• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
2 2

701 posts in this topic

.

 

They are now a part of art history.

 

 

 

I wanted to make special note of this comment.

 

Yes they aren't the first creators and they won't be the last creators to find themselves ground between the gears of "art history". They are the mortar and the foundation. The penthouse wouldn't exist without them but they never get the credit that they deserve from the people sitting on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were to happen to today's artists....you'd see a different outcome.

 

Original on the left.......Lichtenstein on the right

THE-WHOLE-ROOM.gif

 

 

IT-IS-WITH-ME.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

A French artist named Erro tried to play the exact same tune on one of Brian Bolland's covers last year.

 

 

Mr. Bolland slammed the piano lid down on him so hard that I doubt he'll be trying to pull that again.

 

Artists today are far more savvy about their rights, and protecting their IP than they were when many of these pieces were created. I don't think we'll see anything this blatant, or on this scale again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 20th century has a lot of artist frauds, but Lichtenstein is probably the head of the pack.

 

Lichtenstein didn't "breath new life" into the artwork, he stole it. Duchamp (a true artist, and the R. Mutt urinal is certainly not his most significant contribution) re-purposed an object that wasn't intended to be considered art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other aspect you haven't commented on is that Lichtenstein didn't only see the artwork in the panels. Ou appear to be very upset for the artists rights to their work. But, Lichtenstein was just as interested in the captions in the panels. One could argue, even more than the artwork, which he didn't copy line for line as you can see in your examples.

 

I don't believe text was used much in fine art before these paintings appeared. The viewer reads the captions which inform them as much if it more than the artwork you are obsessing over. Seems the letterers whose work was totally redrawn ought to get some defense here too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's been done already. So yeah, no fine artists will go down this road again. You are probably correct.

 

 

And you misspoke before. The publishers owned all these panels. Work for hire, remember?

 

That's true, Depending on the story and the publisher that may be true but I don't assume it unless its known. I haven't looked up each and every example, for the guys who were not prominent on the field that was probably true, but the copyright did establish from the moment the image was created, even if the artist had signed them away to the publisher.

 

That issue, and lack of perceived value at the time, is most likely what kept publishers from chasing these down.

 

 

Everything today is creator owned, or under contract, or shared rights so yeah, today this isn't going to happen. Careers end over a long weekend when this is discovered. Hello Nick Simmons. :hi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other aspect you haven't commented on is that Lichtenstein didn't only see the artwork in the panels. Ou appear to be very upset for the artists rights to their work. But, Lichtenstein was just as interested in the captions in the panels. One could argue, even more than the artwork, which he didn't copy line for line as you can see in your examples.

 

I don't believe text was used much in fine art before these paintings appeared. The viewer reads the captions which inform them as much if it more than the artwork you are obsessing over. Seems the letterers whose work was totally redrawn ought to get some defense here too!

 

 

Well I just assumed if he's copying the panel he might as well copy the words, thoughts, captions, and sound effects line for line. It's not the letter's work, as much as it's the writer's work.

 

I try not to make light of creators rights especially when an actual creator's work is taken by someone with seemingly no imagination.

 

Plagiarism shouldn't get a pass, and it certainly should not be adorned in the laurels of the term "art".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are now a part of art history. Have any of the comics artists ever expressed anything over than a flush of indirect fame? Any lawsuits?

 

Not against Lichtenstein but Erro, another hack following in his footsteps, got taken to task for his blatant theft of Bolland's work:

 

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/brian-bolland-takes-on-erro-and-wins/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bolland did as tight a job in describing what Erro did to him as a his line work! Especially comparing it to stealing from savages.... But I still feel Lichtensteins work, and his place in art is of greater significance than this Johnny come lately. His pieces lack the simplicity and power of Lichtys work... Just pastiches of other stuff, not a distillation and reimaging of them.

Edited by aman619
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just assumed if he's copying the panel he might as well copy the words, thoughts, captions, and sound effects line for line. It's not the letter's work, as much as it's the writer's work.

The combination of the captions and comic style art is the whole point of Lichtenstein`s work. He wasn`t trying to create comic style art. He was bringing out the pop art-ness of everyday things such as comic panels when they are presented out of context, in the same way that everyday branding or pictures of celebrities became pop art in Warhol`s hands.

Edited by tth2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just assumed if he's copying the panel he might as well copy the words, thoughts, captions, and sound effects line for line. It's not the letter's work, as much as it's the writer's work.

The combination of the captions and comic style art is the whole point of Lichtenstein`s work. He wasn`t trying to create comic style art. He was bringing out the pop art-ness of everyday things such as comic panels when they are presented out of context, in the same way that everyday branding or pictures of celebrities became pop art in Warhol`s hands.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but using the word "combining" suggests he joined 2 disparate things into one piece. The captions and word balloons and sound effect blurbs were all part of the original panel he lifted.

