WHAAM! BLAM! Roy Lichtenstein and the Art of Appropriation 0

[comicwiz]

Apologies if this was already posted, but this doc is being released on March 11th at the Omaha film festival. I hope it gets wider distribution.

THIS.

This is the doc that should have happened many years ago.When there were more living comic artists who could have been interviewed - better late than never I suppose, but long overdue!

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by comicwiz

[Brian Peck]

On 2/28/2023 at 7:16 AM, comicwiz said:

Apologies if this was already posted, but this doc is being released on March 11th at the Omaha film festival. I hope it gets wider distribution.

THIS.

This is the doc that should have happened many years ago.When there were more living comic artists who could have been interviewed - better late than never I suppose, but long overdue!

 

He is a thief and a hack. He stole from artist and copied their work almost line for line. When it wasn't line for line his drawings were inferior to the original comic book artists. I have always considered him a con man and rip-off artist. With all the AI being "Trained" by using other artist work, I have coined the phrase being "Being Lichtensteined" !!!!!!!

 

[Rick2you2]

On 2/28/2023 at 6:35 PM, Brian Peck said:

He is a thief and a hack. He stole from artist and copied their work almost line for line. When it wasn't line for line his drawings were inferior to the original comic book artists. I have always considered him a con man and rip-off artist. With all the AI being "Trained" by using other artist work, I have coined the phrase being "Being Lichtensteined" !!!!!!!

 

“The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

[Sideshow Bob]

We'll see this same argument being presented to the Supreme Court regarding Warhol's Prince painting.

https://dnyuz.com/2023/03/01/why-warhol-images-are-making-museums-nervous/

[comicwiz]

On 2/28/2023 at 6:35 PM, Brian Peck said:

He is a thief and a hack. He stole from artist and copied their work almost line for line. When it wasn't line for line his drawings were inferior to the original comic book artists. I have always considered him a con man and rip-off artist. With all the AI being "Trained" by using other artist work, I have coined the phrase being "Being Lichtensteined" !!!!!!!

 

I bolded my shared sentiment. It is interesting as these boards have had a history of debate on this, in some instances, a view of "appropriation" being too kind/polite a euphemism for what Lichtenstein did, relegating anyone with such views to the camp of uninformed/ignoramus, with no refined understanding of the art world.

One of the only times I remember being banned from any Facebook group happened because of a self-professed "pop culture historian" who now spends his days producing hour long "webinars" he posts on YouTube to demonstrate the scoundrel Stan Lee was for his mistreatment of artists such as Kirby and Ditko.

This so-called "expert" was even hailed by members here for having a supposed understanding of "Pop Art" influences, and the significance of what I viewed as inferior garbage, that not only did a disservice to the sources he was stealing from, but trampled all over things like proper credit/attribution, ownership and artistic rights.

And that same so-called "expert" advanced his narrative with this view that Stan Lee loved the movement so much, he stuck a marquee on his comics from that time period, like it was some universal and wholesale acceptance, by the same bullpen of artists whose rights Lee would trample over during his tenure.

So I'll wear being booted out of a FB group for taking a hard line stance on Lichtenstein's theft like a badge of honour, and that "Pop Culture historian" is a perfect example of how a self professed "expert" eventually reveals their arrogance, complacency, reduced curiosity, rigid mindset and an overall refusal to learn from others.

Yes, I too believe Lichtenstein is a thief. The whole Pop Art, "postmodernist" appropriation angle is just one of the many examples of fraudulent art.

And for the life of me, I will never understand how any person defending creators rights could advocate as hard for Kirby and Ditko in one breath (vs the megalomaniac that was Stan Lee), and in another, turn a blind eye to what Lichtenstein did.

Edited March 1, 2023 by comicwiz

[Rick2you2]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:27 AM, Sideshow Bob said:

We'll see this same argument being presented to the Supreme Court regarding Warhol's Prince painting.

https://dnyuz.com/2023/03/01/why-warhol-images-are-making-museums-nervous/

To some extent. But, the other issue is fair use as parody, since Lichtenstein would alter the work in ways other than color. Love that fake zipatone!

