New Allegations of Plagerism Against Roy Lichtenstein 2 2

[Robot Man]

Comic book artists have made direct steals from each other since the medium started…

[namisgr]

On 4/11/2023 at 12:21 PM, ThothAmon said:

From the linked article in the OP. 

Bradford R Collins, author of the book Pop Artand professor of art history at the University of South Carolina, defended Lichtenstein: “It’s not plagiarism. It’s appropriation. With plagiarism, you’re stealing somebody’s work and using it for the same purpose they did. If Lichtenstein made comic books out of it, that would be stealing. But appropriation means you’re taking something and reusing it for a very different purpose, taking something out of a comic book and making it into a painting.

“I can understand why Eisman would feel angry. I would feel the same way. But artistically, it’s not plagiarism.”

 

Ivory tower comment or what?  You would think that an “art history professor “ would have a higher opinion of art, whatever its source. Maybe he doesn’t understand how a lowly “comic book” is made. 

That's a tough take.  The Professor of Art History pointed out the difference between plagiarism and appropriation, which acknowledges the comic panels were reused in a different way and for a different purpose.  It leaves completely open leveling criticism of Lichtenstein for the appropriation.

The greatest shame to me falls on the publishers, who denied artists any rights to their work.  Once that transpired, the artists would seem to have no pathway to claim monetary damages under ownership rights.

[Ken Aldred]

Sampling, as many music artists have been called out and punished for in lawsuits.

If it’s a subtle influence, fine, but there are many examples which are simply too blatant to take seriously as original art work, as a comic book and music fan, this included. 
 

Doesn’t impress on a purely emotional level, which to me is more primally important than an ivory tower intellectual analysis.
 

Going to new and different places rather than recycling, something you can apply to both media, not independently. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Ken Aldred

[lordbyroncomics]

On 4/11/2023 at 12:28 PM, Robot Man said:

Comic book artists have made direct steals from each other since the medium started…

Please let me know which artist that swiped from another made literally millions from said swipe and was celebrated by the mainstream media and the art world.

Again, I'm amazed at the need for people to play devil's advocate and justify and rationalize blatant theft. It'd be one thing if it were another artist toiling in the unfair industry of sixties comics to swipe from another. Lichtenstein was not a fellow comic book artist. 

[Dave2739]

On 4/11/2023 at 8:02 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

Please let me know which artist that swiped from another made literally millions from said swipe and was celebrated by the mainstream media and the art world.

Again, I'm amazed at the need for people to play devil's advocate and justify and rationalize blatant theft. It'd be one thing if it were another artist toiling in the unfair industry of sixties comics to swipe from another. Lichtenstein was not a fellow comic book artist. 

How much did Rob Liefeld make from this Frank Miller swipe? Had to be at least a few million right? 

[JollyComics]

On 4/11/2023 at 7:11 PM, Dave2739 said:

How much did Rob Liefeld make from this Frank Miller swipe? Had to be at least a few million right? 

That!!

[lordbyroncomics]

You guys are right- to Hell with Russ Heath and the other artists who got blatantly stolen from, notably not by a fellow comic artist which would at least have softened the blow, one thinks. I know devil's advocate on the internet means more than a shred of empathy for the artists who were marginalized and barely paid. It is surprising though, since Lichtenstein worked on no slabbed grailkeyinvestments that make you guys a profit! 

[Dave2739]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:34 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

You guys are right- to Hell with Russ Heath and the other artists who got blatantly stolen from, notably not by a fellow comic artist which would at least have softened the blow, one thinks. I know devil's advocate on the internet means more than a shred of empathy for the artists who were marginalized and barely paid. It is surprising though, since Lichtenstein worked on no slabbed grailkeyinvestments that make you guys a profit! 

Lighten up, Francis. Yes, we all agree that Roy Lichtenstein is/was a hack. 

[Aman619]

On 4/11/2023 at 10:35 PM, Dave2739 said:

Lighten up, Francis. Yes, we all agree that Roy Lichtenstein is/was a hack. 

haha, no we dont.  I suspect you mean a hack based on his being a "bad drawer", who couldn't even TRACE the "perfect" comic book panels drawn for $5 a page by artists eager for the assignment to work for cheap publishers paying as little as possible and stealing the rights to their work?  Who couldn't be bothered to fight for ownership of the stolen images?  This whole Lichtenstein thing is just how the world works, and everyone is Shocked at who did what based on their own personal take on how it happened and went down.

wait, rereading your comment maybe I missed that it was in jest! 

[JollyComics]

On 4/11/2023 at 7:11 PM, Dave2739 said:

How much did Rob Liefeld make from this Frank Miller swipe? Had to be at least a few million right? 

