|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 18, 2015 13:44:30 GMT -5
Oh yeah! Good point! I honestly forgot about Lichtenstein's other stuff (which I do generally like and think is much stronger than the comic copies.)
Still, I get the sense that Lichtenstein never really thought about comic art came from individual artists with their own styles and I see this as a huge weakness in his "comics" work... and Warhol's soup can work, actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 18, 2015 13:51:52 GMT -5
I don't have much to add that Confessor and reptisaurus haven't said. I also like most of Liechtenstein's work, and it's pretty obvious that, although he started by appropriating (or swiping, or recontextualizing, or copying, or stealing) comic panels, that really became a jumping-off point. And while pop was in the air, when he did his first panel paintings, I doubt getting sales was a sure thing for him. And, like it or not, comic artists were pretty much "cogs in the machine" at that time, especially with the industry still smarting after so many publishers went out of business when the code came in. It was also a time where people like Norman Rockwell and Dean Cornwell and a hundred other brilliantly talented (and well-paid)illustrators weren't considered "real artists" in the gallery world. One thing Pop did was make people look differently at things like packaging and billboards (and comics) differently where before they were almost invisible for being so familiar. And I have no proof, but without Lichtenstein, I don't know how quick Marvel would have been to introduce posters, t-shirts, inflatable pillows, etc. He casts a pretty long shadow on the hobby: www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=retro+comic&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aretro+comic |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 14:12:19 GMT -5
Post by Confessor on Mar 18, 2015 14:12:19 GMT -5
Still, I get the sense that Lichtenstein never really thought about comic art came from individual artists with their own styles and I see this as a huge weakness in his "comics" work... and Warhol's soup can work, actually. I think you may be right actually, but as I say, the anonymity of or disregard for individual comic book artists (and as MDG points out, magazine illustrators and other commercial artists as well) was, in part, exactly what Lichtenstein was commenting on with his comic-themed pop art. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by Crimebuster on Mar 18, 2015 14:23:27 GMT -5
I think Lichtenstein is a thief and a con man. I think he's an example of how fraudulent the art world is in general. They take this sham artist, prop him up as a big deal, and then have to bend themselves into pretzels to justify why his work is art, but the work of the people he stole from is not. The fact that works he plagiarized from Russ Heath sell for millions of dollars, while Heath himself has to have Kickstarter campaigns to try and cover his medical bills, is a complete travesty. He's the fine art world equivalent of Bob Kane, getting rich and famous off the work other people did, only somehow with even less originality than Kane.
Fie.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 18, 2015 14:35:10 GMT -5
Oh yeah! Good point! I honestly forgot about Lichtenstein's other stuff (which I do generally like and think is much stronger than the comic copies.) Still, I get the sense that Lichtenstein never really thought about comic art came from individual artists with their own styles and I see this as a huge weakness in his "comics" work... and Warhol's soup can work, actually. It's things like Andy Warhol's soup can that convinces me I will never understand the art that others appreciate. I'm always going to be the guy in the corner trying to figure out why a picture of a soup can on a gallery wall is priceless art, but an identical soup can on the grocery store shelf is only worth 99 cents. |
|
|
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 15:11:29 GMT -5
Post by the4thpip on Mar 18, 2015 15:11:29 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, the "Later Rembrandt" exhibition I caught in Amsterdam last Sunday had an entire section devoted to paintings Rembrandt "swiped" from other sources. He'd turn a Japanese drawing into a scene from Greek mythology. He'd copy his own earlier paintings. Or he'd use Mantegna's "Lamentation of Christ" to get the foreshortening of the human body as seen from an unusual perspective right for the lesser known of two autopsy paintings he did:   |
|
|
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 15:30:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 15:30:20 GMT -5
Copying.swiping, stealing, imitating, pastiching, homaging, sampling whatever you want to call it, has been part of the creative landscape for time immemorial and people have been talking abot it all the time too....hence:
"Good artists copy, great artists steal"
-Pablo Picasso
"To copy others is necessary, but to copy oneself is pathetic."
-Pablo Picasso
"An original artist is unable to copy. So he has only to copy in order to be original."
-Jean Cocteau
"We call ourselves creators and we just copy."
-Lauryn Hill
"The difference between a bad artist and a good one is: the bad artist seems to copy a great deal; the good one really does."
-William Blake
"The only way you can get good, unless you're a genius, is to copy. That's the best thing. Just steal."
-Ritchie Blackmore
"Even if you try to copy a film shot by shot, you still can't. It's still your own film."
