Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" 1 1

[adamstrange]

 

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

There should at least be a nod in there somewhere to Russ Heath

[The Voord]

'The Tate', as seen in the video, is The Tate Gallery situated on Liverpool's waterfront, here in the UK.  They staged a Lichtenstein exhibition earlier this year that, sadly, I was totally unaware of at the time.  Pity, as I'm only half-an-hour's travel time away and would have paid a visit . . . 

No claims on being a Lichtenstein fan but I've slowly been coming round to having more of an interest in his contributions to the art world.

 

[Brian Peck]

1 hour ago, The Voord said:

'The Tate', as seen in the video, is The Tate Gallery situated on Liverpool's waterfront, here in the UK.  They staged a Lichtenstein exhibition earlier this year that, sadly, I was totally unaware of at the time.  Pity, as I'm only half-an-hour's travel time away and would have paid a visit . . . 

No claims on being a Lichtenstein fan but I've slowly been coming round to having more of an interest in his contributions to the art world.

 

Thievery is NOT contributing to the art world.

[The Voord]

7 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

Thievery is NOT contributing to the art world.

I wouldn't disagree with your sentiments, Brian, but like him or loathe him his work is out there so difficult to ignore.  As I said, I don't class myself as a fan.

[Brian Peck]

12 minutes ago, The Voord said:

I wouldn't disagree with your sentiments, Brian, but like him or loathe him his work is out there so difficult to ignore.  As I said, I don't class myself as a fan.

Like a pile of s h i t on the sidewalk, its hard to ignore but you walk around it.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Brian Peck

[delekkerste]

14 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

Thievery is NOT contributing to the art world.

My pal, comics historian Arlen Schumer, on the Lichtenstein criticism (cribbed from another thread from several years ago; needless to say, I agree with him):

Here we go again! Dean, the "blame" for Russ Heath's old-age situation should be placed where it belongs: not at Lichtenstein, who made legitimate fine art out of Heath's found-art, commercial panel (the very definition of pop art), but at the very comic companies who used Heath as a full-time freelancer, and never paid royalties or benefits or anything that longtime company employers should provide workers like Heath who gave their best years, blood, sweat and tears to them. Instead, we get the usual boogeyman-blaming of Lichtenstein. OK, so maybe back in his early years Lichtenstein should've credited his sources (his Estate credits them in shows & catalogs now)--but no one was doing that back then, or in the early years of music sampling either. But in NO WAY does Lichtenstein owe ANY of his comic book sources ANYTHING. Blame DC and Marvel Comics for never doing the right thing by their artists or writers.

Again, let's separate what RL "should've" done from what he "had" to do, and still "has" to do, legally, ethically and morally. Led Zeppelin didn't credit the blues songs they "covered" for their 1st album in 1969 (credited as Page-Plant "originals") until they were hauled into court decades later. 

Roy Lichtenstein's work is the VERY DEFINITION of pop art itself: the idea that everyday objects and motifs/ideas/forms from our commercial and popular culture environment could be legitimate areas of artistic study and exploration as valid as the more traditional ones of the "natural" world (landscapes and still lifes) and the inner imagination (abstract expressionism). Lichtenstein chose the world of comic art for his particular pop art, and produced a body of work that turned out to be his life's work. Through his artistic transformation of his "found" art subject matter (what Pop shared with the Dadaist/surrealists like Duchamp)--not the pejorative of "tracing comic panels," "ripping them off," etc.--Lichtenstein explored many of the most classic artistic subjects of culture, society, relationships, image, identity, perception--and art itself, in a complete turning inside-out of the art-imitates-life-imitates-art moebius strip that both confounded and won over art critics, and is the source of a kind of humor in his work.

Edited November 28, 2018 by delekkerste

[comix4fun]

44 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

My pal, comics historian Arlen Schumer, on the Lichtenstein criticism (cribbed from another thread from several years ago; needless to say, I agree with him):

Here we go again! Dean, the "blame" for Russ Heath's old-age situation should be placed where it belongs: not at Lichtenstein, who made legitimate fine art out of Heath's found-art, commercial panel (the very definition of pop art), but at the very comic companies who used Heath as a full-time freelancer, and never paid royalties or benefits or anything that longtime company employers should provide workers like Heath who gave their best years, blood, sweat and tears to them. Instead, we get the usual boogeyman-blaming of Lichtenstein. OK, so maybe back in his early years Lichtenstein should've credited his sources (his Estate credits them in shows & catalogs now)--but no one was doing that back then, or in the early years of music sampling either. But in NO WAY does Lichtenstein owe ANY of his comic book sources ANYTHING. Blame DC and Marvel Comics for never doing the right thing by their artists or writers.

