Lichtenstein's "Whaam!"
3 3

252 posts in this topic

24,257 posts
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, tth2 said:

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.

How do you keep the supermodels at bay Tim?  ;)

Yes, it applies to everything.   Yet it really hasn't been brought up on this thread, which is why its worth underlining.    Date is a hugely important piece of the puzzle in analyzing any piece of art and I think several people on this thread are commenting on the piece with 2019 eyes instead of 1963 eyes. 

Edited by Bronty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
953 posts
4 hours ago, vodou said:

Slavishly copied 'after...' or merely 'inspired by...' pieces lovingly referred to as recreations and reinterpretations

I really don't understand why people buy recreations, unless they want to see how a particular artist interprets a scene which is different than the original artist, or, is a deliberate homage. I mean, really, how many times have we seen Superman or someone else holding a dead Supergirl (or equivalent) from Perez's Crises on Infinite Earths cover?

Occasionally, however, I have seen snarky recreations which bring a smile to my sarcastic inner self.

A version inspired by George Herriman would be cool. Maybe Officer Pup holding a dead Krazy Kat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,257 posts

Yeah, it will never be the real thing so why bother.  Clearly its how some people reconcile price with desire, but its a bit misguided IMO in that it really doesn't achieve that reconciliation (not that I'm going to tell anyone how to spend their own money).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,522 posts
31 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

A version inspired by George Herriman would be cool. Maybe Officer Pup holding a dead Krazy Kat?

There is a whole book of Little Nemo referenced pieces out there by name comic artists...too lazy to look it up but somebody else can.

32 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Occasionally, however, I have seen snarky recreations which bring a smile to my sarcastic inner self.

Yes 'wit' is always appreciated here too, and I've seen plenty, which is why I think IP as a concept stifles more than it benefits. One dude (or company or whatever) gets a legal monopoly on something or other and everybody else has to completely avoid the thing in any way or risk legal action. Blah. Goodbye innovation on the subject for the next 70 years or so. Let originals get the acclaim, bad products get whatever scrape of market share they can from an ignorant marketplace, and otherwise let the quality of the product be improved by whoever can/will best improve it...competitively.

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Yeah, it will never be the real thing so why bother.  Clearly its how some people reconcile price with desire, but its a bit misguided IMO in that it really doesn't achieve that reconciliation (not that I'm going to tell anyone how to spend their own money).

We all have our spending weaknesses which don't justify well with others...but a copy is...a copy. And it pulls money away from those making something originals (in the aggregate). Who would you (everybody) rather reward? Or are we suggesting there isn't enough good, new, product out there to spend on? ( lol )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
135 posts

I am always amused to come back to this thread and read all the overblown outrage about Lichtenstein on here. I love his stuff and was thinking about this thread on a recent visit to the High Museum in Atlanta where this piece is a highlight of the art that is outside on their plaza. Impossible to see from a photo, but the construction of the piece as three dimensional rather than flat makes it appear to rotate as you move around it, though of course it remains still. I also love the shadow it casts on the wall of the museum behind it. Presumably, no ones tender feelings were trampled upon in the creation of this art-but given the propensity for pointless flame wars here, I guess I may be speaking too soon.

IMG_1612.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,249 posts
11 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

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

Image result for warhol marilyn

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.

Perhaps you’re seeing something I’m not.  Please share what that personal statement is.  Also, what are the characteristics of comic art that are being illuminated?

Again, please don’t put words in my posts.  I never said it isn’t art.  I said it’s not good art.  I hope that difference is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
953 posts
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Randall Dowling said:

Perhaps you’re seeing something I’m not.  Please share what that personal statement is.  Also, what are the characteristics of comic art that are being illuminated?

Again, please don’t put words in my posts.  I never said it isn’t art.  I said it’s not good art.  I hope that difference is clear.

This one is not illuminating comic art. It is stripping an icon of its sexuality and deliberately reducing it to an object. It is a commentary, in my view, on society which is not particularly flattering. Warhol must have been laughing his off when he saw how people didn’t mind what is a pretty brutal view of things. And yes, it is also good art.

Edited by Rick2you2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,257 posts
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

 It is stripping an icon of its sexuality and deliberately reducing it to an object. 

Perhaps its because Marilyn has become larger than life, but as a reduction of Marilyn into an object, it fails IMO.     I don't see an object when I look at that and I don't think the people paying $$$$$$$$$ for them do either - they see nine marilyns.

Maybe that was his message, but really, nobody gives a shh!t.   They see Pop Art + Iconic Actress = $$$$$$$$$.

Edited by Bronty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
953 posts
40 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Perhaps its because Marilyn has become larger than life, but as a reduction of Marilyn into an object, it fails IMO.     I don't see an object when I look at that and I don't think the people paying $$$$$$$$$ for them do either - they see nine marilyns.

Maybe that was his message, but really, nobody gives a shh!t.   They see Pop Art + Iconic Actress = $$$$$$$$$.

You may well be right. Back then, a lot of people hired him to do the same for their own portraits. It’s not like his Campbell’s soup can which treated the ordinary as an icon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,249 posts
16 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

This one is not illuminating comic art. It is stripping an icon of its sexuality and deliberately reducing it to an object. It is a commentary, in my view, on society which is not particularly flattering. Warhol must have been laughing his off when he saw how people didn’t mind what is a pretty brutal view of things. And yes, it is also good art.

I’ve heard this before.  Respectfully, it’s pretty thin and doesn’t mean much.  This is the clever little joke I referred to earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
953 posts
44 minutes ago, Randall Dowling said:

I’ve heard this before.  Respectfully, it’s pretty thin and doesn’t mean much.  This is the clever little joke I referred to earlier.

I understand your perspective, but very view things are the Sistine Chapel. Ever see all those landscapes from the mid-nineteenth century (the Hudson River School). After you seen several, they are no longer particularly breath-taking. Yet do they still qualify as little more than a clever little joke? Or just someone with an easel who has learned how to push the right buttons in someone’s emotion box?

Or what about sequential art, taken as a whole? We regularly comment on relatively small details, classifying some of it as good and some not so good. Some of it is also “pretty thin”, yet by and large the people here generally see a difference.

Whaam! is not the Sistine Chapel. I still think it is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,522 posts
49 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Or what about sequential art, taken as a whole? We regularly comment on relatively small details, classifying some of it as good and some not so good. Some of it is also “pretty thin”, yet by and large the people here generally see a difference.

Stripping the nostalgia beer goggles away and honestly viewing most comic art straight on...ugh.

Think of all the comic art we each pass up every day, bidding on, buying, not even taking time clicking into the larger image to view...probably because it's not good and it's not personally nostalgic. Most probably place higher value on nostalgic than good -as a pull- when making that happens uncountable times daily information overload judgement call too. That's how most every other collector view our collections too, unless it's really good (sequentially artistic, visually arresting, historically hobby important) absent similar nostalgia longing (obsession?)

Was it Lambert on a Felix podcast that said this stuff doesn't have to be in museums to be enjoyed? I think so and I agree. We can all just have fun with it, and we do (some of us, me, all day, every day!), but trying to bring others (Lichtenstein, et all) down to prop ourselves up (weird) is somewhat childish. Just as childish as someone not being okay with their own interest in this stuff unless it's museum-approved in some way.

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
3 3