• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Lichtenstein's "Whaam!"
1 1

280 posts in this topic

Just now, vodou said:

Communicating in absolutes is dangerous. I think you know this. Your choice, call me a liar (absolute, as I'm absolutely claiming the opposite) or allow that so much (nearly everything) about 44 (I originally typed 42, that would have been your gotcha! moment :) ) rise to power was not the usual, including being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before...well doing anything we usually associate with that award, and also "they don't do" (another absolute, as it's not followed by "usually" or similar) being violated. Trust me, it really was as I wrote but...that became an embarrassment for the Smithsonian so, voila!, fixed :)

Maybe it was the Russians?

And fyi, granting you the win is not the same as admitting a mistake. It's called a concession :)

Dealing in absolutes is taking someone correcting your error and deeming that they must accept your version and if they don't they are calling you a "liar". As if you can't be wrong regarding this detail. Or that you can't be correct that they acquired it but incorrect about it being the official portrait.

I don't need to "gotcha" anyone on a typo, just correcting a mistake you made. Not calling you a liar. 

There hasn't been a sitting president in the last 45 years (as far back as I looked) that got his official Smithsonian portrait before his last year or leaving office. I gave you facts about when each piece was commissioned. In none of the last 7 administrations have they had a official portrait commissioned before the end months, or after of an administration. 

They have acquired images, sculptures and other objects of art relating to presidents over the years, like the Hope piece, none of them are the official portrait either. 

I mentioned that I can agree they acquired it for their National Portrait Gallery collection, no doubt (like the Ford sculpture and other pieces), they just have NOT used anything other than specifically commissioned portraits made explicitly to be the official Presidential Portrait in at least the last 45 years, and 7 administrations. 

Emoji, belittle, or exaggerate if you choose, you've made far more of your error than should have been had you just said "oops" and moved on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours 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.

I was FB friends with Arlen for a short while but found him to be  too self-opinionated and volatile . . .  if you happen to disagree with him (so had to un-friend due to one or two heated clashes over the most trivial of matters).

Anyways, we're now back to discussing Lichtenstein.  Did he ever go away?

I must admit (as intimated earlier in this thread), I'm coming round to showing more of an interest in his work.  In all honesty, I don't really class myself as a fan - but he certainly left his mark on the art world, so is difficult to ignore . . . but perhaps worthy of further study.  

Edited by The Voord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Emoji, belittle, or exaggerate if you choose, you've made far more of your error than should have been had you just said "oops" and moved on. 

I've been a market-maker in Shepard Fairey (darling of the Left) since 2005. Not an error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Voord said:

Anyways, we're now back to discussing Lichtenstein.  Did he ever go away?

Not certain what you mean by "go away" but his work fell out of favor in the late 80s to early 90s and as a result he resorted to revisiting what did sell way back and became self-derivative in his dotage. Not a fan of his Reflections series...

roy-lichtenstein-screenprint-reflections

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you think it was war imagery that put Lichtenstein over the top?  or maybe something else?

and talking about poor old Heath - what about Tony Abruzzo, Lichtenstein's real go to guy for swipes

from Robin Snyder:  "I have been looking for this fellow for over 30 years. He is the great lost mystery man of the comics. Tony worked for National for about 20 years and no one could tell me his name when I uncovered a huge number of pages of his original artwork during my tour of duty there. I advertised for help and asked everyone at the company. No one knew or cared."

 

 

Edited by Dr. Love
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, The Voord said:

I must admit (as intimated earlier in this thread), I'm coming round to showing more of an interest in his work.  In all honesty, I don't really class myself as a fan - but he certainly left his mark on the art world, so is difficult to ignore . . . but perhaps worthy of further study.  

I applaud your open-mindedness. (thumbsu

So, in an alternate reality, Roy Lichtenstein goes to DC Comics in 1962 asking them if he can reproduce individual panels from random genre (no trademarked characters) comics for an art series he is doing.  They say sure, sign this form, pay this $25 fee and maybe it would be nice to mention the artist in the gallery description.  Or, maybe they just say "don't care, do what you want".  It is 1962 after all.  Pretty unlikely that they have any real opposition to it - and, if they did, would the world be a better place if the art had never been done?  Emphatically, no, just no. 

So, in this alternate reality, where Lichtenstein went through the "proper legal channels" and played nice, do Chris and Brian like the art?  Keep in mind that nobody in this alternate universe cares either that the artwork came from Irv Novick, Russ Heath, etc., even if these artists were credited from the outset, and they haven't earned a dime in extra money (DC having collected what was probably a negligible licensing fee of some sort for itself; keep in mind that Lichtenstein hadn't even had a solo gallery show at this point). 

