Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" 1 1

[Brian Peck]

Screw philosophy, a thief is a thief. Just because some people overlook that part of some "artists" doesn't mean it isn't true. 

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Brian Peck said:

Screw philosophy, ...

Deep thinker

[aokartman]

In my college years, my art professor suggested that if you tested and made slight alterations to known formulas, the new result became your own.  This may have been flawed advice, but I note that it did encourage productivity without the haunting spectre of being cast as a copyist.

Sadly, he was completely, and flawlessly, copied in a senior year project gallery show, which caused quite a stir.

[vodou]

19 minutes ago, aokartman said:

In my college years, my art professor suggested that if you tested and made slight alterations to known formulas, the new result became your own.  This may have been flawed advice, but I note that it did encourage productivity without the haunting spectre of being cast as a copyist.

Sadly, he was completely, and flawlessly, copied in a senior year project gallery show, which caused quite a stir.

Good story. It's a shame that nobody trusts the marketplace (broadly) to sniff out the fakes and those that don't want that will find the real thing (that's all of us here right? - we don't like or value prints and posters!) The rest that would buy the copies very likely wouldn't ever have cared for or cared to know of different. (Um, that's all of Fine Art, the folks spending MILLIONS on Lichtenstein never caring then or now about "where" he referenced -or stole if one prefers -from. Meanwhile...the "release" of IP stranglehold would open the door as wide as can be for experimentation and innovation. The consumer marketplace would be infinitely richer for it. It also would ultimately choose the winners and losers too.

And artists, of whatever stripe, would continue to make art...because, if you've ever talked to a real one, they kind of have to. It's not an occupation, it's a way of life.

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

I agree. If Lichtenstein had been in the literary field and copying other people's stories, essays etc and just moving some words around or bolding or underlining some words he would have been sued and labeled a thief. But people let it slide because its just comic book art. Sad. 

So Andy Warhol is also a plagerist for his soup cans, et al.?

Besides if you look closely at the images, they are not the same at all. What Lichtenstein did was to augment the the actual images, modify the shades and eliminate some seemingly small parts which had the effect of amplifying the comicy look of the art so you could see what made it fundimentally appealing and fun instead of banal. He isn't trying to create masterworks, just something fun. 

[vodou]

16 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

He isn't trying to create masterworks, just something fun. 

And he and Leo Castelli (his dealer), I'm certain, never envisioned mega-million dollar price tags. That's certainly not what the primary market price of the day was. Of course the rewards of "being Lichtenstein" (branded) did come later and significantly so, but still It's a strange thing: coveting what thy neighbor (Lichtenstein) has not for one's self but for another (Russ Heath, et al). That's what I'm seeing underneath all the moral outrage. Why not just cut out the middle-man and give these guys whatever money any of you sees fit and can afford? And not be so angry over things you otherwise have no control over anyway...

[Rick2you2]

8 hours ago, vodou said:

And he and Leo Castelli (his dealer), I'm certain, never envisioned mega-million dollar price tags. That's certainly not what the primary market price of the day was. Of course the rewards of "being Lichtenstein" (branded) did come later and significantly so, but still It's a strange thing: coveting what thy neighbor (Lichtenstein) has not for one's self but for another (Russ Heath, et al). That's what I'm seeing underneath all the moral outrage. Why not just cut out the middle-man and give these guys whatever money any of you sees fit and can afford? And not be so angry over things you otherwise have no control over anyway...

I'm not sure I am following you, but I think one point is a difference between "fine art" and "sequential art". Sequential art is designed to move a story along, so it is best appreciated in the context of multiple pages with word balloons (oh, I miss those). As a story, there are things going on which are not visible in a snapshot, like secondary story lines, character development, and overall ambience. With fine art, we look at a snapshot, what's there is staring at you, with no next or last page to consult or think about, let alone how the character progresses.

Lichtenstein's work dispels of many of the sequential aspects of the artwork. We know it is part of a story, but he essentially converts a panel in a page to the equivalent of a cover page (which in that sense is similar to fine art on a newstand). Gradations are minimized, subtlety is eliminated, and the artful impact of sequential art becomes the focus of what he does to those panels. That's a reason why Kirby, in my view, is so well liked. His stuff has a lot of impact. Brilliant artists like DeZuniga are not so impactful no matter how good they are as artists.