Again,  I am very sure Rod is jealous of Frank Miller who made few million dollars in his prime years.  His name will never live up to equal Frank Miller's legends.

[jcjames]

On 4/9/2023 at 6:20 PM, comicstock said:

Some call Roy Lichtenstein an artist.  I call him a bum.

I call him the Vanilla Ice of the art world.

Da-dadada-dadada-da...

 

[Ken Aldred]

On 4/12/2023 at 4:55 AM, jcjames said:

I call him the Vanilla Ice of the art world.

Da-dadada-dadada-da...

 

Yup. Exactly. Without the classic earworm bass line it would’ve been complete garbage.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Ken Aldred

[speedcake]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:23 PM, Hes Dead Jim said:

how is this different than any collector of anything making millions off selling other peoples stuff?

did anyone who sold any million dollar trading cards, comics, and others kick anything back to those struggling artist?

im not saying that I think of any of this as right or wrong, but living in a money driven world this sort of thing is a thousands of times a second occurance.

people like warhol made and make a very good living off other peoples stuff as do people in the comedy / pardoy business.

art is what a bunch of self important people say it is and todays law will be overturned tomorrow and will be back again on thursday

van gogh traded his "art" for a couples of nights lodgings and some meals to people who thought his stuff was garbage and felt sorry for him. and now his "art" is priceless

the same thing happened to comics and trading cards in my lifetime. when i was a kid we used to make small ships out of baseball cards and float them on a curb stream after a rain

 

 

[Robot Man]

To the best of my knowledge, Campbell Soup or anyone else ever sued Warhol for a direct steal of their products or images.

Pop art, love it or leave it was a movement and statement about our disposable society.

Lichtenstein’s work was aimed at our fascination with beauty and war. His target was obviously comic books. Considered to be a disposable medium without merit to most people.

Not taking a stand either way. Just trying to explain the Pop Art movement. 

[Point Five]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but just curious: Did Lichtenstein openly discuss his process of lifting art from comic books, or did he purposely keep the lines blurry as to how much of his stuff was taken directly from existing sources?

That online database @lordbyroncomics linked to certainly shows how deeply enmeshed he was in the comic book world of the 1950s/60s -- far more systematic a process than 'an occasional swipe here and there'.

Really interesting topic. I'd like to see the documentary for sure.

 

[Dr. Balls]

For me, this is an almost 20+ year viewpoint and discussion for me. Rather than get worked up about it, years ago I decided that:

A) Roy Lichtenstein was simply a graphic artist who must have hired the most pretentious art-critic blowhard in New York City to pump up and market his stuff and,

B) Due to work-for-hire status, etc by the artists - it would never matter how much Roy's work made, they would never see a dime of it regardless, and finally:

C) To me, his work is nothing more significant than a silkscreened t-shirt, and seeing as how I don't have $20 million dollars to launder, I have no need to think about his art.

[buttock]

From the article, it isn't really "new" allegations, but rather someone who is raising the same allegations.  The only difference is that when it happened to someone else he wasn't too upset, but now that he's found out he was involved he's upset.  Seems pretty disingenuous.  

[Aman619]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:17 PM, Dr. Balls said:

For me, this is an almost 20+ year viewpoint and discussion for me. Rather than get worked up about it, years ago I decided that:

A) Roy Lichtenstein was simply a graphic artist who must have hired the most pretentious art-critic blowhard in New York City to pump up and market his stuff and,

B) Due to work-for-hire status, etc by the artists - it would never matter how much Roy's work made, they would never see a dime of it regardless, and finally:

C) To me, his work is nothing more significant than a silkscreened t-shirt, and seeing as how I don't have $20 million dollars to launder, I have no need to think about his art.

A) Looking back, sure his work can seem minor. But a lot of modern art the time had similar ambitions, taking common things and making them seen again in a new setting and format. That imagination was their selling point.  It got people thinking differently about things all around them of little value.  And as comics fans I think it’s awesome to see them bigger than life!  The Art world was also undergoing change. Moving away from even abstract art into new subject matter that people responded to. It was the assigning Aixties.  The works was having a silly moment in all cultural areas.

B). Totally agree.

c)  not to me.  If Liechtenstein’s idea was to do this on tee shirts and try to go into the tee shirt business we never would have heard of him.  But he had a higher goal: he wanted to be an Artist with a capitol A.  Have his work seen in galleries.  Idea plus ambition equaled historic success.  What’s not to like or admire?  It’s Amerrika!
 

I know, except for reworking other artists images.

[Transplant]

Is it required on these boards that we debate Lichtenstein every Year?

 

[Aman619]

sure seems like it is.