• 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

106 posts in this topic

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 by Aman619
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Randall Dowling
there, their, they're...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!"
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Aman619
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by FatComicMafia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 1:32 PM, ThatNerdyCanuck said:

I've been attempting to compile a list of all the comic issues Roy Lichtenstein used for inspiration (ripped-off) for his art work, as I can't seem to find a master list anywhere! I know I am missing a whole bunch, but here is a small list of the ones I know of off the top of my head. Please feel free to add whichever ones I missed out on!

Falling In Love #41 - Thinking of Him

Girls' Romance #78 - In the Car

Girls' Romances #81 - We Rose up Slowly

Girls' Romances #97 - Anxious Girl, Kiss 5, Good Morning Darling

Girls' Romance #105 - Sleeping Girl

Girls Romances #110 - M-Maybe

Heart Throbs #79 - Sound of Music

Heart Throbs #82 - Nurse

Heart Throbs #84 - Kiss with Clouds

Secret Hearts #83 - Drowning Girl

Secret Hearts 88 - Oh All Right, Crying Girl

Young Love v5#6 [31] - The Ring Engagement

Young Love v6#1 [32] - Kiss 3, Diptych, Forget it Forget Me

Young Romance [116] v15#2 - Masterpiece, I Know...Brad

Men of War #89 - Whaam!

Men of War #90 - As I Opened Fire

Our Fighting Forces #68 - Sand Fleas!

Our Fighting Forces #69 - Arrrrrff!

Our Fighting Forces #71 - Torpedo...Los!

G.I Combat #94 - Okay Hot-Shot, Okay

Strange Suspense Stories #72 - Brushstrokes

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 



I'd like to add Adventure Is My Career which is the source of Mr. Bellamy ,swiped by Lichtenstein in 1961, to the list of Roy Lichtenstein source books in this thread.

On an additional note, there is some pretty interesting history on how R.L's "Mr. Bellamy", ties into this source book.

During research of this book, I picked up that Lichtenstien's  "Mr. Bellamy" in the speech bubble of this work, altered from "Charles Faber" in the original source from this book (see images below) is a tip of the hat to an associate of Lichtenstien's.

Richard "MR." Bellamy, an art talent & art dealer scout whom had a signifigant impact on Lichtenstien's early career path, and from what I picked up in research, Bellamy was key in getting Lichtenstien his first showings.

One can venture a good guess that the title of this comic likely struck Lichtenstien as fitting and ironic.

I don't believe most Lichtenstien swipe collectors are aware of this book.





 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN -  BEFORE AND AFTER

 

MR. BELLAMY   DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN © 2000 DAVID BARSALOU

 

 

Edited by FanBoyOfMarve'nDC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I should note that I didn't discover this Lichtenstein swipe myself, I only found the two postings from art historian David Barsalou. Though, that's not hard to see as the two links in my post right above say as much if clicked on.

Barsalou created the Deconstructing Lichtenstein site in the 1990's and is considered to be the foremost expert on Lichtenstien swipes; he's studied Lichtenstien since the mid 1970's.
 

This is one of the rare occasions that Barsalou publically answered an email from a reader,  that inquired as to Lichtenstein's source for Mr. Bellamy.....

.....in fact, I am unaware of him answering,  or stating anywhere, the sources of any of Lichtenstien's swipes other than this book, along with Girls Romances 105 and Secret Hearts #83.


I have spent collectively 100's of hours over the past 3 years researching Lichtenstein source material books, and tracking copies down for purchase, nowhere near Barsalou but I've made this into a pet project of mine.
 

That said, here's one of the two references I found for this work being a nod to an art scout & art dealer associate of Lichtenstein's, named Richard Bellamy.

I didn't save the other reference, or at least I didn't tag it correctly in my bookmarks.

But I'll add it here if I'm able to dig it up again. I just re-read it 2 days ago while refreshing my memory on details WRT this source, so a should be able to find it, though this New York Times article covers the same ground.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/arts/design/MR.-bellamy-the-man-hiding-at-the-center-of-everything.html

 

Screenshot_20221024-010928_Samsung Internet.jpg

Edited by FanBoyOfMarve'nDC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't figure out why the last couple rows of the table above keep coming out askew.  Something's wonky, and I've tried fixing it a few times without success.

Well, here goes the list of as-yet-unidentified works.  This includes the works posted at ImageDuplicator that seemed to me to be comics or comic related.  It does not include any of the nudes or works that seemed to me to be unrelated to comics.