People like what they like, and it's natural to favor impactful art work. But I remain surprised that the sequential aspect of comic art is not better reflected in the price. A great panel page deserves to be better appreciated. 

[vodou]

21 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

I'm not sure I am following you, but I think one point is a difference between "fine art" and "sequential art".

I was pointing back to those (posting in this thread and similar threads in the past) that are stuck on "stealing" and the like, and what's "due" those unheralded (at the time) sequential artists by Lichtenstein as reparations for his theft. If nothing else they would like to see Fine Art World acknowledgement of this and a turning away from the (perceived) mis-valuation of the follower as greater than the prophet, etc.

Agree that sequential is completely different than standalone, making the panel into a cover (which publishers as early as Charlton re: Ditko, maybe earlier, have bene known to do too!) was his "transformation" (aided by "coverizing" the panel visually as you've described too.

27 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

But I remain surprised that the sequential aspect of comic art is not better reflected in the price. A great panel page deserves to be better appreciated. 

Me too. I vastly prefer a solid panel page to a splash or cover, the "sequences" present are the art-form; not the pin-ups.

[Rick2you2]

58 minutes ago, vodou said:

Me too. I vastly prefer a solid panel page to a splash or cover, the "sequences" present are the art-form; not the pin-ups.

One of the toughest things, I think, is for an artist to turn a 6 panel page into a real work of art, particularly when there is a lot of text.

[vodou]

7 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

One of the toughest things, I think, is for an artist to turn a 6 panel page into a real work of art, particularly when there is a lot of text.

I used to really struggle finding the "art" in sequential art. Then I stepped away from reading and collecting horse-blinders on only Big Two output and into creator-owned...now I get it...and collect it.

It only took me thirty-six years to figure that out

Really insightful read if you have any interest in comics/art outside Big Two, Dark Horse, Image.

[drdroom]

16 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I'm not sure I am following you, but I think one point is a difference between "fine art" and "sequential art". Sequential art is designed to move a story along, so it is best appreciated in the context of multiple pages with word balloons (oh, I miss those). As a story, there are things going on which are not visible in a snapshot, like secondary story lines, character development, and overall ambience. With fine art, we look at a snapshot, what's there is staring at you, with no next or last page to consult or think about, let alone how the character progresses.

Lichtenstein's work dispels of many of the sequential aspects of the artwork. We know it is part of a story, but he essentially converts a panel in a page to the equivalent of a cover page (which in that sense is similar to fine art on a newstand). Gradations are minimized, subtlety is eliminated, and the artful impact of sequential art becomes the focus of what he does to those panels. That's a reason why Kirby, in my view, is so well liked. His stuff has a lot of impact. Brilliant artists like DeZuniga are not so impactful no matter how good they are as artists.

People like what they like, and it's natural to favor impactful art work. But I remain surprised that the sequential aspect of comic art is not better reflected in the price. A great panel page deserves to be better appreciated. 

I was with you until you called DeZuniga brilliant

But seriously, this point is under-recognized by the Lichty haters. He didn't reference an artwork, the artwork was the whole story. The girl meets the boy, the girl is happy, the girl fights with the boy, the girl is sad, they make up, wedding bells toll in the distance, couple walks into sunset. That's the genius artwork created by some penciller, some inker, some writer, some colorist and some guy at the plant who mis-aligned the red plate. Lichty used a tiny detail of this collective work (for some reason nobody cares about the writer whose word balloon was also referenced). He used like 1/48th of the artwork as reference, and turned that into one complete work of hugely greater impact. How that is not seen as creative is beyond me.

[suspense39]

35 minutes ago, drdroom said:

for some reason nobody cares about the writer whose word balloon was also referenced).

Hahahahaha!

