Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[Garf]

If Lichtenstein had gotten express permission to use the images and Russ Heath, Irv Novick, etc. were enthusiastic fans of his, few of you would be calling this work the boring work of a thieving hack. At the very least, you'd look at the art with an open mind and give it a chance. Instead, because he didn't go out of his way to do so and win the hearts and minds of future comic book aficionados in 2014, many of you view him as a pariah, and none of the extenuating circumstances (work-for-hire, publishers not caring back then, publishers sometimes not even crediting the artist, things being far less litigious back then (let alone arguing for fair use), RL actually having positive things to say about comic artists, scholars and museums later acknowledging the source material in exhibitions and materials, etc.) will dent your single-minded fury at the artist. And that, to me, is just a bit sad and misguided, because, as comic fans, I feel we should be enjoying this work even more than others.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting thread... I don't often ponder these things so I am kinda on the fence.

 

Why not both? There's no reason that I can't appreciate it in the relevant context and still also find other aspects or particular pieces of appropriated art annoying. Doesn't matter what the format is, be it fine art, choreography, music... there has to be a line in the sand somewhere regarding inspiration or transformation where it just loses integrity and looks like plagiarism.

 

I find it surprising that Lichtenstein was never sued when plenty of other (neo) pop artists have been, I guess times have changed. Warhol, Koons, Hirst have all lost some battles. In one such case Hirst's "transformation" was to enlarge the subject. So what? It's bigger... woop de doo! I don't think it's reasonable to assume that everyone should fall on one side agreeing what RL did was always a transformation or if someone doesn't agree with it that it follows suit that they shun all of his work and the pop art movement as theft / junk. It's also annoying to see the same artists or their foundations sue other artists who appropriate their work which sometimes is an appropriation itself

 

Is it art? Yes! Do I like some of it? Yes! Would it me off if I created something and someone claimed most of it as their own? Yes! Does that make me question the morals / self respect aspect? Yes!

[Aman619]

Hers a twist I don't think was mentioned. In this article, Russ Heath is quoted as having been invited to the original gallery opening back in 1963... He declined.

 

So it's hard to say RL ignored or ran from the comic artists in question.

 

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2014/11/russ-heaths-lichtenstein-comic-an-overnight-sensation-two-years-in-the-making/

He says that in the second panel of the comic.

 

 

are we supposed to read all the words AND look at the pictures?

 

: )

[Mr Sneeze]

[Terry Doyle]

If Lichtenstein had gotten express permission to use the images and Russ Heath, Irv Novick, etc. were enthusiastic fans of his, few of you would be calling this work the boring work of a thieving hack. At the very least, you'd look at the art with an open mind and give it a chance. Instead, because he didn't go out of his way to do so and win the hearts and minds of future comic book aficionados in 2014, many of you view him as a pariah, and none of the extenuating circumstances (work-for-hire, publishers not caring back then, publishers sometimes not even crediting the artist, things being far less litigious back then (let alone arguing for fair use), RL actually having positive things to say about comic artists, scholars and museums later acknowledging the source material in exhibitions and materials, etc.) will dent your single-minded fury at the artist. And that, to me, is just a bit sad and misguided, because, as comic fans, I feel we should be enjoying this work even more than others.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting thread... I don't often ponder these things so I am kinda on the fence.

 

Why not both? There's no reason that I can't appreciate it in the relevant context and still also find other aspects or particular pieces of appropriated art annoying. Doesn't matter what the format is, be it fine art, choreography, music... there has to be a line in the sand somewhere regarding inspiration or transformation where it just loses integrity and looks like plagiarism.

 

I find it surprising that Lichtenstein was never sued when plenty of other (neo) pop artists have been, I guess times have changed. Warhol, Koons, Hirst have all lost some battles. In one such case Hirst's "transformation" was to enlarge the subject. So what? It's bigger... woop de doo! I don't think it's reasonable to assume that everyone should fall on one side agreeing what RL did was always a transformation or if someone doesn't agree with it that it follows suit that they shun all of his work and the pop art movement as theft / junk. It's also annoying to see the same artists or their foundations sue other artists who appropriate their work which sometimes is an appropriation itself

 

Is it art? Yes! Do I like some of it? Yes! Would it me off if I created something and someone claimed most of it as their own? Yes! Does that make me question the morals / self respect aspect? Yes!