Again, let's separate what RL "should've" done from what he "had" to do, and still "has" to do, legally, ethically and morally. Led Zeppelin didn't credit the blues songs they "covered" for their 1st album in 1969 (credited as Page-Plant "originals") until they were hauled into court decades later. 

Roy Lichtenstein's work is the VERY DEFINITION of pop art itself: the idea that everyday objects and motifs/ideas/forms from our commercial and popular culture environment could be legitimate areas of artistic study and exploration as valid as the more traditional ones of the "natural" world (landscapes and still lifes) and the inner imagination (abstract expressionism). Lichtenstein chose the world of comic art for his particular pop art, and produced a body of work that turned out to be his life's work. Through his artistic transformation of his "found" art subject matter (what Pop shared with the Dadaist/surrealists like Duchamp)--not the pejorative of "tracing comic panels," "ripping them off," etc.--Lichtenstein explored many of the most classic artistic subjects of culture, society, relationships, image, identity, perception--and art itself, in a complete turning inside-out of the art-imitates-life-imitates-art moebius strip that both confounded and won over art critics, and is the source of a kind of humor in his work.

 

Maybe?....MAYBE?......MAYBE!?!?!? Maybe he should have credited his sources? Maybe?!

And comparing other infringing incidents & appropriations to Lichtenstein as if it makes either correct simply because the other also exists causes a logic-failure-migraine. 

The second section in bold....what a wonderfully dismissive way to lump in a rock sitting in a park or a rainbow in the sky or a flower growing up from a crack in the sidewalk with someone's artistic creation and intellectual property. 

If someone created something from their imagination, skill and profession it's not a "found object". It's not some natural formation of erosion and environment, it's someone else's work, created intentionally and personally. 

My goodness the complex linguistic contortions people engage in to excuse a relatively straightforward and simple appropriation of someone else's work without attribution, deference, respect or compensation.

Given the dubious origins of the entire Lichtenstein art market (and most pop artists of the time, frankly), why should we assume anything high-minded, altruistic, and pure about the appropriation of other's work into the movement? 

Why would a market created out of fraud, artifice, and false facade have its pieces be considered any greater or more worthy than the origins of its market indicate?

Edited November 28, 2018 by comix4fun

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

You know how many conversations Lichtenstein had with Heath? Not one. Ever. Credit aside, what about common decency 

[comix4fun]

Just now, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

You know how many conversations Lichtenstein had with Heath? Not one. Ever. Credit aside, what about common decency 

Exactly, it's not about getting paid, it's about respect. To treat Heath's work (and Buscema's, etc. etc.) as if it was something pulled from a dumpster, garbage to be "transformed" by the delicate artistic genius into something "worthy" of study, appreciation, and display is  a level of cognitive dissonance (the piece speaks enough to the human condition to be "elevated" to true art but the creator is not worthy to be credited or even spoken to regarding its use) that belies the assumed level of education of those 60's-70's hipster, cigarette-holder using, champagne flute swigging, gallery rats that determined Lichtenstein was "art" and pieces he took were "garbage". 

[PhilipB2k17]

But, what if Lichtenstein turned still shots from porno films into "art?"

Hey...wait a minute. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[PhilipB2k17]

45 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

 

Maybe?....MAYBE?......MAYBE!?!?!? Maybe he should have credited his sources? Maybe?!

And comparing other infringing incidents & appropriations to Lichtenstein as if it makes either correct simply because the other also exists causes a logic-failure-migraine. 

The second section in bold....what a wonderfully dismissive way to lump in a rock sitting in a park or a rainbow in the sky or a flower growing up from a crack in the sidewalk with someone's artistic creation and intellectual property. 

If someone created something from their imagination, skill and profession it's not a "found object". It's not some natural formation of erosion and environment, it's someone else's work, created intentionally and personally. 

My goodness the complex linguistic contortions people engage in to excuse a relatively straightforward and simple appropriation of someone else's work without attribution, deference, respect or compensation.

Given the dubious origins of the entire Lichtenstein art market (and most pop artists of the time, frankly), why should we assume anything high-minded, altruistic, and pure about the appropriation of other's work into the movement? 

Why would a market created out of fraud, artifice, and false facade have its pieces be considered any greater or more worthy than the origins of its market indicate?

Did Andy Warhol fail to give credit to the person who designed the Campbell Soup Can trade dress? 

[comix4fun]

Just now, PhilipB2k17 said:

But, what if Lichtenstein turned still shots from porno films into "art?"

Hey...wait a minute. 

That's a totally different "WHAAM!!"

"Lichtenstein After Dark"™

[PhilipB2k17]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

That's a totally different "WHAAM!!"

