Roy Lichtenstein's - The Ring Engagement

[Overthetopinc]

I think the woman of ages series of paintings the Biz did over the last few years were something pretty neat and special. Also you cant dismiss his Bible illustrations.

[comix4fun]

You guys crack me up. After this I suppose the thread can turn to whether a completely mediocre piece of comic art should be worth 100X its otherwise perceived value because it features the first appearance of spandex-man or his arch enemy the really truly bad guy.

 

Or do we next hear (once again) that the artist who drew that panel in a completely forgettable love comic was the real genius here and Lichtenstein owes his entire career to him and should be strung up by his testicles for the impertinence of lifting these panels from obscurity by appropriating them in his art?

 

Pardon my eye roll.....

 

 

I was going to jump to how mediocre and boring the piece in question is.....and follow that up with a hypothesis on what type of mushrooms one would have to ingest to divine something interesting in it.

 

Too far down the conversational line ?

[vodou]

I think the woman of ages series of paintings the Biz did over the last few years were something pretty neat and special. Also you cant dismiss his Bible illustrations.

Fair point on the Bible stuff. I'm aware of them peripherally but haven't dug in. I will. Woman of ages I'm not aware of, can you point me to some examples that you feel are a new level of Biz? And what is it about either series that you feel sets them apart from his previous body of work, just the subject matter or are we talking artistic technique, something like that? I'm looking for more meat than just "they're soooo cool". thanks.

[vodou]

I was going to jump to how mediocre and boring the piece in question is...

Yes it's a rather static piece. I'm only interested in the context, in the sense that it may actually be reflective of an emotionally important time and place in the artist's real life, being expressed in art. That may not even be true. I haven't fact-checked that article, and maybe Roy was just playing the game and that was the comic he happened to pull out that day..??

 

However just as none of us would want our life's work (which for many artists is their life, not just their work) dismissed with the sweep of a hand, I find it easy to do that but usually a mistake. Artists are people too, with all the complexities and nuances of anybody that puts fifty, seventy or more years of life into life. There's good days and bad, and all the rest, but generalizations miss a lot of what's going on. My experience is there is often much more meat on the bone than a quick glance only provides, especially with artists that do contextualize their life experience into their work. (Again, is this Roy, I really don't know.) At least for me, it's fun and revelatory to dig that stuff out. Still may not like the piece or want to buy it (price aside, high or low) or even travel to see it in person, but an interesting mental trip finding out.

[delekkerste]

For that matter, Lichtenstein played with many different things for years until the comic style thing 'took' and then he mostly worked that angle to death (literally). Equally lacking further innovation imo.

 

To be fair, I have not spent decades delving into the art of either, so I'm open to being shown I'm wrong if there's a mature conversation that can emerge. Show me examples, help me understand, always interested in learning and for sure -never know it all!

 

Actually, Lichtenstein only produced comic-based paintings for about 5 years. He kept using his signature take on Ben-Day dots, thick black outlines and primary color palette, but applied them to different subjects (e.g., still lifes, nudes, Asian landscapes, older paintings, etc.), as well as experimenting with sculpture and "op art". His retrospective a couple of years ago showcased a wide range of his works; he was most definitely not a one-trick pony.

 

That said, $50 million for this painting seems more than a tad absurd.

[vodou]

Actually, Lichtenstein only produced comic-based paintings for about 5 years. He kept using his signature take on Ben-Day dots, thick black outlines and primary color palette, but applied them to different subjects (e.g., still lifes, nudes, Asian landscapes, older paintings, etc.), as well as experimenting with sculpture and "op art". His retrospective a couple of years ago showcased a wide range of his works; he was most definitely not a one-trick pony.

That's exactly what I meant. It was Ben-Day to the end. One-trick pony. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

[comix4fun]

Actually, Lichtenstein only produced comic-based paintings for about 5 years. He kept using his signature take on Ben-Day dots, thick black outlines and primary color palette, but applied them to different subjects (e.g., still lifes, nudes, Asian landscapes, older paintings, etc.), as well as experimenting with sculpture and "op art". His retrospective a couple of years ago showcased a wide range of his works; he was most definitely not a one-trick pony.

That's exactly what I meant. It was Ben-Day to the end. One-trick pony. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

 

I mean, hey, he spent all that cash on the screen...might as well get his money's worth out of it and lay it over everything.

