Roy Lichtenstein Comic List 8 8

[greggy]

On 12/5/2021 at 5:45 PM, kav said:

You got me that time!

Not the first and won't be the last.

xoxo

greggy

[Randall Dowling]

On 12/4/2021 at 6:36 PM, Aman619 said:

It’s ALL different now.  Why hang Lichtenstein for it. By the time he was born, it was what it is already, no? 

Respectfully, I think this is false.  If you're lumping Picasso, Pollack, Rothko, and other abstractionists in with Lichtenstein, I think that's misunderstanding what these various movements were about in the 20th century.  Warhol, Lichtenstein, and others brought an extremely jaded attitude toward art that wasn't really there before.  They seemed to embrace the "artist as star" or "art as a means to notoriety" and denounced anyone that argued for the virtues of art as naive.  

From my point of view, they're almost singularly responsible (along with the gallery owners and an illiterate clientele with more money than sense) for the current mess that the art world is in.

Still, it seems foolish to debate the controversies in the fine art market.  To me, this thread promises to be a great resource with all of the source material collected in one place.  Thanks to all that have helped and contributed in that regard.  

[kav]

On 12/5/2021 at 6:07 PM, greggy said:

Not the first and won't be the last.

xoxo

greggy

[kav]

On 12/5/2021 at 6:16 PM, Randall Dowling said:

From my point of view, they're almost singularly responsible (along with the gallery owners and an illiterate clientele with more money than sense) for the current mess that the art world is in.

 

There's credibility to this statement.  All the artists you mention opened the gates to calling things art that never would or should have been called art, like a white canvas or a loogie on a piece of binder paper.  The expertise needed to actully do a lichtenstein or a warhol got lost in the shuffle.

[FatComicMafia]

On 12/5/2021 at 6:23 PM, kav said:

There's credibility to this statement.  All the artists you mention opened the gates to calling things art that never would or should have been called art, like a white canvas or a loogie on a piece of binder paper.  The expertise needed to actully do a lichtenstein or a warhol got lost in the shuffle.

The Dadaist were all doing this roughly 50 years prior to Lichtenstein and the Pop artists. 

Marcel Duchamp was one of the most important artists of the 20th century. Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, and modern day Jeff Koons etc all are heavily influenced by Duchamp. 

Duchamp's concept and ready mades challenged the art world and its rules. A snow shovel, for example could appreciated for its great efficiency, design, and beauty. To re-present it in another context/perception and make it his own. Duchamp was also a gifted painter, but focused on his conceptual art in many forms and expression.

"Fountain"

 

Plus there were many others in this early and important movement that often overlapped with surrealism, though different. 

 

Picabia.

Man Ray.

Edited December 6, 2021 by FatComicMafia

[Aman619]

great retorts...  and also, Picasso was a brilliant "realistic painter" when young, and when he changed as he grew, became the poster child for artists who cant draw. (even though his early Blue period works were revered.  Another saying in art schools was that had he died at 30 he would have been even MORE greatly admired.  I haven't see any examples (mainly because Im not an art historian) but Id wager that Lichtenstein (like Mondrian whose early work I have seen) was actually a pretty impressive draughtsman (realistically speaking) before he embarked on his quest to be a hack and forger of funny book images.  His journey took him from being a pretty talented artist who painted some nice stuff, to an historic artist who will be remembered for centuries.  Well one or two maybe.

[Aman619]

Mondrian early and late:

 

[Aman619]

heres how he got to his late popular style: from drawing and painting tree branches. methodically reducing the clutter to square spaces of color and lines.

[Aman619]

and crazy old Picasso, early and late:

 

[Aman619]

these artists abandoned the realism thats (often) demanded of them by the public that cannot draw.  We've had photography for almost 200 years. Fertile minds have ben seeking others ways of seeing in that time.  As well as hucksters trying to make a buck. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Aman619

[Aman619]

and I could be wrong about Lichtenstein's drawing prowess.  cant find images of early work online that makes my case... But I bet he was darn good in High school. Better than average anyway.  : )

 

[kav]

On 12/5/2021 at 9:46 PM, FatComicMafia said:

The Dadaist were all doing this roughly 50 years prior to Lichtenstein and the Pop artists. 