 

And all of that would be fine if, in the first line of the piece's description he would have stated "originally created by X artist, in X title and re-imagined here." Artistic honesty.

 

Not all of Roy's pieces are line for line copies. Some of them are reworked slightly altering the position of the word balloon or changing some of the lines of the panel he painted over. Those are his most original. They also look the most amateurish of all his pieces, but at least you can see he tried to alter them slightly. Which is a positive.

 

As Aman mentioned the art world ponzi scheme....enough people with too much cash sit around contemplating their own navel and trying to be sophisticated and stuff like this, or the shark, or Campbell's soup cans suddenly become introspective masterpieces on the human condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this seems like the same controversy as what happened in the music industry, more specifically with Hip Hop/Rap, and DJ's sampling the works of others where what were claimed as backbeats were the foreground to a claimed to be new creation or remix.

 

Here's an interesting bit of information on that:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)

 

So, the question is when does the reimagination become it's own stand alone entity and separate creation.

 

I think Lichtenstein's work, although altered, if not for the marketing and economics tied to the supply/demand of that artists work for some reason, is cute at best, but not so much unique nor innovative, so to me, the artists who created those Topps "Wacky Packages" parody artwork has more creative skills in both conceptual work, creating a new image based on an exisiting one, as well as doing so with a distinctly different style.

 

It's also sort of like what the Adult Entertainment is doing with the Super Hero movie category, and taking wholesome licensed characters, and just by putting "a parody" at the end of the title, are somehow able to use that characters likeness and name, and profiteer as well as sensationalize, manipulate and alter the characteristics of those characters without neither the consent or control of the character owners, on top of that, not even involving them in the economic gain.

 

To me, it seems like sort of an easy way out type of uninspired, if not flat out exploitive profiteering, in an almost leech like, symbiotic relationship where the guest would never survive ecomonically on their own artistic merits without a host that has a healthy body of established work they invested time and money to build.

 

But just like people who complain about the media, the state of Reality TV, and everything else - if nobody truly liked "Jersey Shore" or hearing about "The Kardashians" or "Teen Mom" then, the laws of supply and demand would phase them out, and they'd simply go away due to a lack of economic relevance to their financial supporters, but just like the people who will be participating and bidding up Lichtenstein's work, there's an obvious supply/demand relationship that exists, albeit if indeed it may be short lived and a house of cards waiting to crumble, only time will tell, and who knows what the future holds for the sustainability.

 

History shows, nothing lasts forever, and some of the most established companies like most recently, Borders Bookstore, and in the recent past, Mervyns, Montgomery Wards, Tower Records, Sharper Image, Washington Mutual, and so many other casulties of war has seen big empires crumble. Heck, even Marvel Comics went bankrupt, leaving stock investors in the 1990's with a nice tax write-off to their losses (and oddly enough, even when they re-emerged after re-organizing, the stock holders to the original Marvel stock were not compensated one penny).

 

That circles back to the philosophy of buying what you like, knowing it may be worthless or hard to sell, rather than buying for the dollar signs of investment, especially with artwork.

 

Art isn't as fickle as the music industry, where those who touted "Hootie and the Blowfish" as "The Next Rolling Stones" back in the 1990's as today's pop culture sages feel "Lady Gaga" will be around in 10 years with the longevity of "Madonna", whereas most do end up here today, gone tomorrow flash-in-the-pan icons. Comic Art seems to have a fan following that, once established maintains a certain base standard, like Ditko, Kirby, Kane, Infantino, Steranko, Starlin, Adams, Smith, Perez, Simonson, Byrne, etc of yesteryear... and today's more modern stars like Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane, Adam Hughes, Tim Sale, and Mike Mignola seem to have established the same stable place within the hobby, with if anything, increasing fans and supply/demand valuation to their work. It's the artists with great potential who need a little bit more to their portfolio to establish them as more solid name brand artists who currently command decent values, but to me, may seem built on a less steady longterm foundation like Josh Middleton, Ian Churchill, Chris Bachalo, Joe Mad, Bryan Hitch, Steve McNiven, etc. who produce quality work that sells decently in the marketplace based on their past hits, but I think still needs to produce quality to maintain relevance and grow.

 

Well I just assumed if he's copying the panel he might as well copy the words, thoughts, captions, and sound effects line for line. It's not the letter's work, as much as it's the writer's work.

The combination of the captions and comic style art is the whole point of Lichtenstein`s work. He wasn`t trying to create comic style art. He was bringing out the pop art-ness of everyday things such as comic panels when they are presented out of context, in the same way that everyday branding or pictures of celebrities became pop art in Warhol`s hands.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but using the word "combining" suggests he joined 2 disparate things into one piece. The captions and word balloons and sound effect blurbs were all part of the original panel he lifted.

