Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[delekkerste]

I think he missed the "million things in-between" part of what I wrote

 

Yeah, funny how you like a "million things in-between" and yet I bet that million doesn't include titans of the art world like Warhol, Rothko, Pollock, Lichtenstein, Twombly, de Kooning, etc. To a man, all just hacks and frauds compared to people who drew saccharine pictures like the Pre-Raphaelites. It doesn't get more cliched than the comic book aficionado who loves the Pre-Raphaelites.

 

 

I did all that just by dismissing a thief and a hack?

 

Wow, that's some incisive analysis there.

 

As I wrote in another thread:

 

I think where my opinion differs from yours and Chris' is that I don't believe that all comic art rises up to the level of Kirby, Ditko, Eisner, Miller, etc., a.k.a. the true artistes of the genre. I mean, this is not Erro ripping off Bolland's [cover] image and well-known style of a trademarked and established character, this was taking single non-descript panels from generic, disposable war and romance comics where the artists had already signed all their rights away to D.C. and were often not even credited by D.C. - I'm not sure Lichtenstein could have credited the artists by name even if he wanted to (and he did, in fact, pay tribute to the original creators and the difficulties of working in the comics medium - all available on the audio guide of the retrospective). You know why the artists didn't sue Lichtenstein? It's because they had no rights to the artwork, and D.C. was undoubtedly very happy by the attention that Lichtenstein brought to their publications.

 

I think you have to do what Chris C. said earlier in this thread - go take a look at one of these paintings in person. In fact, while you're at it, bring a copy of the original comic book with you. The connection is interesting from an iconographic standpoint, but, otherwise, is there really that much similarity? One is an anonymous, non-descript, generic, 4-color, tiny piece of a long-forgotten periodical published on newsprint while the other is art. It is the size of art. It presents like art. It is a complete whole. It has been painted and various treatments like his signature dots have been carefully applied. It tells its own story not being just a piece of a larger whole. Not only that, but Lichtenstein never claimed that these images were 100% original, even if many viewers may have initially assumed as much. All of his pre-comic Pop Art were copies too - of objects, advertisements, etc. But, he did make changes to every single piece - the inside of a car becomes the inside of an atelier, various angles and pieces are changed/omitted in "Whaam!" from the original to make a bigger impact as a standalone piece, etc. I think it's ridiculous for Barsalou to place identically-sized images side by side and point a finger when, in person, the two objects look only superficially alike.

 

I suspect that none of this will change your minds, but I think Lichtenstein's work is brilliant, whereas the original source material is not. Aside from the connection to Lichtenstein, none of us here would stoop to collect this OA, so I say let's stop pretending this stuff is something other than what it really is. And, I think it's also fairly evident that Lichtenstein helped elevate comics as an art form. I know some people will resent that it took a non-comic artist to do that, while others will vehemently deny that he had any influence at all (I think Spiegelman said he did about as much for comics as Warhol did for soup cans), but I think the reality is that he's had a net positive impact that I, for one, would rather acknowledge and be grateful for than resentful.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And what the hell does that even MEAN, "pre-digested and easy to understand"...?

 

Is THIS "easy to understand":

 

 

I've stared at that piece with my own two peepers, in person, at some length, and I STILL find new things that I hadn't seen before, and when I say "seen", I mean "experienced", because much of what you "see" isn't what is there, but what IS NOT. It's breathtaking, and I imagine when you see the series together, it's even more breathtaking.

 

But that's schlock, pre-digested, easy to understand.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Yes, but you can debate why they were important and influential, and whether that importance and influence was legitimately deserved, a shell game that the public fell for, or something in between.

I can debate why they are influential to me, that their influence on me was legitimately deserved, and that I believe there was no shell game. And I could gather together others who feel the same to join the debate. Then some ignoramuses who feel differently could join in on the other side with some lame- opposition. We could call it a chat-board. A chat-board where my side wins that debate.

 

Huh. This is a side of Mr. B that I don't think I've seen before.

 

[Logan510]

I think he missed the "million things in-between" part of what I wrote

 

Yeah, funny how you like a "million things in-between" and yet I bet that million doesn't include titans of the art world like Warhol, Rothko, Pollock, Lichtenstein, Twombly, de Kooning, etc. To a man, all just hacks and frauds compared to people who drew saccharine pictures like the Pre-Raphaelites. It doesn't get more cliched than the comic book aficionado who loves the Pre-Raphaelites.

 

 

I did all that just by dismissing a thief and a hack?

 

Wow, that's some incisive analysis there.

