War Comics 17 17

[adamstrange]

It's not often I have something to post in the SA forum but I picked this one up today. How much is it worth, ballpark? Call it what G++?

 

Good + looks about right, although I wouldn't dare put that second + sign in there. Overstreet says $38.75, but I wouldn't be able to sell that for $18. I personally love older low-mid grade books, but I feel like I'm the only one. When I have a sale and I offer this kind of book at just below 50%, it just sits, time and time again. *Unless it's G.I. Combat or Our Army At War, then there's a better chance to sell it*

 

Nice Irv Novick cover with 6 pages of Russ Heath artwork inside. Good find! (thumbs u

 

Andy

 

I know the Pedrin Guide says Novick but that cover screams Andru/Esposito.

[Tatterdamillion]

Trifecta just in.

[selegue]

Trifecta just in.

 

 

Very nice.

This one is a Roy Lichtenstein source, if you care about that sort of thing.

(This others may be too -- #90 is one I happen to have too.)

 

Jack

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2007 by selegue

[Tatterdamillion]

Can you show the Lichtenstein cuz I did not know that.

[selegue]

Can you show the Lichtenstein cuz I did not know that.

 

I'm pretty sure it's "As I Opened Fire"

 

Here

 

Jack

[bigfiver69]

Great books...

 

To see exactly how much Lichtenstein was 'inspired' by DC war comics, check this out... it's fascinating.

 

 

http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

Shep

 

 

[AtlasFan]

I know this topic has been brought up in other threads, but I just dont get how people can call this guy an "artistic genius"... He basically just copies panels out of comics, re-colors them a little, changes the lettering a bit - and calls it his own.

 

One could probably pick up the original comic book art for the war and romance comics used as "inspiration" cheaper than picking up one of his works in some upscale art gallery.

 

Go figure...

Bill

[Tatterdamillion]

Yeah, its a little dubious. Thats me being nice.

[Aman619]

I'll try. A large part of what makes 'ART' work is the concept. The rest is execution. Here, like Warhol, Lichtenstein has taken an image common in one context or genre, and by recreating it in another, forces the viewer to analize, react and consider it anew in its new context.

 

another way to look at is that the comic book artists drew the panel as one of many, on a deadline, for a few bucks, in an effort to tell th estory and finish the piece and move on to th enext assignment. He tried to do a good job, sure, but within the constaraints of time and th edollar wage to be earned for it.

 

Lichtenstien took the basic image and said, "wait - - look again, No really look at it large, by itself, in a more "serious" setting, and try to see OTHER meanings within it.

 

Now, it being Modern art, there are all kinds of layers of bullsheet involved coloring the art of its creation. Lichtenstein too was just trying to earn a buck. So were the gallery owners and everyone else involved with these paintings. And explanations like mine (made up out of thin air) and just garbage talk for a process where artists create works for attention, sales, success and acclaim.

 

anyway, I like his work. They are pleasing to the eye. Also keep in mind that Modern art has been about proving that "art" no longer need be realistic, or "wellpainted" or at least it includes many works that are deceptively hard to achieve. Pollack for example, or Mondrian.

 

Finally, Lichtenstein does not get credit for comic book like paintings. He gets credit (fame and fortune) for retooling everyones minds on how to LOOK at comic book drawings outside of their original context.

 

So its too easy to just say that he copied other peoples works. The artists had no idea how important their work could be, in the right hands.

 

[adamstrange]

Also keep in mind that Modern art has been about proving that "art" no longer need be realistic, or "wellpainted"

 

Safe to say it's been it's been spectacularly successful in this regard.

[selegue]

I'll try. A large part of what makes 'ART' work is the concept. The rest is execution. Here, like Warhol, Lichtenstein has taken an image common in one context or genre, and by recreating it in another, forces the viewer to analize, react and consider it anew in its new context.

 

another way to look at is that the comic book artists drew the panel as one of many, on a deadline, for a few bucks, in an effort to tell th estory and finish the piece and move on to th enext assignment. He tried to do a good job, sure, but within the constaraints of time and th edollar wage to be earned for it.

 

Lichtenstien took the basic image and said, "wait - - look again, No really look at it large, by itself, in a more "serious" setting, and try to see OTHER meanings within it.

 

Now, it being Modern art, there are all kinds of layers of bullsheet involved coloring the art of its creation. Lichtenstein too was just trying to earn a buck. So were the gallery owners and everyone else involved with these paintings. And explanations like mine (made up out of thin air) and just garbage talk for a process where artists create works for attention, sales, success and acclaim.