 

And all of that would be fine if, in the first line of the piece's description he would have stated "originally created by X artist, in X title and re-imagined here." Artistic honesty.

 

Not all of Roy's pieces are line for line copies. Some of them are reworked slightly altering the position of the word balloon or changing some of the lines of the panel he painted over. Those are his most original. They also look the most amateurish of all his pieces, but at least you can see he tried to alter them slightly. Which is a positive.

 

As Aman mentioned the art world ponzi scheme....enough people with too much cash sit around contemplating their own navel and trying to be sophisticated and stuff like this, or the shark, or Campbell's soup cans suddenly become introspective masterpieces on the human condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Significance and criminal do not need to be exclusive of one another. Just because a bunch of people agree with each other that his work is good and inspired doesn't make it original. It's still stolen even if he made minor changes. Just ask Vanilla Ice.

 

Lichtenstein's work surely is significant, but that doesn't make it legit.

 

After all, Jack the Ripper's work was significant too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an artist were to blow up a picture of the Mona Lisa, then copy let's say everything from her eyes to her smile and leaving out the rest, and finally call it an original work, what would the art world say? I think there would be a lot of flaming and accusations of theft tossed around.

 

This is no different.

 

I think it's been done. And wouldnt the Mona Lisa be public domain?

 

But I see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Chris,

why are you even wasting your time with this joker aman619, if he feels that copying art is ok just because someone else did it, well that makes him look really really small. I can't stand elitists that try to come around saying that Lichtenstein is a artist, he was a schemer of the highest order and that is all, he did nothing for the comic book world but steal from it.

cheers

Raul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just assumed if he's copying the panel he might as well copy the words, thoughts, captions, and sound effects line for line. It's not the letter's work, as much as it's the writer's work.

The combination of the captions and comic style art is the whole point of Lichtenstein`s work. He wasn`t trying to create comic style art. He was bringing out the pop art-ness of everyday things such as comic panels when they are presented out of context, in the same way that everyday branding or pictures of celebrities became pop art in Warhol`s hands.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but using the word "combining" suggests he joined 2 disparate things into one piece. The captions and word balloons and sound effect blurbs were all part of the original panel he lifted.

Agreed that "combining" wasn't the best choice of words. What I meant, which I think you get, is that the pieces he used would've had to contain dialogue in order to best reflect the kitsch nature of the source material that he was highlighting. Just dialogue wouldn't have been visually appealing, and just comic art would've been, well, just comic art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just assumed if he's copying the panel he might as well copy the words, thoughts, captions, and sound effects line for line. It's not the letter's work, as much as it's the writer's work.

The combination of the captions and comic style art is the whole point of Lichtenstein`s work. He wasn`t trying to create comic style art. He was bringing out the pop art-ness of everyday things such as comic panels when they are presented out of context, in the same way that everyday branding or pictures of celebrities became pop art in Warhol`s hands.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but using the word "combining" suggests he joined 2 disparate things into one piece. The captions and word balloons and sound effect blurbs were all part of the original panel he lifted.

Agreed that "combining" wasn't the best choice of words. What I meant, which I think you get, is that the pieces he used would've had to contain dialogue in order to best reflect the kitsch nature of the source material that he was highlighting. Just dialogue wouldn't have been visually appealing, and just comic art would've been, well, just comic art.

 

 

True, and I really do believe that with a little more respect and deference to the original subject matter and artwork and artist, I (and others) would be able to appreciate the efforts to shine the light on the small to say something larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have to give credit to a guy who can take a throw away panel from a comic book and turn it into a multi-million dollar enterprise. On a certainly level, whoever the original artists were are certainly getting more exposure than if Lichenstein had never lifted the panels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Aman mentioned the art world ponzi scheme....enough people with too much cash sit around contemplating their own navel and trying to be sophisticated and stuff like this, or the shark, or Campbell's soup cans suddenly become introspective masterpieces on the human condition.

It's not a ponzi scheme--the art world has always been a case of the market being heavily influenced by a few kingmakers, and those artists who were lucky enough to be favored by those kingmakers. It then takes the passage of time to separate those who were just popular flashes in the pan from those whose appeal continues to last (and those who weren't appreciated in life but become popular only much later).

 

This has been compounded in the post-photography era, as Aman has pointed out, because simply being a good or great draftsman, which seems to be where your interests lie, is no longer good enough (arguably it was never good enough). You've got to do something that stands out, whether that's creating formaldehyde sharks or Campbell soup cans. For what it's worth, I like Warhol a lot. Lichtenstein I can take or leave, but I can understand why others, particularly non-comic readers but of course who are aware of comic strips and comic books, appreciate his work.

Link to comment
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
2 2