Dada and Pop art are 2 entirenly different movements.

[kav]

On 12/6/2021 at 12:35 AM, Aman619 said:

and I could be wrong about Lichtenstein's drawing prowess.  cant find images of early work online that makes my case... But I bet he was darn good in High school. Better than average anyway.  : )

 

I believe he was more like a proficient sign painter.  You can see that he copies say Romita but cant get anywhere near as good.  

[Randall Dowling]

On 12/6/2021 at 2:12 AM, Aman619 said:

Picasso was a brilliant "realistic painter" when young,

This is correct.

On 12/6/2021 at 2:12 AM, Aman619 said:

he changed as he grew, became the poster child for artists who cant draw

This is not.  It's an incredibly common mistake that laypeople make and reflects not understanding the many things he was exploring.

On 12/6/2021 at 2:12 AM, Aman619 said:

Another saying in art schools was that had he died at 30 he would have been even MORE greatly admired. 

Nobody ever said anything close to this when I was in school.  Again, reflects a deep lack of understanding what he was after in later work.

On 12/6/2021 at 2:12 AM, Aman619 said:

I haven't see any examples (mainly because Im not an art historian) but Id wager that Lichtenstein (like Mondrian whose early work I have seen) was actually a pretty impressive draughtsman (realistically speaking)

These are dubious statements but I get it, you like his work and think he's great.  To each their own.  FTR, Mondrian's later geometric work isn't some evolution from studying trees.  He saw what Chicago architects were doing with stained glass, copied it onto a canvas and called it fine art.  So, I guess in some ways, he has more in common with Lichtenstein than one might think.

I'm sorry, but if there was ever a forgettable art movement, it was the Dadaists.  But yes, I'm sure they served as a precedent for the pretenders that followed. Everything they produced was some kind of joke, an exercise in self-celebration at how clever the artist thought they were.  But perhaps more importantly, required is some sort of essay to explain it, which is in itself, a pretty big artistic failing.  Pretty far off from my definitions of great art but that's just me.

I am personally not a literalist (even though I can appreciate the work of Chuck Close and I'm also a big fan of photography as an art form).  I'm a modernist and an abstractionist.  But the ability for people to not understand the difference between those things and Pop Art, Avant-gardism, Dadaists, or any of the other clever little joke movements is incredibly pervasive.  The one thing that they all have in common is that the joke being told, is on you the viewer.  And it's amazing how many people have no clue that they're being laughed at.  

Lest you have any doubts about my assertions, witness this quote by Lichtenstein himself in 1972:

"I think my work is different from comic strips – but I wouldn't call it transformation; I don't think that whatever is meant by it is important to art."

These aren't words of principle or conviction.  He was just looking for something that would stick.  And his appropriation of comic panels did.  Reading more into it than that is all just rationalization for liking it.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Randall Dowling
there, their, they're...

[kav]

On 12/6/2021 at 11:26 AM, Randall Dowling said:

"I think my work is different from comic strips – but I wouldn't call it transformation; I don't think that whatever is meant by it is important to art."

Neither did Van Gogh or even Da Vinci.  That's kind of what makes it art.  The artist not thinking it is 'art' but just doing it for the joy or in Da Vinci's case to also make a living.  Spot on abt the Dadaists.

[William-James88]

On 11/24/2021 at 8:59 PM, Ares said:

The Ultimate Irony would be to license the images directly from the publisher and then sell the larger images on a tshirt. The Lichtenstein estate cant do anything

I would LOVE THAT. Although, I think these are all public domain right? So anyone could do T-shirts.

[kav]

To my mind its art if:
There is technical expertise
The person really enjoys doing it
It is on some flat surface.  No welding a bunch of **** together and calling it art.  That would be crafts.  Sculpture is sculpture.
The person would do it whether it makes money or not.
It has some element of originality-no paint by numbers or clown paintings.
Person has been doing it for minimum of 5 years.  No "Gee I wanna be an artist here goes!"
 