 

Probably the fairest assessment of this never-ending thread I've read so far.

 

I'm not entirely sure that singing the praises of Lichtenstein's comic-book inspired paintings is such a good idea on a comic-book collecting forum (for most people here sympathies will lie with artists like Heath who saw their work re-interpreted and selling for huge amounts of money yet receiving nothing for playing a part in it all).

 

I don't have a problem with anyone liking Lichtenstein's artwork (even though I no longer hold his comics-inspired art in the high regard I once held for it back in the 1960s before I discovered the imagery was not entirely unique).

 

What does irritate me is the, "If you don't appreciate Lichtenstein's artwork, it's because you're uneducated" kind of stance (or words to that effect) I see surface on these threads by pro-Lichtenstein boardies (difficult to win anyone round to your cause if you're questionning their intellect). It's something that 'RockMyAmadeus' has already flagged-up and successfully addressed, so I'll say no more.

 

Good post, Garf. (thumbs u

[Terry Doyle]

 

[Prince Namor]

If Lichtenstein had gotten express permission to use the images and Russ Heath, Irv Novick, etc. were enthusiastic fans of his, few of you would be calling this work the boring work of a thieving hack. At the very least, you'd look at the art with an open mind and give it a chance. Instead, because he didn't go out of his way to do so and win the hearts and minds of future comic book aficionados in 2014, many of you view him as a pariah, and none of the extenuating circumstances (work-for-hire, publishers not caring back then, publishers sometimes not even crediting the artist, things being far less litigious back then (let alone arguing for fair use), RL actually having positive things to say about comic artists, scholars and museums later acknowledging the source material in exhibitions and materials, etc.) will dent your single-minded fury at the artist. And that, to me, is just a bit sad and misguided, because, as comic fans, I feel we should be enjoying this work even more than others.

 

I suppose a case could be made for Milli Vanilli as well, that perhaps if they had been straight forward about not doing the vocals on the hit single 'Girl You Know It's True' (they did there own dancing though, obviously), that perhaps the success and backlash, especially from 'ugly people who are good singers', wouldn't have been so harsh.

 

However, people generally understand music and the manipulation that can occur in the studio, including the pitch manipulation of a singer's voice to keep it in key. So they're much more harsh about someone 'faking' it. The masses just aren't as educated, indoctrinated, aware of 'art' and 'what it is'. So they generally just tend to nod their head and accept what they're told.

 

From a different perspective - many musical artists remake or use someone else's song and turn it into a hit, and this doesn't seem to bother people, even when it isn't noted 'upfront', though they pay a royalty fee to that original composer. It is however, ALWAYS annoying when Techno artists do it. There's no arguing that. Always, 100% of the time. It's annoying. Period. We don't need a techno remake of 'Eleanor Rigby.'

 

In Lichtenstein's situation, to some comic book fans anyway, he took the work of the abused and the taken for granted and he mocked them with his success. He straight out manipulated their work and called it his own. He's claimed copyright on the right to imitate the images he originally copied! Regardless (NOT irregardless) of it is good, or note worthy or world changing, or the bees knees - to many comic book fans, it is outrage. Even to some fans of art, the success is puzzling. Even for the time, there apparently was some question as to why anyone found it appealing.

 

There are some people offended that some knucklehead got the idea to give some bums money and get them to fight each other and video tape it and put it out for sale. There's some outrage over it now, and there's the opposite side of it that says, 'Hey, this is America, capitalism is alive and well!" If someday the rights of those bums is defended and protected, but the videos made, somehow get accepted as 'fine art' in America and become a part of our cultural identity - does that mean they are?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

[delekkerste]

"Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. Philistine adjunct professor here. We're not laying pipe, we're talking about art. And how you can you describe art like American Bandstand - well, I like Picasso, I give him a 42, but I can't dance to it..."

 

 

For all the bad art that has been created over the past century (and, to be sure, there's been a lot of GREAT art as well), it's better than if art was stuck in the 19th century and artists were still conforming to the standards of the Academie des Beaux-Arts. Like anyone would be interested at all in art these days if people were still painting Biblical scenes and edgy might qualify as someone painting a still-life of an iPhone. Art can't be about personal expression? Art has to be judged on an objective scale and conform to pre-20th century accepted standards of skill and beauty? Please, somebody send this Philistine and all his followers back to the 19th century, or, better yet, the Dark Ages.

