kav Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The difference between fine and graphic arts is the graphic artist actually has to be able to draw. Fine artist can pee on a canvas and if it's marketed correctly VOILA he's a GENIUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman619 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 "drawing" is the layman's understanding of "art". it hasn't been the the art worlds definition for over 50 years, maybe even 150 years since photography came along and could effortlessly reproduce in photo realism.. As technology has advanced, the idea of an "artist" as someone "who can draw" is a very specialized and limited view of Art today, maybe felt strongest right here in comic books where the adherence to anatomy is crucial to an comic artists reputation.…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman619 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 When I was in Art School in the 70s, the common declaration was that "painting is dead" and as performance art was the new rage, testing the boundaries of "Art" Sure most of it was crapp and completely forgotten, but the concept of Art being outside of just drawing and painting well underway and established even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman619 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 thats part of the resin we see 100 million dollar formaldehyde sharks and pischrists….. TO PROVOKE A REACTION = ART. but we don't have to deal with that because we don't live in that "art world" but thats how THEY think, and they are playing the game. We collect comic books. We find each others interests equally absurd don't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy-D Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 thats part of the resin we see 100 million dollar formaldehyde sharks and pischrists….. TO PROVOKE A REACTION = ART. but we don't have to deal with that because we don't live in that "art world" but thats how THEY think, and they are playing the game. We collect comic books. We find each others interests equally absurd don't we? Not all of us, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman619 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 not sure you're disagreeing with me or agreeing. Im saying that we buy comic books they turn up their noses to, while they pay millions for the artworks that seem completely ridiculous to us…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy-D Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 not sure you're disagreeing with me or agreeing. Im saying that we buy comic books they turn up their noses to, while they pay millions for the artworks that seem completely ridiculous to us…. I understand. I'm just saying not everyone agrees with only one "side," if there have to be sides. I dig comics as much as anyone and can 100% appreciate Lichtenstein's pop art. It's awesome and well deserving of the praise it receives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman619 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 oh ok. me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Punching someone in the nose or slashing their tires provokes a reaction but I'd hesitate to call it art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan510 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 That anyone would defend his plagiarism...and that's what it is...is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) That anyone would defend his plagiarism...and that's what it is...is sad. Its even sadder to try and explain the fine art world within the context of 1963 to those that never want to understand. Very few on the forum have any understanding of Pop Art, Marcel Duchamp, or even set foot in a museum and seen one of these pieces in person. You don't have to LIKE it, but it would help if people here understood it. Edited November 10, 2014 by Rip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan510 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 That anyone would defend his plagiarism...and that's what it is...is sad. Its even sadder to try and explain the fine art world within the context of 1963 to those that never want to understand. Very few on the forum have any understanding of Pop Art, Marcel Duchamp, or even set foot in a museum and seen one of these pieces in person. You don't have to LIKE it, but it would help if people here understood it. I understand theft and if you like I can quote some comic book artists who also call Lichtenstein's work theft. I guess they don't understand the fine art world either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 There are few artists that I dislike so much that I actually feel the need to speak out towards them. Lichtenstein is one of them. Lichtenstein is a hack and his notoriety comes from the fact that people did not understand that he was repurposing someone elses' work almost exactly and then claiming it as his own with no attribution. This is one of the most unethical things an artist can do. Yes, it looks *slightly* different. He applied the same graphic arts techniques to his work as someone would apply to creating a billboard or other large-format piece of commercial art to be viewed at a distance. He simplified things as any other graphic artist would do - and that, in itself, is not enough to say: "Hey look! Its different!" Color palette, line stroke - these are not revolutionary things, they are techniques specific to the application, that most artists understand. Applying a different technique to the same piece of art does not allow you to put it into your portfolio and say "It's mine, I did it!". Thankfully, there are laws NOW that prohibit you from doing that. He didn't take $4M from Russ Heath. He took Russ Heath's art and claimed it as his own. I don't care if he did it for $5 or $5 million dollars - that makes him a Grade A Assclown. People can have any opinion they want on art - that's what art is about. But defending an artist who's whole reputation and public persona is based on the fact he ripped off other creators and profited from it is really a sad thing to read. Regardless of what his inspiration was, what effect it had on people or on pop art itself - no matter how you explain the work he created - the bottom line is that he ripped off other artists and kept his mouth shut about it while he was ascending to the top of the turd mountain that is Pop Art. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 That anyone would defend his plagiarism...and that's what it is...is sad. Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) That anyone would defend his plagiarism...and that's what it is...is sad. Its even sadder to try and explain the fine art world within the context of 1963 to those that never want to understand. Very few on the forum have any understanding of Pop Art, Marcel Duchamp, or even set foot in a museum and seen one of these pieces in person. You don't have to LIKE it, but it would help if people here understood it. I understand theft and if you like I can quote some comic book artists who also call Lichtenstein's work theft. I guess they don't understand the fine art world either. You are right they don't. Edited November 10, 2014 by Rip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The fine art world is a charade. It;s the emperor has no clothes. Any comic artist could paint an extra large painting of one of their panels. There's nothing special about Lichtenstein. Except that everyone in the fine art world has agreed to agree he's special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy-D Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 There are few artists that I dislike so much that I actually feel the need to speak out towards them. Lichtenstein is one of them. Lichtenstein is a hack and his notoriety comes from the fact that people did not understand that he was repurposing someone elses' work almost exactly and then claiming it as his own with no attribution. This is one of the most unethical things an artist can do. Yes, it looks *slightly* different. He applied the same graphic arts techniques to his work as someone would apply to creating a billboard or other large-format piece of commercial art to be viewed at a distance. He simplified things as any other graphic artist would do - and that, in itself, is not enough to say: "Hey look! Its different!" Color palette, line stroke - these are not revolutionary things, they are techniques specific to the application, that most artists understand. Applying a different technique to the same piece of art does not allow you to put it into your portfolio and say "It's mine, I did it!". Thankfully, there are laws NOW that prohibit you from doing that. He didn't take $4M from Russ Heath. He took Russ Heath's art and claimed it as his own. I don't care if he did it for $5 or $5 million dollars - that makes him a Grade A Assclown. People can have any opinion they want on art - that's what art is about. But defending an artist who's whole reputation and public persona is based on the fact he ripped off other creators and profited from it is really a sad thing to read. Regardless of what his inspiration was, what effect it had on people or on pop art itself - no matter how you explain the work he created - the bottom line is that he ripped off other artists and kept his mouth shut about it while he was ascending to the top of the turd mountain that is Pop Art. You're missing the main point m'man. It's not about the changes he made, although he did make changes, it's not copying. The point of these works of his, and the Pop Art movement in general, was to take commercial "trashy non-art" and make it art. It's hard to accept these days because, partly due to the success of the Pop Art movement, much of what was once "trash" now gets much more respect. It's doubly hard for comic fans because, well, we love comics and see no need to do anything to them to make them arty art. The idea that he kept his "theft" a secret ain't right. The whole point of Pop Art, as you allude to, assumes knowledge of the pre-existence of the content. As for how well he could draw, or whether you could make a coloring book version of a Lichtenstein painting and color by numbers...that's just uninformed foolishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The fine art world is a charade. It;s the emperor has no clothes. Any comic artist could paint an extra large painting of one of their panels. There's nothing special about Lichtenstein. Except that everyone in the fine art world has agreed to agree he's special. Even for a laymen, there must be something more special about him, or we wouldn't be talking about it so strongly over 50 years after the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) There are few artists that I dislike so much that I actually feel the need to speak out towards them. Lichtenstein is one of them. The idea that he kept his "theft" a secret ain't right. The whole point of Pop Art, as you allude to, assumes knowledge of the pre-existence of the content. As for how well he could draw, or whether you could make a coloring book version of a Lichtenstein painting and color by numbers...that's just uninformed foolishness. Agreed its tiresome to see this falsehood continued to be promoted even after pointed out. Edited November 10, 2014 by Rip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy-D Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 The fine art world is a charade. It;s the emperor has no clothes. Any comic artist could paint an extra large painting of one of their panels. There's nothing special about Lichtenstein. Except that everyone in the fine art world has agreed to agree he's special. Even for a laymen, there must be something more special about him, or we wouldn't be talking about it so strongly over 50 years after the point. His paintings sell for big bucks and I get the feeling kav doesn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