 

anyway, I like his work. They are pleasing to the eye. Also keep in mind that Modern art has been about proving that "art" no longer need be realistic, or "wellpainted" or at least it includes many works that are deceptively hard to achieve. Pollack for example, or Mondrian.

 

Finally, Lichtenstein does not get credit for comic book like paintings. He gets credit (fame and fortune) for retooling everyones minds on how to LOOK at comic book drawings outside of their original context.

 

So its too easy to just say that he copied other peoples works. The artists had no idea how important their work could be, in the right hands.

 

I agree with aman, although it's an endless argument on comic-book boards and the majority is virtually always bitterly critical of Lichtenstein. The most convincing argument that Lichtenstein's work works on its own is to attend an exhibit of his paintings (and I've seen some good ones), stand in front of some of the huge canvases and realize that the effect is totally different from a comic-book panel. Actually, he worked in several styles and media, but the comic-book paintings are the most remembered and discussed.

 

There are some good discussion points on the this page of the Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein site. I'm not biasing toward my own view -- the site is overall very critical of Lichtenstein.

 

Main entry to the site is here.

 

This is the standard "pro-Lichtenstein" argument:

Here is how Jack Cowart, the executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation, characterizes the work of his dead client, the Pop artist Roy Lichtenstein: "Roy's work was a wonderment of the graphic formulae and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. ... The [cartoon strip] panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy."

 

Yes, it's art-school BS but I like the paintings anyway. I also enjoy collecting the source books. (Anyone have reader copies for sale?)

 

Jack

 

[AtlasFan]

So with regard to these comic panels, Lichtenstein's artistic genuis does not lie within his own ability to create art, but his ability to pick out a panel from a comic book and see that it gets the proper attention is drawn to it...

 

I still don't buy it...but then again. what the hell do I know about "the world of fine art"?

Bill

[Aman619]

not much! : )

 

at least, you admittedly dont know much about the big-time game of modern art, which is fine, They live in a house of cards of their own making with their own rules and kings and fools.

 

but isnt it the same in OUR world of collectible comics? An novice might infer that a certain 70 year old comic is rare and hence valuable, but totally misunderstand how our market ticks. Why a kids comic about a duck family could ever be so valuable.

 

back to Lichtenstein, he took comic panels but it could have just as easily been any printed imagery created out of lines and printers dots. But he chose comics, a failrly new popular phenomenon. Is it so hard to appreciate him for honoring our little low-cultural backwater??? Bringing it new attention from the highhat and blue blood crowd? Just as Hollywood is now doing for it with the masses?

 

Edited November 5, 2007 by aman619

[adamstrange]

Isn't the shtick with Lichtenstein that he chose comics to prove that he can take any prosaic, childish work and turn it into "art". Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people come away from a L. exhibit thinking what wonderful artists Heath, Kubert, Novick, Andru etc are, much less how important the comics medium is. They had a major exhibit of L. 7 or 8 years ago and they invited Russ Heath. But they wanted him to pay his way because "wasn't it so great to be part of L.'s art?"

[selegue]

Isn't the shtick with Lichtenstein that he chose comics to prove that he can take any prosaic, childish work and turn it into "art". Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people come away from a L. exhibit thinking what wonderful artists Heath, Kubert, Novick, Andru etc are, much less how important the comics medium is.

 

Actually, I think the point is debatable. Often the originals are displayed either with the paintings or in the exhibit catalog, and I think that people who show up at a Lichtenstein exhibit do come away with a better appreciation for the strong graphic design of the originals.

 

They had a major exhibit of L. 7 or 8 years ago and they invited Russ Heath. But they wanted him to pay his way because "wasn't it so great to be part of L.'s art?"

 

ARGH! That's really rude.

Who is "they"? "They" should have offered freakin' travel expenses or skipped the insulting invitation. Is that documented somewhere?

 

Jack

 

 

[Tatterdamillion]

I'll try. A large part of what makes 'ART' work is the concept. The rest is execution. Here, like Warhol, Lichtenstein has taken an image common in one context or genre, and by recreating it in another, forces the viewer to analize, react and consider it anew in its new context.

 

another way to look at is that the comic book artists drew the panel as one of many, on a deadline, for a few bucks, in an effort to tell th estory and finish the piece and move on to th enext assignment. He tried to do a good job, sure, but within the constaraints of time and th edollar wage to be earned for it.

 

Lichtenstien took the basic image and said, "wait - - look again, No really look at it large, by itself, in a more "serious" setting, and try to see OTHER meanings within it.

