Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
2 2

698 posts in this topic

I just saw a news clip (link below) about how Roy Lichtenstein's "I Can See The Whole Room and Nobody is in it" (1961) sold for $2 million in 1988, and is up for auction in 2011 with an estimated value of $35-45 million.

 

Within the story, it was mentioned that the original art market seems more recession proof and people I guess are turning to art for investments because record prices are still being paid for key pieces.

 

VIDEO LINK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44991840#44991840

 

Here's a link to a more close-up view of that artwork estimated to be worth over $35 million:

 

IMAGE LINK: http://dome.mit.edu/handle/1721.3/18028

 

In the video, it was mentioned that Roy Lichtenstein's work commands an average of $10-15 million per original painting.

 

There's an interesting critique of Roy Lichtenstein's work, most relevantly shown on David Barsalou's website illustrating comparisons between Roy Lichtenstein's million dollar paintings compared to the comic book work that "inspired" those paintings.

 

So, I would wonder, were Lichtenstein's works done as a process of "lightboxing" and heavy near if not verbatim photo/image referencing? If so, he was (since he passed away) or his art rep is/was the greatest marketers, enabling him to command millions for his paintings while he was still alive and now multi-millions since he passed away.

 

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

 

Similar Article Link: http://www.notcot.com/archives/2007/10/deconstructing.php

 

I hear of similar artists in comic books accused of lightboxing, photo referencing, tracing, etc., so does that hopefully mean their artwork might become seen and praised as the genius and inspirational artwork of the future and command high demand and dollars, like Lichtenstein?

 

It still takes talent and is artistic interpretation, so any art is indeed... ART. Heck, if I could buy a $300 lightbox or a tracing projector, some paper, ink, canvas and paint and make millions, I would... but I know I can't.

 

As for the 35 million dollar Lichtenstein "I can see the whole room..." piece... somewhat related to the hot topic of a week or so ago... of course anyone can buy a print (sort of like the new wave of artists selling digital prints) for under $60.00, albeit, not one of a kind nor original, have the image, and save the extra millions to buy a huge mansion to hang it up in, and have a couple of Yachts, and a private plane to go with it instead of buying the original art...

 

LINK TO BUY :) - http://www.postercheckout.com/PictureFull.asp?PrintID=8634

 

What do comic art fans think of Lichtenstein's work?

 

Also of the work of his modern contemporaries in the comic book industry who use similar art styles in their published work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a crying shame that Lichtenstein gets all this praise given that he lifted and - to my eye, at least - did not enhance the work of others.

 

Marketing kings indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is overrated and unoriginal. I don't understand the fascination about him. Lichenstein copies a panel, including the text. Where is the art in that?

 

A comic artist on the other hand only has a rough story or plot or even tight scripts to work with then he has to use imagination, originality, composition, to create a scene and tell a story.

 

Comics is a dying breed. Digital are is the way to go to meet deadlines. People buy comics digitally, but the new generation of kids don't even read comics anymore. They just want for the movie adaptations.

 

Once comics will be on life support and the printed page will be a thing of the past, original comic art will be accepted to the mainstream art and values might keep rising the same way that pop art is quite high now. But I don't think it will ever reach in the millions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some pieces will definitely reach in the millions. I can guarantee that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.

(worship)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. (worship) (worship) (worship)

 

And, if arguing these kinds of topics is your cup of tea, check out the "Great Art" thread in The Water Cooler. :gossip:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanx guys. and it was typed pretty gud too!

 

doh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get it. Appreciating Liechtenstein for highlighting one panel of another artist's work is comparable to an author taking out a single page of Hamlet and getting credit for isolating it from the larger body of work whence it came.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it differ from Duchamp's Fountain which is just a Urinal signed R.Mutt on its side? One could argue that Lichtenstein's work is of a similar nature, he chose the panel and subsequently breathed new life into the artwork.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get it. Appreciating Liechtenstein for highlighting one panel of another artist's work is comparable to an author taking out a single page of Hamlet and getting credit for isolating it from the larger body of work whence it came.