[Brian Peck]

On 3/1/2023 at 7:52 AM, Rick2you2 said:

To some extent. But, the other issue is fair use as parody, since Lichtenstein would alter the work in ways other than color. Love that fake zipatone!

Lichtenstein copied artists work line for line, I never saw it being a parody.

[Rick2you2]

On 3/1/2023 at 3:32 PM, Brian Peck said:

Lichtenstein copied artists work line for line, I never saw it being a parody.

One of the considerations is how it is to be used. Lichtenstein didn't copy the image to put in a comic book and sell it. That would be a clear violation. He blew it up to highlight its absurdity by drawing emphasis to what would ordinarily be a plain panel. By the way, they are not all line-for-line. The changes tend to emphasize its flatness.

With that said, you are not the only one questioning whether it is a copyright violation. But then, you get into the question of damages. Unless it was registered, the odds are none would be provable since no sales were stolen by its use. They have to be registered if you want that sort of payday (actual calculations are a little different).

If you want to get a cheap fake that's as every bit as good Lichtenstein, just buy virtually any page from a Romance book and put it in an eye popping colored frame. They really are funny. Take this one, for example (currently on sale, with more of the story):

 

[Benedict Judas Hel]

On 3/1/2023 at 2:47 PM, Rick2you2 said:

If you want to get a cheap fake that's as every bit as good Lichtenstein, just buy virtually any page from a Romance book and put it in an eye popping colored frame. They really are funny. Take this one, for example (currently on sale, with more of the story):

 

That’s the main reason I’d love to buy a romance comic page!  They are pretty hilarious and would love to give one to a friend as a gift who also finds them hilarious.

[Rick2you2]

On 3/1/2023 at 4:51 PM, Benedict Judas Hel said:

That’s the main reason I’d love to buy a romance comic page!  They are pretty hilarious and would love to give one to a friend as a gift who also finds them hilarious.

They are easy to find, with prices and demand on the low end. Just go to CAT and for a search, try words like romance or love.

[Brian Peck]

On 3/1/2023 at 12:47 PM, Rick2you2 said:

One of the considerations is how it is to be used. Lichtenstein didn't copy the image to put in a comic book and sell it. That would be a clear violation. He blew it up to highlight its absurdity by drawing emphasis to what would ordinarily be a plain panel. By the way, they are not all line-for-line. The changes tend to emphasize its flatness.

With that said, you are not the only one questioning whether it is a copyright violation. But then, you get into the question of damages. Unless it was registered, the odds are none would be provable since no sales were stolen by its use. They have to be registered if you want that sort of payday (actual calculations are a little different).

If you want to get a cheap fake that's as every bit as good Lichtenstein, just buy virtually any page from a Romance book and put it in an eye popping colored frame. They really are funny. Take this one, for example (currently on sale, with more of the story):

 

The changes emphasizes his lack of drawing skills. A thief that can not draw.

[vodou]

On 3/1/2023 at 7:02 PM, Brian Peck said:

The changes emphasizes his lack of drawing skills. A thief that can not draw.

Pre-Pop Roy from 1951-52, he can draw just fine.

Further he can paint, which a majority of historical if not current comic artists cannot.

[comicwiz]

On 3/1/2023 at 3:47 PM, Rick2you2 said:

With that said, you are not the only one questioning whether it is a copyright violation. But then, you get into the question of damages.

Actually, it gets more complicated than just a matter of copyright violation when you consider some of the stupidity that's occured beyond the fraud perpetrated by Lichtenstein.

The closest thing it resembles is squatting, because when the Lichtenstein estate contacted the band Elisnore, telling them they had used an image "belonging to Lichtenstein", and issued the band a cease and desist, they did so for an image the band used for their album cover that actually belonged to artist Tony Abruzzo.