[Aman619]

What's is Prager University? I'd dare say that the established academies of Education would look down at HIS credentials and bond fides as condescendingly as he views all art since artists began working beyond lanspdscapes and portraits!

 

Seems he feels free to speak outside of the establishment on what he feels and thinks but lowly modern artists shouldn't be allowed to.

 

But, I was impressed by the graphics in the piece.

 

And, he is complaining about the modern art business, he bemoans living in a time where the ideals he cherishes ( and seeks to foist on the rest of society that has moved on from them, for good AND bad) have been supplanted due to the enormous changes in civilization in these past 150 years. We are very much a bottom up society now as opposed to a top down one where the elites dictated what we saw, read, liked, and bought.

 

Get used to it, buddy. Keep teaching the classics, produced in times in which pieces were created at the behest of and paid for by the monied elites -- churches, rich patrons -- that only wanted the classic themes and subjects we revere today as beautiful. It's amazing stuff. But there's a lot more than can move us , and shock us, or even disgust us. He should feel comfortable that in 100 years, his stuff will still be admired, but very little of the christs oieces will be as highly coveted as they are now.

 

And, did his graduate students really think that was a Pollack?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

"Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. Philistine adjunct professor here. We're not laying pipe, we're talking about art. And how you can you describe art like American Bandstand - well, I like Picasso, I give him a 42, but I can't dance to it..."

 

 

For all the bad art that has been created over the past century (and, to be sure, there's been a lot of GREAT art as well), it's better than if art was stuck in the 19th century and artists were still conforming to the standards of the Academie des Beaux-Arts. Like anyone would be interested at all in art these days if people were still painting Biblical scenes and edgy might qualify as someone painting a still-life of an iPhone.

 

You do not know, and thus, cannot say. It is pure conjecture, of a type that is impossible to answer. Watch the video again, and see what he has to say about the first generation of the rebels.

 

You confuse "standards" with "subjects" and "themes." "Biblical scenes" isn't a standard...it's a THEME. "Still-life of an iPhone" isn't a standard...it's a SUBJECT.

 

Standards have nothing whatsoever to do with subjects and themes. Standards have to do with (and I really don't understand why this has to be explained in the first place) the quality and execution of a work, utterly regardless and entirely independent of "subjects" and "themes."

 

Come on. You can argue better than this.

 

The point is that there was a line, and that line was crossed long ago. Standards (not subjects and themes) were abandoned, and anything and everything became "art" because "I SAID SO."

 

That renders "art" meaningless, because there is no way to define it. This cup sitting on my desk, with the random remains of my vanilla almondmilk drink? Art. This bit of dog leavings on the lawn? Art! A hair sticking out of my nose randomly? Art!

 

And who are you, or anyone else, to say differently?

 

As Syndrome said in the Incredibles: "If EVERYONE is Super, NO ONE will be."

 

In other words...if EVERYTHING is "art", then NOTHING is.

 

Art can't be about personal expression?

 

Sure it can be. But the point is that personal expression doesn't make it art. Objective standards do.

 

Art has to be judged on an objective scale and conform to pre-20th century accepted standards of skill and beauty?

 

You miss the point, and attempt to make standards...which are timeless..."old, outdated, antiquated."

 

Standards have absolutely nothing whatsoever....let me state that emphatically again...standards have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with time periods. Standards are standards, and they are not subject to "pre-20th century" or any other period of time restrictions.

 

Did you pay attention to the figure skating example...?

 

Thankfully, music, which is really just the mathematics of sound, doesn't fall prey to the abandonment of standards, because math itself isn't prey to it.

 

Tell me...do we abandon Euclidean geometry because Einstein predicted, and it was later proven, that we don't live in a *precisely* Euclidean universe? No, because Euclidean geometry works for nearly all everyday applications.

 

But, Euclid's geometry is 2,000+ years old! Its standards should be ripe for abandoning...right? Yet, it's still taught to this very day, and is the foundation of much of the world's understanding of geometry in every day life.

 

Do we throw out Newton's three laws, which are over 300 years old, after all, because of general relativity? No, because Newton's laws "hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions" and thus are perfectly valid in classical mechanics.

 

Back to music, which is just the mathematics of sound. Because math holds to standards, even really, really, really OLD standards, the "rule breaking" that has gone on with other forms of "art" hasn't worked in music. And that's a very, very good thing.

