• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Roy Lichtenstein Comic List
9 9

Started by ThatNerdyCanuck,

106 posts in this topic

kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 11/24/2021 at 11:58 PM, Terry JSA said:

Do you think he says that about the feet he’s drawn? 

Oh he's said it.  One time he was crowing at his detractors saying when he draws feet they dont know what to do!
Oh they know what to do all right.  They say wtf are those stubs supposed to be????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
szav

szav

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2021 at 8:11 AM, Carl Elvis said:

Neil Gaiman to the rescue…

https://twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1459541191310069763?s=21

2581067F-CD57-4632-A914-83688E3F428F.thumb.jpeg.ff2c4c67dca719c1dfac9467cb20727e.jpeg
 

121F8439-B4D0-4D76-9DE8-940F4951C585.thumb.jpeg.b8634dd54056b58efea96c51d2c38a6c.jpeg

9E950A93-2C53-469C-ABED-1EC05EB2DB8B.thumb.jpeg.b1edd0d4c27ab3dd514018ff69f74e49.jpeg

Nice.  I wonder if they did this not out of a sense of giving justice to the comic book artists, but more to attach some more flavor or relatable information for modern audiences to Lichtenstein’s works, given the recent rise in popularity and value of comic book original art, and the prominence and popularity of comic book related movies in popular culture.

Either way glad to see this credit given and awareness raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Juno Beach

Juno Beach

Posted
Posted (edited)

I was following Gaiman's crusade with great interest. The comments in Gaiman's feed were eye opening as to how many art majors had no idea of the swipes, as professors omitted that info while teaching about Pop Art. I think anywhere Lichtenstein's paintings are displayed the original art should be displayed too.

A lot of the original art was just flat out drawn better, just look as the Romita compared to Lichtenstein. 

Edited by Juno Beach
add
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted

one comment and Ill stop repeating myself.  ART is not measured by how "well drawn" it is.  His aim was NOT to paint the comic panels "better", just draw attention to them by size and style and seeing them in a gallery as ART not throwaway (BETTER DRAWN or not) objects of mass culture and consumerism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Randall Dowling

Randall Dowling

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2021 at 12:38 PM, Aman619 said:

one comment and Ill stop repeating myself.  ART is not measured by how "well drawn" it is.  His aim was NOT to paint the comic panels "better",

While I agree with this...

On 12/4/2021 at 12:38 PM, Aman619 said:

 just draw attention to them by size and style and seeing them in a gallery as ART

IMO, this is not even close to what makes great art.  By blowing up a comic panel and accentuating Ben-Day dots, there isn't some kind of revelation about how we perceive things or an exploration into the nuances and beauty of human expression or any other strong basis for artistic exploration.  I'm pretty sure that Roy knew that when he did so (he's hinted as much in early interviews).  I think he was looking for something that he could claim was original and started producing his comic canvases out of desperation.  And as most Pop Art and avant-gardism is filled with pretense, people just acted like they saw something more than there was.  And they've been doing to ever since.

To me, it's one of the best examples of the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomena that has pervaded the art world ever since.  2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted (edited)

we comic collectors are few... He was speaking to the elite art buying/loving crowd.  To them comics were quaint child things, but now, so zuchmore in their eyes.  Back then we comes people were a joke.  Stan Lee used to say he was embarrassed to tell people at parties on Long Island (who had big jobs in the NYC) what he did for a living.

This was the time Lichtenstein was creating these canvases.

 

as for "pretense", sure he wanted a hook to make it big. (He wasn't an Alan Moore type for whom creating WAS the reward) 

Edited by Aman619
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chrisco37

chrisco37

Posted
Posted

Nobody would even know Tony Abruzzo’s name if it wasn’t for RL.  Including those posting in this thread.  :baiting:

I’ve been here for 20 years and seen countless threads of “best artists” “worst artists”, etc.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen his name on any of those lists or any list period.  Nary a mention.  
 

But an RL discussion comes up and he’s the “king of romance comic art”  and a “creative genius” whose brilliance was overshadowed by the thief, RL.

Gimme a break.  Hopefully you all can read this from way up there on your horses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
szav

szav

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2021 at 12:59 PM, chrisco37 said:

Nobody would even know Tony Abruzzo’s name if it wasn’t for RL.  Including those posting in this thread.  :baiting:

And no one might know Roy Lichtenstein's name if he hadn't found the right eye-catching source material to pull from, created by the likes of Tony Abruzzo and others?  Honestly, this argument isn't about saying who's better to me, it's about giving proper credit.  But giving proper credit at the time would probably have dampened Lichtenstein's star, and this is why he's held in contempt by some.  Saying he was a d-bag isn't a comment on the quality of his art.

On 12/4/2021 at 12:59 PM, chrisco37 said:

I’ve been here for 20 years and seen countless threads of “best artists” “worst artists”, etc.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen his name on any of those lists or any list period.  Nary a mention.

Maybe because 99.99% of the discussion here focus on super-hero comics?  Abruzzo was one of the best romance artists of his era.  I haven't heard anyone call him the king of romance comics.  Definitely a top 10 player in my book though.  Love his style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2021 at 10:38 AM, Aman619 said:

one comment and Ill stop repeating myself.  ART is not measured by how "well drawn" it is.  His aim was NOT to paint the comic panels "better", just draw attention to them by size and style and seeing them in a gallery as ART not throwaway (BETTER DRAWN or not) objects of mass culture and consumerism. 

"Art" is measured by whatever the big heads in new york decide is art.  This can be a completely white canvas, a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine, or a loogie on a piece of binder paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted

back in da vinci's time there was no such word as art.  there were painters, sculptors, carpenters.  once the word art was invented it all went to **** then we had art schools as accurately depicted in the film Art School Confidential for example where **** was lauded and actual drawing vilified and mocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2021 at 3:44 PM, kav said:

"Art" is measured by whatever the big heads in new york decide is art.  This can be a completely white canvas, a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine, or a loogie on a piece of binder paper.

All bold artistic choices!  Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2021 at 4:27 PM, kav said:

back in da vinci's time there was no such word as art.  there were painters, sculptors, carpenters.  once the word art was invented it all went to **** then we had art schools as accurately depicted in the film Art School Confidential for example where **** was lauded and actual drawing vilified and mocked.

Well, the growth of civilization has caused a lot of changes.  No longer do we all toil all day for bread. Artists painted to eat, same as laborers labored to eat. The vanity or piety of the rich caused all art to be commissioned back then. In 700 years, A leisure class developed beyond the monarch’s who were the art patrons back then.  People who had the riches to buy art.. but art painted or sculpted by poor artists promoted by art dealers in hopes of becoming as rich as the moneyed classes. You can’t compare then to now so easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kav

kav

Posted
Posted
On 12/4/2021 at 3:01 PM, Aman619 said:

Well, the growth of civilization has caused a lot of changes.  No longer do we all toil all day for bread. Artists painted to eat, same as laborers labored to eat. The vanity or piety of the rich caused all art to be commissioned back then. In 700 years, A leisure class developed beyond the monarch’s who were the art patrons back then.  People who had the riches to buy art.. but art painted or sculpted by poor artists promoted by art dealers in hopes of becoming as rich as the moneyed classes. You can’t compare then to now so easily. 

however the term 'art' meant whoever was in charge of what is or is not art could make a ton of money.  In da vinci's time, if you couldnt portray  stuff, only spit loogies, you made no cash.  Now its different.
See "Emperor's New Clothes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
9 9
Go to topic listing