Somehow, the Lichtenstein estate squatted art they neither owned or created. They would have continued playing the heavies if not for how stupid, ridiculous, and nonsensical the whole thing looked when it became public. 

If not for the public pressure, they would have probably continued with their ridiculous copyright claims. Maybe this documentary makes more people aware of all of it now. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by comicwiz

[cstojano]

On 3/1/2023 at 5:49 PM, vodou said:

Pre-Pop Roy from 1951-52, he can draw just fine.

Further he can paint, which a majority of historical if not current comic artists cannot.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. That painting sort of sux doesn't it?

[Rick2you2]

On 3/2/2023 at 9:26 AM, cstojano said:

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. That painting sort of sux doesn't it?

You may want to read an article in the New Yorker entitled “Before Lichtenstein went Pop”.

Bottom line: it’s deliberate.

[vodou]

On 3/2/2023 at 9:26 AM, cstojano said:

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. That painting sort of sux doesn't it?

On 3/2/2023 at 9:38 AM, Rick2you2 said:

You may want to read an article in the New Yorker entitled “Before Lichtenstein went Pop”.

Bottom line: it’s deliberate.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/before-roy-lichtenstein-went-pop

[vodou]

Teaser…

Before Roy Lichtenstein Went Pop

The early works of the artist show that his playful irony was present from the start.

By Louis Menand

July 21, 2021

 

“Self-Portrait at an Easel,” by Roy Lichtenstein, circa 1951–52.Art work © Estate of Roy Lichtenstein

One of the many good reasons to see the exhibition of Roy Lichtenstein’s pre-Pop-art work, “Roy Lichtenstein: History in the Making, 1948–1960”—which originated at the Colby College Museum of Art in the spring and comes to the Parrish Art Museum, in Water Mill, New York, on August 1st—is that it reminds us of something we tend to lose sight of when we get caught up in the critical business of trying to situate Pop in an art-history genealogy, or to unpack it as social critique, which is that Pop art is funny. It makes you smile. There are not a lot of art movements you could say that about.

An unusual thing about American Pop art is that (unlike British Pop art, for example) the major figures—Lichtenstein, James Rosenquist, Andy Warhol—had no personal relationship with one another, and they developed their Pop-art styles independently. Another is that they all burst onto the scene…

[cstojano]

On 3/2/2023 at 7:49 AM, vodou said:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/before-roy-lichtenstein-went-pop

Thanks for the link, will have a read. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by cstojano

[grapeape]

On 3/1/2023 at 4:49 PM, vodou said:

Pre-Pop Roy from 1951-52, he can draw just fine.

Further he can paint, which a majority of historical if not current comic artists cannot.

Looks like one of the lads from Depeche Mode. Keep the fine commentary and links coming my friends. Grapeape just can't get enough :-)

[adamstrange]

On 3/1/2023 at 3:47 PM, Rick2you2 said:

With that said, you are not the only one questioning whether it is a copyright violation. But then, you get into the question of damages. Unless it was registered, the odds are none would be provable since no sales were stolen by its use. They have to be registered if you want that sort of payday (actual calculations are a little different).

I am not a lawyer but I have researched a bit about copyright.

I'm pretty sure Marvel and DC properly registered their 60s comic publications as they have defended them in court in a variety of cases.

The standard for copyright violation in music is, to my ears, much stricter than that of art.  Tiny/partial inclusion of copyright material has led to substantial damages being awarded.  If you arrange a heavy metal version of "Over the Rainbow" and play it without a license on YouTube, I think you'll quickly find out who owns it even though you may have substantially changed it and recontextualized it.  Even "Weird Al", who could presumably rely on the 'parody' defense, got permission/license for each of his specialty songs.

For art, there was a court case where an artist took a photograph and made only minor additions to it with paint and managed to get a ruling that they had not infringed.  If Liechtenstein's art were held to the same standard applied to music, I've no doubt it would be infringement.