"Lichtenstein After Dark"™

Lichtenstein's lost work, "WHAAM!! BAAM!! THANK YOU, MA'AM!!"

Edited November 28, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[chrisco37]

1 minute ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Did Andy Warhol fail to give credit to the person who designed the Campbell Soup Can trade dress? 

Beat me to it.   

Did he get permission from them to use their design?  (I don't know the answer to this or not).

What about all his famous silk-screens of various celebrities?   Did he take the photo of Monroe that he used to create the image?   (Again, I don't know the answer here). 

[Brian Peck]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

My pal, comics historian Arlen Schumer, on the Lichtenstein criticism (cribbed from another thread from several years ago; needless to say, I agree with him):

Here we go again! Dean, the "blame" for Russ Heath's old-age situation should be placed where it belongs: not at Lichtenstein, who made legitimate fine art out of Heath's found-art, commercial panel (the very definition of pop art), but at the very comic companies who used Heath as a full-time freelancer, and never paid royalties or benefits or anything that longtime company employers should provide workers like Heath who gave their best years, blood, sweat and tears to them. Instead, we get the usual boogeyman-blaming of Lichtenstein. OK, so maybe back in his early years Lichtenstein should've credited his sources (his Estate credits them in shows & catalogs now)--but no one was doing that back then, or in the early years of music sampling either. But in NO WAY does Lichtenstein owe ANY of his comic book sources ANYTHING. Blame DC and Marvel Comics for never doing the right thing by their artists or writers.

Again, let's separate what RL "should've" done from what he "had" to do, and still "has" to do, legally, ethically and morally. Led Zeppelin didn't credit the blues songs they "covered" for their 1st album in 1969 (credited as Page-Plant "originals") until they were hauled into court decades later. 

Roy Lichtenstein's work is the VERY DEFINITION of pop art itself: the idea that everyday objects and motifs/ideas/forms from our commercial and popular culture environment could be legitimate areas of artistic study and exploration as valid as the more traditional ones of the "natural" world (landscapes and still lifes) and the inner imagination (abstract expressionism). Lichtenstein chose the world of comic art for his particular pop art, and produced a body of work that turned out to be his life's work. Through his artistic transformation of his "found" art subject matter (what Pop shared with the Dadaist/surrealists like Duchamp)--not the pejorative of "tracing comic panels," "ripping them off," etc.--Lichtenstein explored many of the most classic artistic subjects of culture, society, relationships, image, identity, perception--and art itself, in a complete turning inside-out of the art-imitates-life-imitates-art moebius strip that both confounded and won over art critics, and is the source of a kind of humor in his work.

That has NOTHING to do with my issue. He isn't a great artist he is a HACK!!!!!! He can not draw worth s h i t!!!! Very poor copies. He rode his success by just copying (badly) other artists.

[comix4fun]

Just now, chrisco37 said:

Beat me to it.   

Did he get permission from them to use their design?  (I don't know the answer to this or not).

What about all his famous silk-screens of various celebrities?   Did he take the photo of Monroe that he used to create the image?   (Again, I don't know the answer here). 

Campbell's issue would be more trademark based and may not have given rise to an action as it didn't bring a detriment to the value of the mark and acted more like free advertising for it. 

Copyright would have failed for most given the timing. The Soup Cans were completed in 1962-63. The then current laws would have carried copyright for 28 years from creation with 1 28 year renewal period. The first soup cans by Campbell with that image remained for the most part unchanged from 1898 forward. Copyright would have expired by the mid-50's. All that was left was potential trademark protection. Campbell Soup was, frankly. thrilled with the attention for a, then, 65 year old product seen as a boring staple.

 

 

[Brian Peck]

7 minutes ago, chrisco37 said:

Beat me to it.   

Did he get permission from them to use their design?  (I don't know the answer to this or not).

What about all his famous silk-screens of various celebrities?   Did he take the photo of Monroe that he used to create the image?   (Again, I don't know the answer here). 

Warhol printed the images then altered them. No original drawings. You can only really compare Warhol to Lichtenstein, if Lichtenstein made exact printed copies of the panels not redrawing them. 

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

Comix4fun, you are on time here. Good work

[PhilipB2k17]

1 minute ago, Brian Peck said:

Warhol printed the images then altered them. No original drawings. You can only really compare Warhol to Lichtenstein, if Lichtenstein made exact printed copies of the panels not redrawing them. 

Lichtenstein altered them. He changed the color scheme, for one, and removed some of the other images. But you do wonder why he didn't "sample" a Peanuts or Li'l Abner comic strip. Oh, I know why, he thought (correctly) he could get away with sampling anonymous comic book art, but not Snoopy.