 

For all of John Cage's 4'33"...which, no doubt, is a fascinating study of the understanding of what is "music" and what is just "sound"...no one is going out to buy copies of it at the store (mainly because you can just listen to it on your own, literally anywhere, but that's a different topic.)

 

All of the "sound experiments" of the late 20th and early 21st century, while interesting, have not produced any "radical, new" expressions of the art of music. Why?

 

Because music is the mathematics of sound, and math must adhere to standards...even very, very "old" standards...or it fails to appeal to anyone.

 

If EVERY sound is music...no sound is.

 

Please, somebody send this Philistine and all his followers back to the 19th century, or, better yet, the Dark Ages.

 

You are precisely the person described near the end of this video. "It's art because I SAY SO!" Kudos!

 

[Aman619]

"Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. Philistine adjunct professor here. We're not laying pipe, we're talking about art. And how you can you describe art like American Bandstand - well, I like Picasso, I give him a 42, but I can't dance to it..."

 

 

For all the bad art that has been created over the past century (and, to be sure, there's been a lot of GREAT art as well), it's better than if art was stuck in the 19th century and artists were still conforming to the standards of the Academie des Beaux-Arts. Like anyone would be interested at all in art these days if people were still painting Biblical scenes and edgy might qualify as someone painting a still-life of an iPhone. Art can't be about personal expression? Art has to be judged on an objective scale and conform to pre-20th century accepted standards of skill and beauty? Please, somebody send this Philistine and all his followers back to the 19th century, or, better yet, the Dark Ages.

 

Perfect summation.

[RockMyAmadeus]

What's is Prager University? I'd dare say that the established academies of Education would look down at HIS credentials and bond fides as condescendingly as he views all art since artists began working beyond lanspdscapes and portraits!

 

He didn't do anything of the sort. Florczak doesn't look down on "all art since artists began working beyond lanspdscapes (sic) and portraits."

 

That is a dishonest evaluation of what he said, and an invention of things that he did NOT say. That is your own interpretation of what he said, which is wholly unmerited by the things he actually said.

 

And thus lies the problem. People see and hear only what they want to see and hear, without objectively considering what is actually said. Reason and logic are thrown out the window in favor of bias and invention.

 

The point couldn't have been more eloquently expressed by you, albeit unintentionally.

 

Seems he feels free to speak outside of the establishment on what he feels and thinks but lowly modern artists shouldn't be allowed to.

 

He said nothing of the sort. You invented that, and are claiming he said it.

 

But, I was impressed by the graphics in the piece.

 

And, he is complaining about the modern art business, he bemoans living in a time where the ideals he cherishes ( and seeks to foist on the rest of society that has moved on from them, for good AND bad) have been supplanted due to the enormous changes in civilization in these past 150 years. We are very much a bottom up society now as opposed to a top down one where the elites dictated what we saw, read, liked, and bought.

 

Rubbish. That hasn't been true since the Middle Ages, if at all. With the invention of the printing press, the widespread dissemination of ideas, concepts, philosophies, and, yes, art, has dominated civilization. Who was Martin Luther? An "elite"? Please. He was a priest and a lawyer, from relatively lower middle-class stock, who challenged the "elites" and broke the power of the Catholic Church...those "elites"...forever.

 

Who was George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? Washington was the scion of landowners, true, but they were hardly the "elites", determining what "the masses" saw, read, liked, and bought. Jefferson was also decidedly middle class. Yet these men, and many more like them, stood up to the ACTUAL "elites", the government of George III, the most powerful empire on the face of the planet at that point, and defeated them. Not only that, they afterwards produced much work, disseminated widely to the masses, that spoke of the dangers of the "elites", and warning them against such things as "class" and "nobility."

 

No, this idea that the masses were controlled by "the elites", especially after the Renaissance, is fiction. If that were true, there would still be a king in France, we wouldn't be able to read this, this wouldn't exist at all, and it would still be 1352.

 

Get used to it, buddy. Keep teaching the classics, produced in times in which pieces were created at the behest of and paid for by the monied elites -- churches, rich patrons -- that only wanted the classic themes and subjects we revere today as beautiful. It's amazing stuff. But there's a lot more than can move us , and shock us, or even disgust us. He should feel comfortable that in 100 years, his stuff will still be admired, but very little of the christs oieces will be as highly coveted as they are now.