 

analogies are rarely perfect. Yours succeeds in as far as it goes, but only part of the way, because it completely omits the visual... which is a painting's essence.

 

How about a photographer taking a picture of a building? or a train, or a car?

 

 

reminds me a great quote about film criticism: Writing about Filmmaking is like Dancing about Architecture!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would be awesome? If Kirby's ghost was Lichtenstein.

 

Glen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.

 

 

It was certainly shown to a different audience, and audience for whom the original subject matter may be foreign or entirely unknown. That seem to have helped it gain a footing at its origin. It also seems intentional to market the art to this audience that is so far removed form the original subject matter it allowed the "artist" and now family to give as little credit as possible (usually zero) and little to no attribution to the artist that created the work.

 

As to the reception the art receives that seems like the art world translation of the concept of "marketing"...because, from my experience, marketing in the gallery and artwork world creates reception and certainly creates perception.

 

Give an artist or a group of pieces a prestigious enough position in a prestigious enough gallery and people will be lined up to say it's the greatest thing they've ever seen regardless of its actual quality.

 

Do that often enough to people with large enough trust funds and BOOM.... $12 million dollar shark.

 

There's a big difference between what the old masters created turning what they saw and felt into masterpieces on canvas and this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I don't get is when the estate sues for "copyright" infringement on anyone interpreting a piece that he created from a comic image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing I don't get is when the estate sues for "copyright" infringement on anyone interpreting a piece that he created from a comic image.

 

 

And the image on their website warning people to not steal their images is lifted from Joe Kubert.

 

At a certain point it takes on the feel of class warfare, with upper class fine art aficionados excusing the lifting of some pieces (in some cases line for line) because NOW they are art because they hang in a gallery and have been touched by the hand of one of their own, and before they were *sniff* comic art and utterly garbage.

 

I'd have no problem with these panels being examined as and displayed in a different format or size as long as the original artists and source material was given its proper attribution and credit.

 

At least then it would feel honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for

It was certainly shown to a different audience, and audience for whom the original subject matter may be foreign or entirely unknown. That seem to have helped it gain a footing at its origin. It also seems intentional to market the art to this audience that is so far removed form the original subject matter it allowed the "artist" and now family to give as little credit as possible (usually zero) and little to no attribution to the artist that created the work.

 

As to the reception the art receives that seems like the art world translation of the concept of "marketing"...because, from my experience, marketing in the gallery and artwork world creates reception and certainly creates perception.

 

Give an artist or a group of pieces a prestigious enough position in a prestigious enough gallery and people will be lined up to say it's the greatest thing they've ever seen regardless of its actual quality.

 

Do that often enough to people with large enough trust funds and BOOM.... $12 million dollar shark.

 

There's a big difference between what the old masters created turning what they saw and felt into masterpieces on canvas and this.

 

 

I don't want to argue about this. I too think the art world is a ponzi scheme. But even there, many works "speak to people's emotions" beyond the hype that may or may not have been responsible for you seeing it somewhere.

 

 

As for the old masters, basically they were old, working a long time ago. Times were very different. They painted NOT what they felt or even chose to paint.. They painted to eat! They always had a benefactor paying them for each portrait, etc.

 

It wasn't until centuries later that the leisure classes could paint from the heart. Ironically a large impetus came in the early 19th century with the invention of the camera, and more specifically, film on which to record with photographic realism. That was the painters goal all along, and now painters weren't necessary for realism, or even as good as a camera. Soon after widespread usage of film and prints did Impressionism begin, when an artist could interpret what he say on canvas.

 

One more thing about the old masters. Many scholars call them that because they had the god given talent to paint so realistically suddenly. Well, did you know they cheated? Just as artists today utilize technology to make their work easier, so did the old masters after the invention of lenses and then the camera obscura. Hockney published an exhaustive study proving the use of lenses so that artists could trace (light box) from real life, then paint on top of the accurate photographic layouts.

 

Shocking!!!!