 

As I wrote in another thread:

 

I think where my opinion differs from yours and Chris' is that I don't believe that all comic art rises up to the level of Kirby, Ditko, Eisner, Miller, etc., a.k.a. the true artistes of the genre. I mean, this is not Erro ripping off Bolland's [cover] image and well-known style of a trademarked and established character, this was taking single non-descript panels from generic, disposable war and romance comics where the artists had already signed all their rights away to D.C. and were often not even credited by D.C. - I'm not sure Lichtenstein could have credited the artists by name even if he wanted to (and he did, in fact, pay tribute to the original creators and the difficulties of working in the comics medium - all available on the audio guide of the retrospective). You know why the artists didn't sue Lichtenstein? It's because they had no rights to the artwork, and D.C. was undoubtedly very happy by the attention that Lichtenstein brought to their publications.

 

I think you have to do what Chris C. said earlier in this thread - go take a look at one of these paintings in person. In fact, while you're at it, bring a copy of the original comic book with you. The connection is interesting from an iconographic standpoint, but, otherwise, is there really that much similarity? One is an anonymous, non-descript, generic, 4-color, tiny piece of a long-forgotten periodical published on newsprint while the other is art. It is the size of art. It presents like art. It is a complete whole. It has been painted and various treatments like his signature dots have been carefully applied. It tells its own story not being just a piece of a larger whole. Not only that, but Lichtenstein never claimed that these images were 100% original, even if many viewers may have initially assumed as much. All of his pre-comic Pop Art were copies too - of objects, advertisements, etc. But, he did make changes to every single piece - the inside of a car becomes the inside of an atelier, various angles and pieces are changed/omitted in "Whaam!" from the original to make a bigger impact as a standalone piece, etc. I think it's ridiculous for Barsalou to place identically-sized images side by side and point a finger when, in person, the two objects look only superficially alike.

 

I suspect that none of this will change your minds, but I think Lichtenstein's work is brilliant, whereas the original source material is not. Aside from the connection to Lichtenstein, none of us here would stoop to collect this OA, so I say let's stop pretending this stuff is something other than what it really is. And, I think it's also fairly evident that Lichtenstein helped elevate comics as an art form. I know some people will resent that it took a non-comic artist to do that, while others will vehemently deny that he had any influence at all (I think Spiegelman said he did about as much for comics as Warhol did for soup cans), but I think the reality is that he's had a net positive impact that I, for one, would rather acknowledge and be grateful for than resentful.

 

 

So, aside from spending a lot of money on it, what's your art background?

[MrBedrock]

I've stared at that piece with my own two peepers, in person, at some length, and I STILL find new things that I hadn't seen before, and when I mean "seen", I mean "experienced", because much of what you "see" isn't what is there, but what IS NOT.

And the same could be said for a piece of artwork like this...

 

If you don't believe me come to Houston and visit the Rothko Chapel. A beautifully meditative place...

[MrBedrock]

Yes, but you can debate why they were important and influential, and whether that importance and influence was legitimately deserved, a shell game that the public fell for, or something in between.

I can debate why they are influential to me, that their influence on me was legitimately deserved, and that I believe there was no shell game. And I could gather together others who feel the same to join the debate. Then some ignoramuses who feel differently could join in on the other side with some lame- opposition. We could call it a chat-board. A chat-board where my side wins that debate.

 

Huh. This is a side of Mr. B that I don't think I've seen before.

 

That was my mocking artistic bully side. It rarely comes out to play.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think he missed the "million things in-between" part of what I wrote

 

Yeah, funny how you like a "million things in-between" and yet I bet that million doesn't include titans of the art world like Warhol, Rothko, Pollock, Lichtenstein, Twombly, de Kooning, etc. To a man, all just hacks and frauds compared to people who drew saccharine pictures like the Pre-Raphaelites.

 

That's not what he said. That's what you're saying he said, which is a straw man argument, which is poor debate form.

[delekkerste]

Not only is that incredibly snobbish, it's not even a legitimate statement. Logan gave you a single artist, and an art movement, and you've now determined that ALL the art he likes is "pre-digested and easy to understand"?

 

 

Again, I say...

 

 

Nobody does snob like GP.

 

 

He gave me a single artist (a commercial illustrator who was good at what he did, but hardly a titan of Western art & civilization), an art movement (could not get more saccharine or cliched) and has told us in numerous other posts what he doesn't like. It doesn't take an analytical genius to figure out that a "million other things" is utter hyperbole, excludes a huge amount of the art created over the past century (which, statistically, is most of the art that's ever been created), and tilts strongly towards easy-to-understand, figurative paintings.

 

Of course, I'm not telling you anything that I know you haven't figured out yourself.