So, aside from Roy looking like a nice guy, and comic fans being less aggrieved about "their" artists not having gotten any respect from him, nothing has essentially changed in this alternate reality.  And, the question is:  in this universe, do all the Lichtenstein-haters like the art any better?  Brian has already weighed in saying that he hates the art even putting all the source referencing controversy aside.  If you still don't care for the art even under the premise that Roy was a swell guy (and there's really no evidence that he wasn't a swell guy)...well, then, maybe it's people's tastes in art that is the bigger issue. 2c 

Edited by delekkerste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, Stan Lee was tickled pink by the fact that Warhol and Lichtenstein were swiping comics panels, and turning them into "Art." So much so, he started calling Marvel "Marvel Pop Art Productions" and put that trade dress on many covers in the early 60's. 

7cb016b7b10d814f8c6bf740e35aa271.jpg

But, there was a fan backlash, which led to:

Image result for Marvel Pop Art productions

Edited by PhilipB2k17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Keep in mind, Stan Lee was tickled pink by the fact that Warhol and Lichtenstein were swiping comics panels, and turning them into "Art." So much so, he started calling Marvel "Marvel Pop Art Productions" and put that trade dress on many covers in the early 60's. 

7cb016b7b10d814f8c6bf740e35aa271.jpg

But, there was a fan backlash, which led to:

Image result for Marvel Pop Art productions

A few years ago "surfer99" created this checklist.

The Amazing Spiderman 28

The Amazing Spiderman 29

The Amazing Spiderman 30

The Amazing Spiderman 31

The Avengers 19, Vista Publications

The Avengers 20, Vista Publications

The Avengers 21, Vista Publications

The Avengers 22, Vista Publications

Daredevil 9

Daredevil 10

Fantastic Four 42, Canam Publishers Sales Corp

Fantastic Four 43, Canam Publishers Sales Corp

Fantastic Four 44, Canam Publishers Sales Corp

Fantastic Four 45, Canam Publishers Sales Corp

Journey Into Mystery 119, Atlas Magazines, Inc.

Journey Into Mystery 120, Atlas Magazines, Inc.

Journey Into Mystery 121, Atlas Magazines, Inc.

Journey Into Mystery 122, Atlas Magazines, Inc.

Sgt. Fury 21, Bard Publishing Corp

Sgt. Fury 22, Bard Publishing Corp

Tales to Astonish 71

X-men 13, Canam Publishers Sales Corp

X-men 14, Canam Publishers Sales Corp

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2018 at 11:08 AM, delekkerste said:

Lichtenstein, who made legitimate fine art out of Heath's found-art, commercial panel

What is fine art?  Who came up with the definition?  How do we know it's right?

Once you have trouble answering those questions, and you should, then you'll have difficulty seeing Lichtenstein's art as anything other than derivative of Heath's and that Heath is worthy of acknowledgement for his contribution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

What is fine art?  Who came up with the definition?  How do we know it's right?

Once you have trouble answering those questions, and you should, then you'll have difficulty seeing Lichtenstein's art as anything other than derivative of Heath's and that Heath is worthy of acknowledgement for his contribution. 

"Fine Art" is the code name for charging alot of money for artwork

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2018 at 12:19 PM, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

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

Some flunky did invite Heath to help honor Lichtenstein at a NYC gala.  Of course he have to pay his on way from LA.  They had trouble understanding why Heath wasn't thrilled with the idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

Some flunky did invite Heath to help honor Lichtenstein at a NYC gala.  Of course he have to pay his on way from LA.  They had trouble understanding why Heath wasn't thrilled with the idea...

I can just image what Russ said to the guy about honoring someone who stole his artwork. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to show you some original art by Russ Heath.  It really surprised me when I saw it.  The attitudes of the 2 individuals in the picture were so funny that I just had to get it.  It now hangs in my living room, and my wife loves telling everyone that that's the way it is here in our household . . .

AfricanAmerican couple.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tth2 said:

With respect to art in the 20th century, I would say that it is art that is not made for commercial purposes or for a salary or commission. 

So you used the word "art" so your definition is circular.  What is then meant by "art" in your definition of "fine art?"

Is there a different definition for what fine art is with respect to work produced in the 19th Century?  What about the 21st Century?  What is it about the period that requires a different definition?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

So you used the word "art" so your definition is circular.  What is then meant by "art" in your definition of "fine art?"

 

I thought the focus of your question was on the word "fine", as opposed to "art".  I have no idea how to define "art" nor do I feel any need to.  

5 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

Is there a different definition for what fine art is with respect to work produced in the 19th Century?  What about the 21st Century?  What is it about the period that requires a different definition?

 

I think there is, because it is contingent on the practices of a period.  Historically, "fine art" was produced for compensation (e.g., many Renaissance works that we would certainly consider to be "fine art" were done as commissions from a client or a patron). 

But this changed.  Whether that change was in the 20th century or earlier is not the point of this discussion.  I specifically referred to the 20th century because that's the relevant time period for Lichtenstein and Heath, and I feel comfortable in applying my definition to the 20th century (and yes, the 21st century, although again, that's not the time frame we're talking about here).  

Link to comment
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
1 1