[delekkerste]

That's exactly what I meant. It was Ben-Day to the end. One-trick pony. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

I guess, by that logic, Monet was a one-trick pony too - painting one blurry image after another until the end!

[suspense39]

ha ha!

[comix4fun]

That's exactly what I meant. It was Ben-Day to the end. One-trick pony. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

I guess, by that logic, Monet was a one-trick pony too - painting one blurry image after another until the end!

 

 

Yeah!!

 

And pretentious too.

 

We pronounce our "T's" in this country pal!!

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's exactly what I meant. It was Ben-Day to the end. One-trick pony. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

I guess, by that logic, Monet was a one-trick pony too - painting one blurry image after another until the end!

 

 

Yeah!!

 

And pretentious too.

 

We pronounce our "T's" in this country pal!!

 

He was really just ahead of the curve by a century or so.

 

He knew that it really was all about the Monet. He was making it rain Napoleon IIIs up in there.

 

Claude - the world's first hip-hop artist.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I bet $$$$ that if you saw a painting that looked like this Lichtenstein on ebay you would even click for the details. That is the difference between REAL passion and being a follower.

Don't even know wtf that means? But you're right I wouldn't click through, have no interest in owning a Lichtenstein (well maybe a pencil piece, but not a final). I hope it's okay with you that people can discuss art without wanting (er needing?) to own it. Well even if it's not okay, I think we'll all still keep doing it anyway.

 

How do you know what my passions are or that I'm a follower? Have we even met. No. Heh heh.

 

Do I now start talking about your mother? No. I haven't met her either. See how silly that is?

 

The way you write, you beg for these responses. Every time.

 

I just don't know how you got your omnipotence. But please share, I'd love to know it all too

 

[Overthetopinc]

What that comment meant was Biz style is so unique that if I saw someone paint something that was identical to a Biz style painting of the 90's I would buy it for $100. I also said that I am sure most people who jump on the band wagon when they see something go for 50 million like this painting is suppose to do makes me wonder if you saw the same thing on ebay for $100 if you would even bother to pick it up to display in your home. Is that clear enough or do you need to scratch your chin some more. Also for vodou I could go on like the slick talkers who have sold you on Lichtenstein about the Biz but why bother. He is an artists artist and either you know what I am talking about or you don't care enough to do research before jumping to unsubstantiated insults so why should I bother explaining it to you. I guess all there is to say about his paintings are They are just soooo cool!!!

[Overthetopinc]

Oh and as far as my Omnipotence goes I cant take credit for everything but I will say since you asked I would start by getting The Essential Kabbalah by Daniel Matt. =) That would be a good step in the right direction...Hey you asked!

[vodou]

Also for vodou I could go on like the slick talkers who have sold you on Lichtenstein about the Biz but why bother. He is an artists artist and either you know what I am talking about or you don't care enough to do research before jumping to unsubstantiated insults so why should I bother explaining it to you. I guess all there is to say about his paintings are They are just soooo cool!!!

I've done the research. Sht all looks the same. 1995. 2005. 2015. Sorry. I asked you to show me some different angle (since I don't know it all ha ha) than I've seen in twenty-five years of collecting art (and always passing on Biz, always), but...however I'm glad you're back off the meds...lot more fun this way

[Overthetopinc]

Nope you are not going to get your little keyboard warrior rocks off on me. Lichtenstein is king! Whatever vodoo buys is the best everything else is junk. You win!

[drdroom]

The Ted Galindo source image provided by David Barsalou appears to be, perhaps, a crop of a larger image. Does anyone happen to have the full source panel?

[Unca Ben]

That's exactly what I meant. It was Ben-Day to the end. One-trick pony. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

I guess, by that logic, Monet was a one-trick pony too - painting one blurry image after another until the end!

 

A collector should put their Monet where their mouth is, and pony up the cash for that Lichtenstein.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...runs and hides....

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's exactly what I meant. It was Ben-Day to the end. One-trick pony. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

I guess, by that logic, Monet was a one-trick pony too - painting one blurry image after another until the end!

 

A collector should put their Monet where their mouth is, and pony up the cash for that Lichtenstein.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...runs and hides....

 

 

Pffft. My terrible Monet joke was better.

 

[Rip]

The Ted Galindo source image provided by David Barsalou appears to be, perhaps, a crop of a larger image. Does anyone happen to have the full source panel?

 

Good question, I don't think I've seen the full piece either. I'm sure many other art history fans would like to see the original.

 

And when Lichtenstein sold it, he got roughly 1K for it.