[Rick2you2]

7 hours ago, drdroom said:

I was with you until you called DeZuniga brilliant 

I do think that when he was clearly left to his own devices, his stuff is wonderful. Here is a page I grabbed off Comic Art Fans a few minutes ago, and it is nothing special in its own right. Not a splash, no fancy borders, just drawing. Look at the level of detailing and realism, and the way the mood is set to see what I am talking about. No, it is not highly stylized like Mignola, but as a piece of craftsmanship, the skill set is high:

[vodou]

9 hours ago, drdroom said:

I was with you until you called DeZuniga brilliant

But seriously, this point is under-recognized by the Lichty haters. He didn't reference an artwork, the artwork was the whole story. The girl meets the boy, the girl is happy, the girl fights with the boy, the girl is sad, they make up, wedding bells toll in the distance, couple walks into sunset. That's the genius artwork created by some penciller, some inker, some writer, some colorist and some guy at the plant who mis-aligned the red plate. Lichty used a tiny detail of this collective work (for some reason nobody cares about the writer whose word balloon was also referenced). He used like 1/48th of the artwork as reference, and turned that into one complete work of hugely greater impact. How that is not seen as creative is beyond me.

Basically Lichtenstein was a super-powered Editor-In-Chief

Agree!

[tth2]

10 hours ago, drdroom said:

I was with you until you called DeZuniga brilliant

But seriously, this point is under-recognized by the Lichty haters. He didn't reference an artwork, the artwork was the whole story. The girl meets the boy, the girl is happy, the girl fights with the boy, the girl is sad, they make up, wedding bells toll in the distance, couple walks into sunset. That's the genius artwork created by some penciller, some inker, some writer, some colorist and some guy at the plant who mis-aligned the red plate. Lichty used a tiny detail of this collective work (for some reason nobody cares about the writer whose word balloon was also referenced). He used like 1/48th of the artwork as reference, and turned that into one complete work of hugely greater impact. How that is not seen as creative is beyond me.

[Bronty]

Ehh there's certainly things one can point to on both sides of that debate.   I think it boils down to time and place.    

You paint a white or black square like Kazimir Malevich in 2019 and its hack work.   Do that in 1919 and you've got something.

Create a superhero with a cape in 2018 and the impact is likely zero.   Do it in 1938 and its a big deal.

Paint a pop art piece today and its utterly uninteresting.     Do Whaam in 1963 and you've got something fresh. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by Bronty

[tth2]

11 hours ago, Bronty said:

Ehh there's certainly things one can point to on both sides of that debate.   I think it boils down to time and place.    

You paint a white or black square like Kazimir Malevich in 2019 and its hack work.   Do that in 1919 and you've got something.

Create a superhero with a cape in 2018 and the impact is likely zero.   Do it in 1938 and its a big deal.

Paint a pop art piece today and its utterly uninteresting.     Do Whaam in 1963 and you've got something fresh. 

Well, duh.

This applies to everything.  Invent the wheel in 7000 BC, you're a genius.  Claim to invent the wheel in 2019, you're a kook.

[Randall Dowling]

22 hours ago, drdroom said:

I was with you until you called DeZuniga brilliant

But seriously, this point is under-recognized by the Lichty haters. He didn't reference an artwork, the artwork was the whole story. The girl meets the boy, the girl is happy, the girl fights with the boy, the girl is sad, they make up, wedding bells toll in the distance, couple walks into sunset. That's the genius artwork created by some penciller, some inker, some writer, some colorist and some guy at the plant who mis-aligned the red plate. Lichty used a tiny detail of this collective work (for some reason nobody cares about the writer whose word balloon was also referenced). He used like 1/48th of the artwork as reference, and turned that into one complete work of hugely greater impact. How that is not seen as creative is beyond me.

I suppose Lichtenstein’s work meets the 4th definition of creative (from dictionary.com)

1.  having the quality or power of creating.

2.  resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative:creative writing.

3.  originative; productive (usually followed by of).

4.  Facetious . using or creating exaggerated or skewed data, information, etc.:creative bookkeeping.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/creative

But that’s not the kind of creative behavior I’m looking for in artwork.  The ferocity with which people defend the greatness of the emperor’s clothes is pretty common.  It’s an easy way to stay in the safe space of the crowd and not ask tough questions that might lead away from the relative safety of that crowd.  Heck, you find examples of the same behavior in the animal world from buffalo herds to the often cited lemmings.  

