Lichtenstein who did this piece?

 

_Cap_de_Barcelona_08019-1140-1_DSC09566.jpg/640px-Roy_Lichtenstein%_Cap_de_Barcelona_08019-1140-1_DSC09566.jpg' alt='2.gif.9fc66b13abe5d736a39bc1a668f42ae9.gif' alt='2c'>_Cap_de_Barcelona_08019-1140-1_DSC09566.jpg'>

[Rip]