• 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

10 hours ago, chrisco37 said:

Have to do some night work in DC this evening.  Got into the city early and had some time to kill.  Decided to “pop” into the NGA and take a few pics for the thread.

 

DE8A2E85-1B4F-484B-8477-460186262866.jpeg

 

Quick, someone tell one of the Board Crusaders to help protect the poor oppressed Walt Disney Corporation against this theft of their IP! :ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2018 at 12:21 PM, comix4fun said:

Yet not as poorly executed. Which is why I had to point out the choices given as a demonstration of how much Renoir sucks weren't a genuine cross-section of his life's work. 

Every artist has a good day, a bad day, a healthy day, a sick day. 

Execution?   Who cares? :D

........worrying about the execution on a famous Renoir or a Lichty is a little bit like worrying about a wonky kneecap on a Kirby FF cover.   It don't matter! :o   You appreciate and value the art for other reasons!

Art at this level isn't a talent competition.   Its a popularity contest.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK!  So, I picked up a couple of the comic books just for fun to compare the book art to the Lichtenstein art.  Comic art credit to Mike Sekowsky on the "Kiss With Cloud" and Jack Abel on "Torpedo Los".

Alternatively, the comics.org database now credits the Kiss With Cloud art to Bernard Sachs.

 

Image.jpg

lichtkisswithcloud.jpg

Image.jpg

 

lichtpiano.jpg

lichttorpedolos.jpg

lichttorpedolosbig.jpg

Edited by aokartman
art credit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's anything original at all about the compositions.   OK, they are slightly modified.  But hardly original.

That said, it was the 1960s and framing pop culture and or advertising materials as fine art WAS novel.   The originality of it is more in concept... scale... deliberately retaining the ben day dots... those sorts of choices.  

I know you know all that... just observing, because its the nature of this whole debate... some will say he changed nothing, and they are right.   And some will say he was a trailblazer, and they are right.   Its all in whether you value the rendering for the sake of rendering or whether you value the concept/context/framing etc.

Personally, I've come to value both, although if I had to pick one.... you know I pick context first.   After all, if most of us didn't care about context we wouldn't limit ourselves to comic art (yes yes I know you like all sorts Michael.   But most do not look beyond men in capes).

Which implies, to my surprise, I'm more on the Lichty side of the debate, these days.    In fact, it implies almost of all of us should be, if we think this through rationally and calmly without the 'OMG that guy got rich off poor comic artists' nonsense.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, vodou said:

Nice share.

From what I'm seeing, the originals are clearly referenced but not slavishly copied...making Lichtenstein considerably more original than the multitude of comic artists making an industry of light-boxed recreations.

But inferior artist to the original he is copying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bronty said:

I don't think there's anything original at all about the compositions.   OK, they are slightly modified.  But hardly original.

That said, it was the 1960s and framing pop culture and or advertising materials as fine art WAS novel.   The originality of it is more in concept... scale... deliberately retaining the ben day dots... those sorts of choices.  

I know you know all that... just observing, because its the nature of this whole debate... some will say he changed nothing, and they are right.   And some will say he was a trailblazer, and they are right.   Its all in whether you value the rendering for the sake of rendering or whether you value the concept/context/framing etc.

Personally, I've come to value both, although if I had to pick one.... you know I pick context first.   After all, if most of us didn't care about context we wouldn't limit ourselves to comic art (yes yes I know you like all sorts Michael.   But most do not look beyond men in capes).

Which implies, to my surprise, I'm more on the Lichty side of the debate, these days.    In fact, it implies almost of all of us should be, if we think this through rationally and calmly without the 'OMG that guy got rich off poor comic artists' nonsense.

No he was a thief and a bad artist period!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

No he was a thief and a bad artist period!

If he was a comic book artist, I'd agree.   But he wasn't trying to draw comic books, was he?    He was looking at commercial art and presenting it as fine, which hadn't been done before.   To be clear, I don't think of that as a very 'deep' observation, or as particularly enlightened or as really needing that much skill.    But much like many average comic artists  that have 'comic book fame' because of the place and time, because of the movement they were part of, so too was he part of an important movement, and frankly on a much grander scale than comics.  You can't erase him from the history books.    I don't see it as 'deep' but the blend between commercial art and fine art into pop art is still everywhere, all the time.   Its a big deal and he was at the leading edge of it. 

Anyone who respects half the SA marvel or dc stables but doesn't respect Lichty isn't thinking straight.   The only reason a lot of those guys are known is because of the place and time they were working.   That's it.  No more, no less.    And if you allow that argument for them - that simply being part of an important place and time is enough - then you have to allow it for Lichty as well.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bronty said:

I don't think there's anything original at all about the compositions.   OK, they are slightly modified.  But hardly original.

I find the choices made in LOS to be much better than the original, the redesign of both faces being the most prominent. The other pieces/choice, less so. But still good imo, and that's where I'm coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Anyone who respects half the marvel or dc stables but doesn't respect Lichty isn't thinking straight.   The only reason a lot of those guys are known is because of the place and time they were working.   That's it.  No more, no less.    And if you allow that argument for them, you have to allow it for Lichty.

Just writing to write here, but...I have great difficulty with most Big Two artists when stripped of their corporate branded characters and storylines. The "art" itself, that which the artist added to what already existed before they were given the job, often atrocious. Lichtenstein isn't particularly better either...as you correctly note, it's that he did came from fine art and did them as fine art pieces that made the difference. Right place at the right time, essentially. Same with Warhol and most of the rest of the movement (giant inflatable plastic telephone anyone?!)

