I just saw a news clip (link below) about how Roy Lichtenstein's "I Can See The Whole Room and Nobody is in it" (1961) sold for $2 million in 1988, and is up for auction in 2011 with an estimated value of $35-45 million.
Within the story, it was mentioned that the original art market seems more recession proof and people I guess are turning to art for investments because record prices are still being paid for key pieces.
In the video, it was mentioned that Roy Lichtenstein's work commands an average of $10-15 million per original painting.
There's an interesting critique of Roy Lichtenstein's work, most relevantly shown on David Barsalou's website illustrating comparisons between Roy Lichtenstein's million dollar paintings compared to the comic book work that "inspired" those paintings.
So, I would wonder, were Lichtenstein's works done as a process of "lightboxing" and heavy near if not verbatim photo/image referencing? If so, he was (since he passed away) or his art rep is/was the greatest marketers, enabling him to command millions for his paintings while he was still alive and now multi-millions since he passed away.
I hear of similar artists in comic books accused of lightboxing, photo referencing, tracing, etc., so does that hopefully mean their artwork might become seen and praised as the genius and inspirational artwork of the future and command high demand and dollars, like Lichtenstein?
It still takes talent and is artistic interpretation, so any art is indeed... ART. Heck, if I could buy a $300 lightbox or a tracing projector, some paper, ink, canvas and paint and make millions, I would... but I know I can't.
As for the 35 million dollar Lichtenstein "I can see the whole room..." piece... somewhat related to the hot topic of a week or so ago... of course anyone can buy a print (sort of like the new wave of artists selling digital prints) for under $60.00, albeit, not one of a kind nor original, have the image, and save the extra millions to buy a huge mansion to hang it up in, and have a couple of Yachts, and a private plane to go with it instead of buying the original art...
#5174601 - 10/22/1111:50 AMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: AKA Rick]
alxjhnsnalxjhnsn
Up 20 words per minute since I signed up
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 1294
Loc: Houston, TX
I think it's a crying shame that Lichtenstein gets all this praise given that he lifted and - to my eye, at least - did not enhance the work of others.
Marketing kings indeed.
_________________________
Regards,
Alex Johnson Come see my collection in my CAF Gallery Your comments are more than welcome.
I think he is overrated and unoriginal. I don't understand the fascination about him. Lichenstein copies a panel, including the text. Where is the art in that?
A comic artist on the other hand only has a rough story or plot or even tight scripts to work with then he has to use imagination, originality, composition, to create a scene and tell a story.
Comics is a dying breed. Digital are is the way to go to meet deadlines. People buy comics digitally, but the new generation of kids don't even read comics anymore. They just want for the movie adaptations.
Once comics will be on life support and the printed page will be a thing of the past, original comic art will be accepted to the mainstream art and values might keep rising the same way that pop art is quite high now. But I don't think it will ever reach in the millions.
_________________________
My CAF Gallery so far includes: Neal Adams, Alfredo Alcala, Murphy Anderson, Ross Andru, Sergio Aragones, John Byrne, *spoon* Giordano, Jock, Gil Kane, Greg LaRocque, Tom Mandrake, George Perez, Whilce Portacio, Nestor Redondo, Curt Swan CAF Gallery
Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.
But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.
Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?
You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.
#5174959 - 10/22/1103:00 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: aman619]
tth2tth2 "I blame it on the low quality of the newbies that are joining the boards." --And with one swoop tth2 become the community crotchety old man. Damn kids today.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 33258
Loc: Hong Kong
Originally Posted By: aman619
Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.
But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.
Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?
You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.
#5175025 - 10/22/1103:32 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: aman619]
delekkerstedelekkerste James Bond wears a Rolex...the rest is just product placement.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 08/21/02
Posts: 10264
Loc: New York, NY
Originally Posted By: aman619
Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.
But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.
Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?
You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
And, if arguing these kinds of topics is your cup of tea, check out the "Great Art" thread in The Water Cooler.
_________________________ "No asset is so good that it can't become a bad investment if bought at too high a price." - Howard Marks
Price is what you pay, value is what you get.
It's better to be thought a fool than to open your wallet and remove all doubt.
#5175177 - 10/22/1105:09 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: aman619]
AtlasFanAtlasFan
FACT if I stop posting, trillions and trillions of transistors would be out of work.
Registered: 03/19/03
Posts: 4919
Loc: NY
I still don't get it. Appreciating Liechtenstein for highlighting one panel of another artist's work is comparable to an author taking out a single page of Hamlet and getting credit for isolating it from the larger body of work whence it came.
#5175226 - 10/22/1105:43 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: AtlasFan]
t3quilat3quila
I was posting here when you were in diapers.
Registered: 05/10/09
Posts: 3080
Loc: UK
How does it differ from Duchamp's Fountain which is just a Urinal signed R.Mutt on its side? One could argue that Lichtenstein's work is of a similar nature, he chose the panel and subsequently breathed new life into the artwork.
- 
