Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" 1 1

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

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.

I don't think it had anything to do with what he could "get away with".  He used a Donald Duck & Mickey Mouse image in an earlier work that was separate from his later comic panel work he became known for.  He used a Magneto image in the latter series, which, incidentally, only represents a small part of his output over a brief period of time (even if it is his best-known and most beloved work). 

He didn't use Snoopy because anthropomorphic animals would not have fit in with what he was doing with his later comic panel art. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by delekkerste

[delekkerste]

57 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

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". 

 

40 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

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.

And people wonder why I don't think mainstream comic book artwork will ever be accepted by the "hipster, cigarette-holder using, champagne flute swigging gallery rat" crowd!!  

I don't think people have thought through what exactly that would entail and look like if realized.  

[comix4fun]

38 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

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.

 he started out on Disney characters, before he hit it big on the incestuous selling arena that certain galleries were in the 60's. Warhol was mining this area as well for a bit.

This is the most famous one..it's more of a swipe of concept, posing, setting and idea than straight up copy, but Roy was just getting warmed up....

the 1960 published original by Bob Grant and Bob Totten

Lichtenstein's version:

 

He changed gears to far more obscure images which, in reality, allowed him to garner a larger share of the credit and glory for each piece as their source material and characters were not as immediately recognizable. Ultimately it (even if not his intention) also allowed him to avoid the wrath of the Mouse that, even then, was formidable.

 

[comix4fun]

On 11/28/2018 at 12:50 PM, delekkerste said:

 

And people wonder why I don't think mainstream comic book artwork will ever be accepted by the "hipster, cigarette-holder using, champagne flute swigging gallery rat" crowd!!  

I don't think people have thought through what exactly that would entail and look like if realized.  

Well, I don't think "acceptance" is having the source material be considered refuse to be recycled into something "worthy" once it's cleansed, repackaged, and stripped of its origins. 

I always viewed "acceptance" by the art world of comic and sequential art as respect for the creation AND the creator both for the image itself and for what the image represented in the stream of that genre's and medium's history. I've never viewed the artwork as something that needed to be re-imagined or re-purposed to gain "worth". That's marketing, not creation. The type of dismissive attitudes that entire generation of gallery and art world movers and shakers showed toward the comic art source material is akin to colonizers pulling precious materials from a land they don't own and showing it to the world as if they invented the diamond...when all the did was polish it and put it on display. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by comix4fun

[cstojano]

I follow this gallery because they primarily deal in tribal art (hobby 1 I can no longer afford), but this seems relevant, or not.

https://mailchi.mp/tambaran/tambaran-2-presents-gabriel-ortega-2938485?fbclid=IwAR0EvYJMWIoAJ8GqUgnjVVDqjScJEb-nYIANyCRctGZN4sNBBZQLQKVck7Y

https://mailchi.mp/tambaran/tambaran-2-presents-gabriel-ortega?fbclid=IwAR3-QVvpZgH8QomdMBfHXeX51Pb6dMlVKRCHE793qKiyaK4_SC4_-hqGDyo

https://mailchi.mp/tambaran/ready-for-some-action-opening-tonight-gabriel-ortega-super-heroes?fbclid=IwAR2szT6gpdEriTX_g0O2Y0azfuTBYht2-3oR4QVOdv5X-IjDGFjB1IaI7-I

edit: seizure warning...

Edited November 28, 2018 by cstojano

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

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.

Exactly like this darling of the Left. I believe that's the version that the Smithsonian accepted as the official portrait for 42.

 

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

Warhol printed the images then altered them. No original drawings.

False.

All Warhol. All pre-screenprinting method. All hand-drawn.

[comix4fun]

27 minutes ago, vodou said:

Exactly like this darling of the Left. I believe that's the version that the Smithsonian accepted as the official portrait for 42.

 

That's not his official Smithsonian portrait.

[comix4fun]

And the creator of that "Hope" poster was criminally prosecuted and convicted for destroying evidence for taking the photo from an AP photographer without compensation or attribution. 

Sounds like a solid conclusion to that story, if we're drawing parallels. 

[vodou]

10 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

That's not his official Smithsonian portrait.

You can tell the difference? I can't.

http://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.2008.52

6 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

And the creator of that "Hope" poster was criminally prosecuted and convicted for destroying evidence for taking the photo from an AP photographer without compensation or attribution. 

Sounds like a solid conclusion to that story, if we're drawing parallels. 

But not Warhol, not Lichtenstein...so? Is it maybe because the artist's those two borrowed from didn't own their output as work-for-hire but the respective publishers did instead. (I think there would be an exception for Warhol's Nancy though, that was syndicated but still fully creator owned by Ernie Bushmiller, right? Then again, there is an argument that Warhol transformed it too.) And chose not to pursue the matter? I dunno. You tell me Chris. Not really apples:apples

[comix4fun]

Just now, vodou said:

You can tell the difference? I can't.

http://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.2008.52

 

They bought the piece, before the controversy, and not to be his official portrait. 

