In spite of its overt comic book style, it still manages to be a moving and poignant stolen moment of a sleeping girl, as much as any photograph or Old Master rendering of the same subject, without the use of any words or backstory as in the original printed comic book.

I think that sometimes in art (whether fine or comic, neither has a monopoly on this) a sort of reverse logic is used to substantiate the worth of something that is priced at high levels. "Well of course its beautiful, do you know how much its worth?"

I respect your opinions but you sound like you've drunk a little too much of the fine art Kool-Aid on this one! I understand that I am looking at a small jpg but find it to be neither beautiful nor moving nor poignant.

I think that sometimes in art (whether fine or comic, neither has a monopoly on this) a sort of reverse logic is used to substantiate the worth of something that is priced at high levels. "Well of course its beautiful, do you know how much its worth?"


And that sounds to me like its the case here. I understand his place in history and all that and if someone wants to buy it for $45 m because they feel he was an important creator, great. But let's call a spade a spade and a turd a turd. An important turd is still a turd.

But, maybe that's my value-neutrality talking

Well, I would say this:

1. If you don't think it is beautiful/poignant/moving, why not? Is it because it looks too much like a throwaway, disposable no-name comic book panel? Because I'd like to believe that this panel of comic art, while being nothing special in its original context, has been made to be beautiful, mysterious, poignant and enchanting in the way Lichtenstein has transformed it and put it into a different context. That it manages to evoke the kinds of thoughts and feelings that it does says something positive both about the artist and the potential of the comic book medium - it's not just lowbrow kiddie stuff.

2. There's no doubt that money does skew perception, but it's not just the money, but what it represents - its historical importance (innovation, breaking new ground, capturing the zeitgeist of the time, becoming iconic, etc.), the cachet/reputation of the artist, etc. My girlfriend makes some really cool art, but obviously I'm going to look at it in a different way than a $45 million Lichtenstein. That's just a case of it is what it is. And, as you said, it's not like this is something unique to the fine art market.

3. I can understand that this painting might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think most people (generally speaking) who don't like the painting probably think less of it because it is comic book-related and thus too simple/ordinary/low brow for their tastes. That a bunch of comic book fans think that this is "a turd" just tells me that there are perceived slights to the comic book medium by the artist by not crediting the source material that is clouding people's opinions. If Lichtenstein had attributed all his sources and all those creators became huge fans of his and the feeling in the comic book community was that he did a great service in helping comic books be taken seriously, I bet there would be a lot of fans here instead of critics. I can understand if people think the artist is a turd, but, putting that aside, the art is beautiful and reflects positively on the comic book medium. I like good art, and if it's good comic-themed art, so much the better.

Like a lot of you guys, I was not a big fan of contemporary art at first (and, I remain much more of an Old Masters kind of guy). But, I have to say that Modern/Contemporary has really grown on me the more I've learned about and studied it, and am able to appreciate how the history of art has progressed over the past century. To call that drinking the Kool-Aid I think is pretty unfair - I think before condemning the art world based on preconceived notions, one should actively study and participate in it with an intellectually honest, open mind first. That's not to say that a lot of the criticisms aren't valid - I'm currently reading the book Con Art - Why You Ought to Sell Your Damien Hirst While You Can which does a good job of pointing out some of the more egregious examples - but to paint the entire contemporary art world with a broad brush, armed with criticisms that could just as easily be applied to comic OA or any number of other collecting disciplines, strikes me to be a bit unfair.

- but to paint the entire contemporary art world with a broad brush, armed with criticisms....

I really didn't do that if you reread my post. You're reading something that isn't there. I spoke only about this particular piece of artwork.

FWIW, I've enjoyed some of the lively banter about modern art the last couple years here. Its forced me to have a better understanding of why I do or don't care for certain pictures.

I.e. some books you own to read, some books you own purely for collecting.

An original batman 1 is for collecting purposes only. There are better comic books to read (and/or reprints).