[Aman619]

On 12/6/2021 at 2:26 PM, Randall Dowling said:

This is correct.

This is not.  It's an incredibly common mistake that laypeople make and reflects not understanding the many things he was exploring.

Nobody ever said anything close to this when I was in school.  Again, reflects a deep lack of understanding what he was after in later work.

These are dubious statements but I get it, you like his work and think he's great.  To each their own.  FTR, Mondrian's later geometric work isn't some evolution from studying trees.  He saw what Chicago architects were doing with stained glass, copied it onto a canvas and called it fine art.  So, I guess in some ways, he has more in common with Lichtenstein than one might think.

I'm sorry, but if there was ever a forgettable art movement, it was the Dadaists.  But yes, I'm sure they served as a precedent for the pretenders that followed. Everything they produced was some kind of joke, an exercise in self-celebration at how clever the artist thought they were.  But perhaps more importantly, required is some sort of essay to explain it, which is in itself, a pretty big artistic failing.  Pretty far off from my definitions of great art but that's just me.

I am personally not a literalist (even though I can appreciate the work of Chuck Close and I'm also a big fan of photography as an art form).  I'm a modernist and an abstractionist.  But the ability for people to not understand the difference between those things and Pop Art, Avant-gardism, Dadaists, or any of the other clever little joke movements is incredibly pervasive.  The one thing that they all have in common is that the joke being told, is on you the viewer.  And it's amazing how many people have no clue that they're being laughed at.  

Lest you have any doubts about my assertions, witness this quote by Lichtenstein himself in 1972:

"I think my work is different from comic strips – but I wouldn't call it transformation; I don't think that whatever is meant by it is important to art."

These aren't words of principle or conviction.  He was just looking for something that would stick.  And his appropriation of comic panels did.  Reading more into it than that is all just rationalization for liking it.

I wasn’t saying Picasso sought to be or thought of himself that way… but it’s how the public perceived his abstract works toward the end.

‘’and yes, in my art school they said it all the time!  Maybe not yours.  Or maybe you went decades later when it wasn’t said anymore.

I agree Dadaists we’re attention seeking nihilists!  But I think they were mentioned because they weren’t painting anything, so they were sort of a precursor of modern non painted stuff we see today.  Not a direct line, but onto something.

true, people have no clue they are being laughed at.  But these artists are only interacting with “the masses” after first securing the support and funds from the ART establishment  that’s when their work is “news” by way of big $$ sales and the media alerts the public, and they react . ‘My kid could do that, or “that’s not art’ Etc  

interesting that Lichty quote.  I like his works, but he does look like someone who would say that having long ago secured his lofty status  

 

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Aman619

[kav]

On 12/6/2021 at 4:07 PM, Aman619 said:

I agree Dadaists we’re attention seeking nihilists!

Omg youre a dadaist?

[FatComicMafia]

On 12/6/2021 at 9:29 AM, kav said:

Dada and Pop art are 2 entirenly different movements.

Yes, but the Dadaist appropriated first. The Readymade relates to Pop Art, as Warhol would say, (like Duchamp's multiples), I have my assistant do it, my hand is removed, my assistant could do it, a machine could print it, I like being removed from it. And later...Jeff Koons who does not paint, yet sells his signed paintings for six figures. I know of someone who was hired to make some of his paintings while just out of art school for like $25 an hour at the time.

It's a bit like Michael Golden, then Todd McFarlane and all the hacks that mimicked Todd, for that nearly Japanese animated style with enlarged eyes, pug noses, crazy spiral webs, lots of webs, line work, and then contortionists like action pose.

I am sure I'm leaving others out, but you get the gist.

Pop Art is a revision of Dadaism. A comment on society, commercialism, a way of seeing, perception and re-contextualization.  

Plus, Liechtenstein had a bone to pick with former military superior who was comic book artist. And yes, Liechtenstein approprioated some of his images.

A catalyst of some sort?

 

But yes, Duchamp's urinal turned upside down and titled, "Fountain" is not unlike re-interpreting a comicstrip into a painting/high art.

Edited December 7, 2021 by FatComicMafia