The monstrous irony is that NYC fine art found comic art to be "art" before the hobby did. I love that. And that they still largely ignore comic art otherwise, 55 years later...icing on the cake!

I mean...twenty years after art returns began, you could still give most everything but the most obvious examples of comic art away for the equivalent of a dinner date and movie for two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bronty said:

I don't think there's anything original at all about the compositions.   OK, they are slightly modified.  But hardly original.

That said, it was the 1960s and framing pop culture and or advertising materials as fine art WAS novel.   The originality of it is more in concept... scale... deliberately retaining the ben day dots... those sorts of choices.  

I know you know all that... just observing, because its the nature of this whole debate... some will say he changed nothing, and they are right.   And some will say he was a trailblazer, and they are right.   Its all in whether you value the rendering for the sake of rendering or whether you value the concept/context/framing etc.

Personally, I've come to value both, although if I had to pick one.... you know I pick context first.   After all, if most of us didn't care about context we wouldn't limit ourselves to comic art (yes yes I know you like all sorts Michael.   But most do not look beyond men in capes).

Which implies, to my surprise, I'm more on the Lichty side of the debate, these days.    In fact, it implies almost of all of us should be, if we think this through rationally and calmly without the 'OMG that guy got rich off poor comic artists' nonsense.

I think he did more than that. He flattened the illustrations to emphasize the simplicity of the basic form which makes them appealing (and commercial). He did so by brightening the colors and changing the shading, but also by simplifying the lines, limiting the dialog, and adding a few things. You knew who the bad guy was because he has a scar on his face (unlike the original). "Torpedo...Los" says it all.

Think C.C. Beck vs. Mac Raboy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Compson said:

..but the article does contain this jaw-dropping anecdote:  “Novick was an officer at the army boot camp where Lichtenstein trained during the Second World War. After spotting Lichtenstein’s talent as a draughtsman, Novick took him off latrine-mopping duty and got him designing signs and posters instead. . . . [T]wo decades later Lichtenstein returned the favour by immortalising one of Novick’s panels as a masterpiece of modern art.”

New to me, pretty good share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 6:25 PM, aokartman said:

OK!  So, I picked up a couple of the comic books just for fun to compare the book art to the Lichtenstein art.  Comic art credit to Mike Sekowsky on the "Kiss With Cloud" and Jack Abel on "Torpedo Los".

Alternatively, the comics.org database now credits the Kiss With Cloud art to Bernard Sachs.

 

Image.jpg

lichtkisswithcloud.jpg

Image.jpg

 

lichtpiano.jpg

lichttorpedolos.jpg

lichttorpedolosbig.jpg

It looks like Lichtenstein got Vinnie Colleta to ink his versions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It pretty much boils down to an Emperor’s new clothes scenario.  There are always those that pretend to “get it” when it comes to fine art in an effort to enhance their own sense of sophistication.  And it was that very group that both Lichtenstein and Warhol consciously mocked by creating the work they did.  With a few exceptions, these guys didn’t have anything profound or important to communicate to their audience.  They didn’t even like their audience that much.  They just wanted to get paid so they could live as they pleased.

Personally, I’d take a Russ Heath original page over a Lichtenstein panel any day.  It would mean more to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

It pretty much boils down to an Emperor’s new clothes scenario.  There are always those that pretend to “get it” when it comes to fine art in an effort to enhance their own sense of sophistication.  And it was that very group that both Lichtenstein and Warhol consciously mocked by creating the work they did.  With a few exceptions, these guys didn’t have anything profound or important to communicate to their audience.  They didn’t even like their audience that much.  They just wanted to get paid so they could live as they pleased.

Personally, I’d take a Russ Heath original page over a Lichtenstein panel any day.  It would mean more to me.

While I would agree that they are not sophisticated, they are a lot of fun. What's wrong with art that's just fun? Knowing itheir origins makes them better, but not knowing them doesn't change the fact that they are vibrant, colorful and witty commentaries. Honestly, I would rather look at them than Girl With a Pearl Earring. This hobby at its core, involves fun art, A man dressed in a bat costume punching a person dressed in a bad clown outfit is never going to be treated as "fine art" no matter how well it is done.

Heath is good, but for the wall, I would take Lichtenstein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

While I would agree that they are not sophisticated, they are a lot of fun. What's wrong with art that's just fun? Knowing itheir origins makes them better, but not knowing them doesn't change the fact that they are vibrant, colorful and witty commentaries. Honestly, I would rather look at them than Girl With a Pearl Earring. This hobby at its core, involves fun art, A man dressed in a bat costume punching a person dressed in a bad clown outfit is never going to be treated as "fine art" no matter how well it is done.

Heath is good, but for the wall, I would take Lichtenstein.

Sure.  Clearly, a lot of people with way too much money feel the same way as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

Sure.  Clearly, a lot of people with way too much money feel the same way as you.

GIven that the 1950s art scene was from what little I know governed by non-representational abstraction, I wonder if gallerygoers and critics in the 1960s reacted positively to pop art out of sheer joy to look at something they could understand :insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

Sure.  Clearly, a lot of people with way too much money feel the same way as you.

So, you want to define not just "what is art", but what is "good art", by deciding if you don't like it, then it must be bad and overpriced as well? Seems a little presumptuous to me.

Price does not define quality, although a high price means it has a high level of market interest. For example, there are some excellent comic artists whose works are not particularly expensive.

 

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