Edited by aman619

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ Well, did you know they cheated? Just as artists today utilize technology to make their work easier, so did the old masters after the invention of lenses and then the camera obscura. Hockney published an exhaustive study proving the use of lenses so that artists could trace (light box) from real life, then paint on top of the accurate photographic layouts.

 

Shocking!!!!

 

 

Now picture those pieces photocopied, the color altered slightly or not at all, but blown up to 10 times their size and Bang...you got yourself a Lichtenstein. lol

 

There's using layouts from which you create a piece of art where none existed before and then there's taking, wholesale, from another artist and then later ignoring his existence utterly.

 

It's several layers of insult heaped upon insult for someone with whom he shared the same profession.

 

I can't compare Michelangelo to this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an artist were to blow up a picture of the Mona Lisa, then copy let's say everything from her eyes to her smile and leaving out the rest, and finally call it an original work, what would the art world say? I think there would be a lot of flaming and accusations of theft tossed around.

 

This is no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. And I just spent an hour watching YouTube videos of Hockney and his optics guru looking for links t post here thinking we'd branch into more interesting directions ,.. And you still just wanna blast Lichtenstein!

 

Sigh. Sure he copied the comics. He never claimed not to. It was found objects of no importance to him other than as raw material and the source of inspiration.

 

For me, that's fine. He created an extension of what those panels were. You seem to feel he owes them money or something. I think he say to them that hey didn't value it UNTIL he'd made those little panels famous!! That without his efforts an cleverness, not even we comics fans would ever single ou those panels as ANYTHING worth even a second reading.

 

They are now a part of art history. Have any of the comics artists ever expressed anything over than a flush of indirect fame? Any lawsuits?

Edited by aman619

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee. And I just spent an hour watching YouTube videos of Hockney and his optics guru looking for links t post here thinking we'd branch into more interesting directions ,.. And you still just wanna blast Lichtenstein!

 

Sigh. Sure he copied the comics. He never claimed not to. It was found objects of no importance to him other than as raw material and the source of inspiration.

 

For me, that's fine. He created an extension of what those panels were. You seem to feel he owes them money or something. I think he say to them that hey didn't value it UNTIL he'd made those little panels famous!! That without his efforts an cleverness, not even we comics fans would ever single ou those panels as ANYTHING worth even a second reading.

 

They are now a part of art history. Have any of the comics artists ever expressed anything over than a flush of indirect fame? Any lawsuits?

 

 

Sigh. The original comic artists deserve credit, in the first line of the piece's description as the original artist of the piece. That's NOT happening. That's what they deserve. What EGO in fine art circles that a piece of art is worthless because it didn't sell for millions until made into a "gallery piece". The hubris.

 

He owes credit where credit is due. And there's plenty of information out there where the original artists of those panels (many copied line for line) were not only given zero attribution being the real creators of those pieces but denied that they had anything to do with the piece at all.

 

"efforts and cleverness" lol I noticed you didn't say "talent and skill" or "inspiration and originality"... he isn't the first person to take something that someone else created and put his name on it. What spin.

 

Regardless of the pieces he sold being worth millions or pennies it doesn't make the art any more his than it did when it was published in those comics that got copied and pasted.

 

Many of the artists he took from are long since gone, and none of them had or have the resources that the "fine art world" heaped upon Roy.

 

Those comic artists owned the copyright to those images the moment the ink hit the art board.....the presence or lack thereof of a lawsuit makes not one bit of difference in that immutable fact.

 

The only difference between something being "inspiration" or "cleverness" and instead being "copied and pasted" or "xeroxed" might just be how many monied individuals decide it to be so. I refuse to let other people make up my mind for me on something so clear and convincing.

 

These original artists have not been given their proper due, credit and attribution, that's never happened. In most cases it's been completely denied that they even existed. It would diminish the locomotive that are Lichtenstein's art prices, so there's no reason to show these people, checkbooks in hand, where this original artwork came from and that there's more than one creator responsible for the piece..

Share this post


Link to post
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
2 2