Ok, comics sleuths... how many of these can you find?

 

 

Artist Lichtenstein Painting or work Painting Year Painting URL Source of Painting URL Notes
Howard Purcell Art in America Cover [Guy exclaiming "Great Rings of Saturn"] 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/3793_01.jpg    
Tony Abruzzo Blonde Waiting 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0008_01.jpg    
Ted Galindo Conversation 1962 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0521_01.jpg    
John Romita Crying Girl 1963 1963 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/3782_01.jpg    
  Eccentric Scientist [image of hand and ring, sans face] 1965 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0258_01.jpg   Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't found this yet on Barsalou's site.
John Romita Frightened Girl 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0174_01.jpg    
John Prentice Girl at Piano 1963 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0125_01.jpg https://www.imageduplicator.com/images/sources/21929_01.jpg  
Mike Sekowsky Girl In Mirror (study) 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0249_01.jpg   Barsalou found a Sekowsky panel matching "Girl In Mirror (study)". That image was mirrored (really!) and altered for the final "Girl in Mirror".
John Romita Girl with Hair Ribbon 1965 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0278_01.jpg    
Mike Sekowsky Happy Tears 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0217_01.jpg    
Tony Abruzzo I Know How You Must Feel, Brad… (b&w prelim) 1963 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/studies/33165_01.jpg   This is a B&W image with the same title as the color "I Know How You Must Feel, Brad…", but a different image.
Tony Abruzzo I… I'm Sorry 1966 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0351_01.jpg   Barsalou and ImageDuplicator each posted different source images; none looks like a perfect match to me.
  I…I'll Think About It 1965 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/1681_01.jpg    
Mike Sekowsky It is… With Me! 1963 https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/it-is-with-me-pop-art-world.jpg    
Myron Fass Kiss I 1961 1961 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0069_01.jpg    
Ted Galindo Kiss II 1962 1962 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0090_01.jpg    
Mike Sekowsky Kiss II 1963 1963 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/3168_01.jpg   Barsalou and ImageDuplicator each posted different source images (you'll find ImageDuplicator's image under Kiss II from 1963). Barsalou's seems to be the correct one.
  Little Big Painting 1965     ImageDuplicator says that the source is the same source as Brushstrokes. That seems to be a stretch.
Tony Abruzzo Matchbook with Comic Attached 1960 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/5011_01.jpg    
Hy Eisman New York World's Fair Mural (Girl in Window) 1963 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/1331_01.jpg    
Tony Abruzzo No Thank You 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0214_01.jpg    
Tony Abruzzo Oh, Jeff… I Love You, Too… But.. 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0232_01.jpg    
  Pistol 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0229_01.jpg   Barsalou has some similar images, but none seems to be the… ahem… smoking gun.
  Popeye 1961 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0514_01.jpg   I need to review Barsalou's possible source images.
Joe Kubert Reckon Not, Sir [chin] 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/3172_01.jpg   Barsalou presents two possible source images; MR. Ayers for most of the face, but Joe Kubert for the cleft chin. That's why there are two rows here.
MR. Ayers Reckon Not, Sir [face except chin] 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/3172_01.jpg   Barsalou presents two possible source images; MR. Ayers for most of the face, but Joe Kubert for the cleft chin. That's why there are two rows here.
Arthur Peddy Reverie 1965 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/3538_01.jpg    
Mike Sekowsky Seductive Girl 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0218_01.jpg    
Tony Abruzzo Shipboard Girl [girl's face] 1965     The image might come from Girls' Romances 97, but evidence to support that is not posted at ImageDuplicator.
  Sweet Dreams Baby [face] 1965 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/3539_01.jpg    
Tony Abruzzo Tension 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0230_01.jpg    
Jerry Grandenetti Tex! 1962 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0097_01.jpg    
  Untitled(Pair) 1963 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0135_01.jpg    
  Varoom 1965 1965 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/1046_01.jpg    
  Varoom! 1963 1963 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0122_01.jpg https://www.imageduplicator.com/images/sources/20936_01.jpg Numerous possible sources exist; the one with Dr. Fate should not be especially hard to locate.
  Vicki! I Though I Heard Your Voice! [text] 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/images/sources/21922_01.jpg    
Jay Scott Pike Vicki! I Though I Heard Your Voice! [Vicki's face] 1964 https://www.imageduplicator.com/sat/sat_big_image.php?image_name=images/works/0248_01.jpg    

 

Fingers crossed that the last couple rows of this table display correctly...

 

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