 

Now, it being Modern art, there are all kinds of layers of bullsheet involved coloring the art of its creation. Lichtenstein too was just trying to earn a buck. So were the gallery owners and everyone else involved with these paintings. And explanations like mine (made up out of thin air) and just garbage talk for a process where artists create works for attention, sales, success and acclaim.

 

anyway, I like his work. They are pleasing to the eye. Also keep in mind that Modern art has been about proving that "art" no longer need be realistic, or "wellpainted" or at least it includes many works that are deceptively hard to achieve. Pollack for example, or Mondrian.

 

Finally, Lichtenstein does not get credit for comic book like paintings. He gets credit (fame and fortune) for retooling everyones minds on how to LOOK at comic book drawings outside of their original context.

 

So its too easy to just say that he copied other peoples works. The artists had no idea how important their work could be, in the right hands.

Well put, my mind is changing.

[adamstrange]

Isn't the shtick with Lichtenstein that he chose comics to prove that he can take any prosaic, childish work and turn it into "art". Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people come away from a L. exhibit thinking what wonderful artists Heath, Kubert, Novick, Andru etc are, much less how important the comics medium is.

 

Actually, I think the point is debatable. Often the originals are displayed either with the paintings or in the exhibit catalog, and I think that people who show up at a Lichtenstein exhibit do come away with a better appreciation for the strong graphic design of the originals.

 

They had a major exhibit of L. 7 or 8 years ago and they invited Russ Heath. But they wanted him to pay his way because "wasn't it so great to be part of L.'s art?"

 

ARGH! That's really rude.

Who is "they"? "They" should have offered freakin' travel expenses or skipped the insulting invitation. Is that documented somewhere?

 

Jack

 

 

Story was related to me in conversation with Russ.

 

As far as educating the public, I would hardly think they do much as it's not like L. picked the best examples. Going through the web site of all of the swipes didn't send any chills up my spine about the art in DC War comics. At times the art is mundane but there are killers stories by Heath, Grandenetti, Kubert, Severin etc.

[selegue]

Isn't the shtick with Lichtenstein that he chose comics to prove that he can take any prosaic, childish work and turn it into "art". Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think people come away from a L. exhibit thinking what wonderful artists Heath, Kubert, Novick, Andru etc are, much less how important the comics medium is.

 

Actually, I think the point is debatable. Often the originals are displayed either with the paintings or in the exhibit catalog, and I think that people who show up at a Lichtenstein exhibit do come away with a better appreciation for the strong graphic design of the originals.

 

They had a major exhibit of L. 7 or 8 years ago and they invited Russ Heath. But they wanted him to pay his way because "wasn't it so great to be part of L.'s art?"

 

ARGH! That's really rude.

Who is "they"? "They" should have offered freakin' travel expenses or skipped the insulting invitation. Is that documented somewhere?

 

Jack

 

 

Story was related to me in conversation with Russ.

 

As far as educating the public, I would hardly think they do much as it's not like L. picked the best examples. Going through the web site of all of the swipes didn't send any chills up my spine about the art in DC War comics. At times the art is mundane but there are killers stories by Heath, Grandenetti, Kubert, Severin etc.

 

Lichtenstein wasn't out to educate anyone. In fact, some of the subjects that he and Warhol worked on were picked specifically because they were mundane.

 

(google)

 

Lichtenstein article

"What Lichtenstein did with his art was to set the stage for the elevation of the mundane and the popular to the level of DaVinci. All those books that treat shows like The Simpsons and Buffy the Vampire Slayer as seriously as Shakespeare or Chaucer owe a debt of gratitude to Roy Lichtenstein. His genius was in the transformation of representation from the obvious to the sublime. "

 

But I'm not trying to talk you into anything.

You like 'em, you don't. All the same to me.

 

Jack

[adamstrange]

I'm not exactly the guy that's going to be convinced that I should regard even the best of say Heath and Kubert as worthy of Da Vinci so convincing me that L. re-working the least of the work by them and others as worthy of Da Vinci is hardly the plane I want to board. I'm personally more impressed with the best of the DC War art than anything I've seen by L, but your mileage may vary.

[october]

I'm not exactly the guy that's going to be convinced that I should regard even the best of say Heath and Kubert as worthy of Da Vinci so convincing me that L. re-working the least of the work by them and others as worthy of Da Vinci is hardly the plane I want to board. I'm personally more impressed with the best of the DC War art than anything I've seen by L, but your mileage may vary.

 

Compared to the "art" that brings tens of millions these days (Rothko, Pollock), his work DOES look like DaVinci.