For me, Art is a spiritual thing.  It demands more consideration than oblique and obtuse statements that don’t mean anything, least of all to the people making them.  But that’s just me.  

There are a good many things that have a “hugely greater impact” and are very bad for human civilization.  I don’t think that’s an adequate criteria for great art.

[Rick2you2]

8 hours ago, Randall Dowling said:

I suppose Lichtenstein’s work meets the 4th definition of creative (from dictionary.com)

1.  having the quality or power of creating.

2.  resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative:creative writing.

3.  originative; productive (usually followed by of).

4.  Facetious . using or creating exaggerated or skewed data, information, etc.:creative bookkeeping.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/creative

But that’s not the kind of creative behavior I’m looking for in artwork.  The ferocity with which people defend the greatness of the emperor’s clothes is pretty common.  It’s an easy way to stay in the safe space of the crowd and not ask tough questions that might lead away from the relative safety of that crowd.  Heck, you find examples of the same behavior in the animal world from buffalo herds to the often cited lemmings.  

For me, Art is a spiritual thing.  It demands more consideration than oblique and obtuse statements that don’t mean anything, least of all to the people making them.  But that’s just me.  

There are a good many things that have a “hugely greater impact” and are very bad for human civilization.  I don’t think that’s an adequate criteria for great art.

Then clearly, this is not art because it is just a doctored photograph, duplicated:

Then, let's discuss the comic artists who do tracings of images which they then modify to suit their needs. That's not art either under your definition.

And in the writing end, parody can't be great writing because it is just an off-center version of the original writing.

Turning your definition inside out, what is artistic about the Mona Lisa? It's just a portrait: a duplication of a woman sitting in front of a painter because they didn't have photography back then? Since when did a smile amount to artistry? Now, I may agree that some of the on eBay does not deserve to be called art; but it is, just bad art.

I don't think that art has to be a "spiritual thing" at all. It is a personal statement, made in a creative way, which communicates something personal to a viewer, reader or listener. It may not be "good", but it is still art.

Whaam! is good art. It communicates the artist's personal statement of the subject by illuminating characteristics of comic art which have made it so popular. It pulls it all together, and the artist's pallet makes it fun to look at, as well. That's good art, in my book. I also like Rothko, but that's just me.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Rick2you2

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Turning your definition inside out, what is artistic about the Mona Lisa? It's just a portrait: a duplication of a woman sitting in front of a painter because they didn't have photography back then? Since when did a smile amount to artistry? Now, I may agree that some of the on eBay does not deserve to be called art; but it is, just bad art.

I don't think that art has to be a "spiritual thing" at all. It is a personal statement, made in a creative way, which communicates something personal to a viewer, reader or listener. It may not be "good", but it is still art.

Agree with all above (pulled quote and full text) and will add to pull: the artist's personal statement for most of the art in which we see obvious reference to something that came before (along with most art overall) is: I'd like to make some money and I think I can find at least one sucker to give it to me. A lot of so-called comic* artists make a part-time second income, retirement and some even a full-time career out of this. This can be argued as easily for John Byrne endlessly and un-apologetically homaging** (uh huh) Kirby's FF #1 cover every some years as it can be for anything Lichtenstein (or Warhol or Air Pirates or...). It can be argued either way, logically and effectively, and the audience would be the one to decide which position is more personally appealing or holds water better in the moment. But it's all the realm of the subjective not objective so...it is not a case of facts winning the day.

 

*I just call them all: artists with the bias that some (we know who I mean) can draw but can't paint (and often not much else either) while those that can paint typically can draw and do other stuff 'good' too.

*Slavishly copied 'after...' or merely 'inspired by...' pieces lovingly referred to as recreations and reinterpretations...are so wonderfully popular here. (And among editors too as so many get published!) For those that have a problem with Lichtenstein et al Pop Artists but don't the other: your willful blindness and hypocrisy give me fits of ...