THIS is his official National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian portrait.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/12/barack-and-michelle-obama-official-portraits-unveiled/

I can certainly tell the difference.

[comix4fun]

Just now, vodou said:

But not Warhol, not Lichtenstein...so? Is it maybe because the artist's those two borrowed from didn't own their output as work-for-hire but the respective publishers did instead. (I think there would be an exception for Warhol's Nancy though, that was syndicated but still fully creator owned by Ernie Bushmiller, right? Then again, there is an argument that Warhol transformed it too.) And chose not to pursue the matter? I dunno. You tell me Chris. Not really apples:apples

The difference is, the era of IP protections and changes to copyright law and protections for creators both domestically and internationally, that did not exist in the 60's or even the 70's for the most part. 

Comparing the eras to conclude that the lack of claims against Lichtenstein in 1965 means that those creators were impacted the same way as the AP photographer in her case against Fairey (Hope poster guy) , without taking into account the climate, and changes to the law over that time period would be the least apples to apples comparison one could make. 

[vodou]

Just now, comix4fun said:

They bought the piece, before the controversy, and not to be his official portrait. 

THIS is his official National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian portrait.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/12/barack-and-michelle-obama-official-portraits-unveiled/

I can certainly tell the difference.

That changed then. As they say, "I was there" and I remember watching this story (the entire Shepard Fairey Obama Progress re-branding to Hope re-branding to Guy Fawkes) unfold day by day. At the time of the unveiling of the gift/purchase/whatever from the Podestas the piece was being touted as being entered as the official portrait. I've been looking around though and can't find the headline/story anywhere now (at least using biased Google search ha ha), so...I give up Chris. You win. Which I know is always very, very important

[vodou]

2 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

The difference is, the era of IP protections and changes to copyright law and protections for creators both domestically and internationally, that did not exist in the 60's or even the 70's for the most part. 

Comparing the eras to conclude...

Big difference. Apples...meet oranges

[comix4fun]

Just now, vodou said:

That changed then. As they say, "I was there" and I remember watching this story (the entire Shepard Fairey Obama Progress re-branding to Hope re-branding to Guy Fawkes) unfold day by day. At the time of the unveiling of the gift/purchase/whatever from the Podestas the piece was being touted as being entered as the official portrait. I've been looking around though and can't find the headline/story anywhere now (at least using biased Google search ha ha), so...I give up Chris. You win. Which I know is always very, very important

Not putting forward incorrect information is very important, so is correcting it. 

So is admitting when you make a mistake. 

Even if it's done in the most back handed and passive-aggressive way possible. 

[vodou]

Just now, comix4fun said:

Not putting forward incorrect information is very important, so is correcting it. 

So is admitting when you make a mistake. 

Even if it's done in the most back handed and passive-aggressive way possible. 

It was correct in 2008/09. No bs. But not now, I accept that, specifically in reference to Winston Smith's job in Orwell's 1984

[aokartman]

1 hour ago, cstojano said:

I follow this gallery because they primarily deal in tribal art (hobby 1 I can no longer afford), but this seems relevant, or not.

https://mailchi.mp/tambaran/tambaran-2-presents-gabriel-ortega-2938485?fbclid=IwAR0EvYJMWIoAJ8GqUgnjVVDqjScJEb-nYIANyCRctGZN4sNBBZQLQKVck7Y

https://mailchi.mp/tambaran/tambaran-2-presents-gabriel-ortega?fbclid=IwAR3-QVvpZgH8QomdMBfHXeX51Pb6dMlVKRCHE793qKiyaK4_SC4_-hqGDyo

https://mailchi.mp/tambaran/ready-for-some-action-opening-tonight-gabriel-ortega-super-heroes?fbclid=IwAR2szT6gpdEriTX_g0O2Y0azfuTBYht2-3oR4QVOdv5X-IjDGFjB1IaI7-I

edit: seizure warning...

Love this piece.

 

[comix4fun]

Just now, vodou said:

It was correct in 2008/09. No bs. But not now, I accept that, specifically in reference to Winston Smith's job in Orwell's 1984

I know they bought/acquired that piece then. It was just never his official portrait. They don't do official portraits until they are about to leave office or have left.

Look at the pieces in the gallery (with their date of commission...because official portraits for the national gallery are commissioned specifically for that purpose)

Ford 1987

Carter 1980

Reagan 1989

Bush 1 1994

Bush 2 2008

Obama 2018

[vodou]

1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

I know they bought/acquired that piece then. It was just never his official portrait. They don't do official portraits until they are about to leave office or have left.

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

[Will_K]

@lichtenstein_fan has been awfully silent...

Edited November 28, 2018 by Will_K