[Logan510]

As the Art Titan Andy Warhol said..."art is what you can get away with".

[MrBedrock]

 

Is THIS "easy to understand":

 

 

And in answer to your question...no, not easy to understand, and beautiful.

[kav]

It's a chapel of some sort. What's the big mystery?

[namisgr]

 

Is THIS "easy to understand":

 

 

And in answer to your question...no, not easy to understand, and beautiful.

 

It's too foggy. The artist should have waited for enough sunny days to paint it.

[MrBedrock]

It's a chapel of some sort. What's the big mystery?

The big mystery is the significance of your contribution to the discussion. I gave up trying to figure that out long ago.

[kav]

It's a chapel of some sort. What's the big mystery?

The big mystery is the significance of your contribution to the discussion. I gave up trying to figure that out long ago.

One of the few actual artists here is my significance. Someone who actually experienced art school.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Not only is that incredibly snobbish, it's not even a legitimate statement. Logan gave you a single artist, and an art movement, and you've now determined that ALL the art he likes is "pre-digested and easy to understand"?

 

 

Again, I say...

 

 

Nobody does snob like GP.

 

 

He gave me a single artist (a commercial illustrator who was good at what he did, but hardly a titan of Western art & civilization), an art movement (could not get more saccharine or cliched) and has told us in numerous other posts what he doesn't like. It doesn't take an analytical genius to figure out that a "million other things" is utter hyperbole, excludes a huge amount of the art created over the past century (which, statistically, is most of the art that's ever been created), and tilts strongly towards easy-to-understand, figurative paintings.

 

Of course, I'm not telling you anything that I know you haven't figured out yourself.

 

You asked for an example. It was a casual, not-meant-to-be-critically-dissected response. It was, in no way, meant to be an exhaustive and comprehensive catalog of his taste in art.

 

Of course, I'm not telling you anything that I know you haven't figured out yourself...

 

 

[MrBedrock]

It's a chapel of some sort. What's the big mystery?

The big mystery is the significance of your contribution to the discussion. I gave up trying to figure that out long ago.

One of the few actual artists here is my significance. Someone who actually experienced art school.

[Rip]

 

Its a nice piece but demands far less of the viewer as opposed to something like

Richard Hamilton, or even say something more traditional looking like Mark Tansey.

 

(Which is a good gateway drug to get people into the fine art world)

 

 

http://www.juxtapoz.com/current/works-by-mark-tansey

[delekkerste]

And what the hell does that even MEAN, "pre-digested and easy to understand"...?

 

Is THIS "easy to understand":

 

 

I've stared at that piece with my own two peepers, in person, at some length, and I STILL find new things that I hadn't seen before, and when I say "seen", I mean "experienced", because much of what you "see" isn't what is there, but what IS NOT. It's breathtaking, and I imagine when you see the series together, it's even more breathtaking.

 

But that's schlock, pre-digested, easy to understand.

 

 

I didn't say it was schlock. I like the Impressionists. Everybody likes the Impressionists. My Mom likes the Impressionists - it's her favorite art movement, just like it's the favorite art movement of many people who don't know anything about art. It's easy on the eyes and easy to like. Just like Salvador Dali, the Pre-Raphaelites and all the other genres that are beloved by comic collectors and the general populace. I'm not saying there aren't different levels of appreciation. But, there's nothing challenging about them, at least not compared to the art from the past 50-75 years.

[RockMyAmadeus]

By the way....that piece by Monet, and many other masterworks, can be seen for free at the Getty museum in LA. If any of you are visiting, or live in the area, I HIGHLY recommend going up the hill and spending a few hours staring at art.

 

The only cost is $15 for parking.

 

No, I don't work for the Getty (although.... )

 

It's fun to see a billion+ dollars worth of art in a room about the size of a basketball court.

[Aman619]

 

Is THIS "easy to understand":

 

 

And in answer to your question...no, not easy to understand, and beautiful.

 

 

I like this painting too. Whats surprising to me that if one can stare at it for hours on repeated viewings and gain deeper appreciation for all that is going on there when it looks at first like a fuzzy, faded painting of a church, then WHY is a Pollock, which repeated and longer viewings ALSO rewards with greater insight and appreciation of its deceptive complexity of shapes and relationships… WHY is Pollocks work just splatters and this is capable of such deeper thought?

 

I can take a guess: its because it has a recognizable shape and a form at first glance, so its more like a "fun game" in which you get to see so much more going on in the execution that you saw at first. Theres a payoff to digging deeper into it. But Pollock looks like just a kids painting at first, so theres no comparison. No payoff cause my kid could do it etc etc .