-Gus Van Sant
and more, and you could find an equal number of quotes railing against the practice as well, the thing is, it's not new, it's part of the landscape of the creative arts, and it will never go away.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Mar 18, 2015 15:34:04 GMT -5
Of course, a lot of those artists like Rembrandt and Picasso still had mad skillz, and often put a lot of work into their craft. Unlike, say, swipers Greg Land and Rob Liefeld.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 15:40:56 GMT -5
Post by Confessor on Mar 18, 2015 15:40:56 GMT -5
I think Lichtenstein is a thief and a con man. I think he's an example of how fraudulent the art world is in general. They take this sham artist, prop him up as a big deal, and then have to bend themselves into pretzels to justify why his work is art, but the work of the people he stole from is not. The fact that works he plagiarized from Russ Heath sell for millions of dollars, while Heath himself has to have Kickstarter campaigns to try and cover his medical bills, is a complete travesty. He's the fine art world equivalent of Bob Kane, getting rich and famous off the work other people did, only somehow with even less originality than Kane. Fie. Well, I can accept that you may not be a fan of Roy Lichtenstein's work, but it seems to me that you're sort of saying "life's not fair" (I don't mean that to sound snarky BTW). Well, no...it isn't. In every creative field there are untold instances of artists who have never received the recognition that is due them. However, I disagree with the suggestion that Lichtenstein was a con man who didn't deserves the fame he received. Don't forget, although Lichtenstein's comic book-related work is his most popular, it only makes up a relatively small part of his entire oeuvre. However, at the same time -- and this is the interesting thing -- the art he created based on panels by the likes of Irv Novick or Russ Heath (but taken out of context and flattened *) has had a much bigger emotional and cultural impact on the world at large than every single comic book drawn by the original artists combined. But then, that's how art works: context and timing is everything. Art is all about the interaction between the audience and that piece of art. Clearly what Lichtenstein did with these comic book derivations was, and still is, very popular with people, as evidenced by the huge attendance figures for the recent exhibition of his work here in London. * = I think it's interesting to note that if you compare the original panel from All-American Men of War #89 to Lichtenstein's Whaam! (see below), the latter has not only been simplified in terms of composition and colouring, but the artist has also tried to remove any of the three-dimensional properties in the original work. This "flattening" of the art is just another attempt on Lichtenstein's part to comment on the lack of depth and throwaway nature of early '60s consumerist society. To provide an architectural analogy, if the original is a brick townhouse, then Whaam! is an early '60s prefab. There really is a whole lot more going on in Lichtenstein's classic pop art work than simply just a bunch of stolen comic panels, in my view.   |
|
|
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 16:04:18 GMT -5
Post by MDG on Mar 18, 2015 16:04:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 17:08:18 GMT -5
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 18, 2015 17:08:18 GMT -5
I think Lichtenstein is a thief and a con man. I think he's an example of how fraudulent the art world is in general. They take this sham artist, prop him up as a big deal, and then have to bend themselves into pretzels to justify why his work is art, but the work of the people he stole from is not. The fact that works he plagiarized from Russ Heath sell for millions of dollars, while Heath himself has to have Kickstarter campaigns to try and cover his medical bills, is a complete travesty. He's the fine art world equivalent of Bob Kane, getting rich and famous off the work other people did, only somehow with even less originality than Kane. Fie. To which this former Art major can only add "Hear, hear!" Cei-U! Fie, forsooth! |
|
|
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 18:10:39 GMT -5
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 18, 2015 18:10:39 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, the "Later Rembrandt" exhibition I caught in Amsterdam last Sunday had an entire section devoted to paintings Rembrandt "swiped" from other sources. He'd turn a Japanese drawing into a scene from Greek mythology. He'd copy his own earlier paintings. Or he'd use Mantegna's "Lamentation of Christ" to get the foreshortening of the human body as seen from an unusual perspective right for the lesser known of two autopsy paintings he did: Ha ha ha. Cool. |
|
|
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 18:21:11 GMT -5
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 18, 2015 18:21:11 GMT -5
That link isn't at all how Lichtenstein is usually presented, and understandably so when one reads that the author of the article is also an author of a book thats sales are undoubtedly built on Lichtenstein's good standing, further it's hosted on the publisher's site which is also a museum that is supporting a large Lichtenstein exhibition ...which makes me feel that you're not going to get anything near an impartial view there. I come from an art history background and, to the rest of the real world, yeah this basically is how Lichtenstien is presented.
Anyway, the only thing that really matters is the one direct quote. The site probably has different biases than mine or yours, but if they're not forging/inventing quotations, it doesn't matter. This is proof that Lichtenstien flat out used the word "copying" to describe his work.
Which doesn't make it objective in any way shape or form. That various experts employed by museums, art schools and publishing firms that gain wealth because of the status of Lichtenstien's art all agree that he did no wrong simply doesn't make for an unbiased argument and to simply go with that flow as if that view is unimpeachable because so many agree just seems wrong to me...and that's from someone who really enjoys Lichtenstein's work. There's no denying the man is a true artist, I especially love the texture that his benday dots have; they in themselves are beautiful to look at, never mind the over all composition of each of his pieces but I've always felt that it was wrong that the men who originally created the works that he adapted were never credited. And further, his reasoning behind not naming them, being that they were just cogs and that was what his art was commenting on just seemed incredibly disrespectful. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 18, 2015 18:35:52 GMT -5
Irrelevant. I basically agree with everything you say, but irrelevant.
However, the argument that I used the website to support was that Lichtenstein described his own work as "copying."
Which he did. The only part of the site I'm using as a basis for my position are direct quotes from the artist.
|
|
|
|
Swipes
Mar 18, 2015 20:20:07 GMT -5
Post by thwhtguardian on Mar 18, 2015 20:20:07 GMT -5
Irrelevant. I basically agree with everything you say, but irrelevant. However, the argument that I used the website to support was that Lichtenstein described his own work as "copying." Which he did. The only part of the site I'm using as a basis for my position are direct quotes from the artist. I don't think it's irreverent in terms of what he did, or the way he is portrayed in the art community which was an issue raised earlier and I think that broader discussion is much more important than that he simply admitted to copying. That admission does nothing to address the wrong he repeatedly committed and the fact that his admission is simply brushed aside and given no real significance within the world of art and modern art criticism is something I find troubling, even though he is probably my favorite modern artist. |
|