 

And, did his graduate students really think that was a Pollack?

 

I'm sure they did. After all...."what is art?"

[RockMyAmadeus]

"Excrement. That's what I think of Mr. Philistine adjunct professor here. We're not laying pipe, we're talking about art. And how you can you describe art like American Bandstand - well, I like Picasso, I give him a 42, but I can't dance to it..."

 

 

For all the bad art that has been created over the past century (and, to be sure, there's been a lot of GREAT art as well), it's better than if art was stuck in the 19th century and artists were still conforming to the standards of the Academie des Beaux-Arts. Like anyone would be interested at all in art these days if people were still painting Biblical scenes and edgy might qualify as someone painting a still-life of an iPhone. Art can't be about personal expression? Art has to be judged on an objective scale and conform to pre-20th century accepted standards of skill and beauty? Please, somebody send this Philistine and all his followers back to the 19th century, or, better yet, the Dark Ages.

 

Perfect summation.

 

Sure, if you're a relativist who believes there is nothing by which anything can be judged.

 

That's a dangerous world.

[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.

[dupont2005]

Roy Lichtenstein made a career copying comic book panels and selling them as pop art for millions.

Pretty sure that was just one of his many series.

 

Also, nothing is stopping any comic book artist from entering the fine art world.

[dupont2005]

Ask that guy what he thinks of comics

[comix4fun]

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.

 

 

 

I tend to agree.

 

Everyone is a judge of everything, ESPECIALLY with artwork.

 

It's almost entirely in the eye of the beholder.

 

Most of the bristling I see and feel when it comes to more modern artwork are dealers, critics, gallery owners, collectors and representatives "pushing" certain artists in a way that can only be considered self-serving marketing.

 

There's marketing ahead of the curve, to create a market for an artist or style within which they may have a vested interest. Closest to snake oil salesmen. "Step right up and getchur next big thing....lawnmowers mounted in Lucite...it's genius"

 

There's marketing behind the curve, which I seem to see mostly from folks in critical circles and those collectors and owners who paid heed to the group detailed above and bought in and now have a garage full of lawnmowers mounted in Lucite. They keep talking up the work, to either gain acceptance for the work (validating their purchase) or their own acceptance in that portion of the art world (validating their opinion).

 

It's inevitable that there would be the less than genuine and less than forthright groups invading the art world. It happens in all aspects of business and commerce where the sharks (not the stuffed kind) smell the blood of a possible score.

 

Any piece that truly moves the person viewing it has worth. It just there are certain folks in the field that are unabashed in their hucksterism. Some are so good that the pieces gain acceptance to the point that others are afraid to call them out for what they are.

 

I can see how daunting it must be for someone entering the art world to criticize an artist who's market have been cultivated and nurtured and grown to a multimillion dollar business. Too many people have too much skin in the game once auction prices have jumped to ever allow doubt to seep in....too many folks have collected too many lawnmowers in Lucite....they are the standard not to be questioned.

 

I'd never question anyone's right to love what they love. Never let anyone tell you what you should love or not love, whether it's a guy on a message board or an auction catalog, gallery owner, or critic.

[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...?

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'd never question anyone's right to love what they love. Never let anyone tell you what you should love or not love whether it's a guy on a message board or an auction catalog, gallery owner, or critic.

 

And the serious answer...

 

Everyone is free to love what they want to love...however....

 

I'll question WHY someone loves what they love all day long, and encourage them to do the same.

 

Do they love the artwork because of the artwork?

 

Do they love it because someone else loves it?

 

Do they love it because it's worth a lot of money?

 

Do they love it because someone else convinced them to love it?

 

Do they love it because they love the prestige that comes with owning it?

 

If the answer is an honest "because I like it", that is unassailable. As I have said maybe thousands of times on this board, personal preference has no valid opposition. If you like it, that's the only thing that matters...to you.

 

But that doesn't make it art, or the definition of art has no meaning. "Someone likes it, therefore, it's art" renders the word "art" meaningless as a concept. I like the look of my peanut butter sandwich. Does that make it art? No.

 

But if the honest answer is something along the lines of "well, I like it because it's by this famous artist, and it's worth a lot of money, and I paid a lot for it, etc...." then that really isn't liking it for its own sake, is it?

 

All this talk about "allowing" people to like what they like, but very little talk about asking why they like it, which is just as important a question to ask.