Allow me for a moment to compare something a little closer to the soul of this thread rather than Picasso or Pollock.
I give you Tom Everhart
Now, obviously Tom didn't create the Peanuts characters as we all know who did. I kind of like Tom's paintings, but it's mostly because I like the source material. I was given the opportunity to purchase the above painting by an extreme high pressure sales women at the gallery that handles Tom's work exclusively.
It's not a particularly large painting at approximately 20x24. The price on the painting at the time (which was many years ago) was $6000. I really did consider purchasing it due to the high pressure my wife and I were enduring. I then learned that this was actually from a series of paintings titled "76 Dog Salute" when I asked about the series I then learned that it was a series of 76 versions of the same painting!
Mind you, they are all different, in a sense, as some of them have Tom's foot prints and hand prints on them. He's the official Jackson Pollock of the Peanuts world as it were. When I learned that there was actually 75 others of essentially the same painting, we quickly got up from the private viewing room and left. Why? And why do I relate this story?
Because true artistic originality matters to me, in composition, and in creation. I was willing to ignore the originality aspect and focus on the creation but then was instantly turned off when realizing that this living artist was simply creating these pieces as a means of financial gain off of them. That is the true realization of art, looking past the "tortured soul" stories and accepting why it was created.
Lichtenstein, Picasso, Pollock, Warhol, etc. They're only as "tortured" as the gallery representatives make them out to be. Creating art as a job is far and away different than creating art simply to be an artist. Michelangelo created art because it was his job, not because he was wanting to make some inspirational statement as an artist. I feel that many artists that are purposely trying to inspire, fall flat on their faces. At least Picasso understood this.
Wow. I would have walked too.
I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there.
That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade.
Wait a minute. Let's assume for argument's sake the Lichenstein did violate a copyright. Even if that were true, it's the publishers that have a claim (since they own the copyright), not the individual artist. Since the publishers don't seem to care, what's the big deal?
The publisher doesn't necessarily own the copyright. Depending on how the contract reads, the artist may retain the copyright in the same manner that a writer retains the copyright for their materials. The publisher my have printing and rights to the artwork, but those rights generally are not transferable to another entity beyond the publisher and are not the same as the copyright.
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.
The difference is that Lichtenstein was marketed to wealthy collectors where as comic book artists were marketed to kids.
#5178126 - 10/24/1108:38 AMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: tonytiger]
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: 33263
Loc: Hong Kong
Originally Posted By: tonytiger
Originally Posted By: jick
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.
The difference is that Lichtenstein was marketed to wealthy collectors where as comic book artists were marketed to kids.
No, the difference is that Lichtenstein presented his work as art, whereas the comic book creators presented their work as just disposable entertainment.
Wait a minute. Let's assume for argument's sake the Lichenstein did violate a copyright. Even if that were true, it's the publishers that have a claim (since they own the copyright), not the individual artist. Since the publishers don't seem to care, what's the big deal?
The publisher doesn't necessarily own the copyright. Depending on how the contract reads, the artist may retain the copyright in the same manner that a writer retains the copyright for their materials. The publisher my have printing and rights to the artwork, but those rights generally are not transferable to another entity beyond the publisher and are not the same as the copyright.
If you're talking about the stuff Lichtenstein used, the publishers do own copyright. At that time, all the stuff was work for hire. Which artists are you thinking about who retained their copyright?
#5178206 - 10/24/1109:57 AMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: aman619]
BuffyfanBuffyfan "I don't feel like a freaknut..."
"Sometimes you don't."
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 13347
Loc: Watching the Lunatics Run the ...
Originally Posted By: aman619
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
Allow me for a moment to compare something a little closer to the soul of this thread rather than Picasso or Pollock.
I give you Tom Everhart
Now, obviously Tom didn't create the Peanuts characters as we all know who did. I kind of like Tom's paintings, but it's mostly because I like the source material. I was given the opportunity to purchase the above painting by an extreme high pressure sales women at the gallery that handles Tom's work exclusively.
It's not a particularly large painting at approximately 20x24. The price on the painting at the time (which was many years ago) was $6000. I really did consider purchasing it due to the high pressure my wife and I were enduring. I then learned that this was actually from a series of paintings titled "76 Dog Salute" when I asked about the series I then learned that it was a series of 76 versions of the same painting!
Mind you, they are all different, in a sense, as some of them have Tom's foot prints and hand prints on them. He's the official Jackson Pollock of the Peanuts world as it were. When I learned that there was actually 75 others of essentially the same painting, we quickly got up from the private viewing room and left. Why? And why do I relate this story?
Because true artistic originality matters to me, in composition, and in creation. I was willing to ignore the originality aspect and focus on the creation but then was instantly turned off when realizing that this living artist was simply creating these pieces as a means of financial gain off of them. That is the true realization of art, looking past the "tortured soul" stories and accepting why it was created.
Lichtenstein, Picasso, Pollock, Warhol, etc. They're only as "tortured" as the gallery representatives make them out to be. Creating art as a job is far and away different than creating art simply to be an artist. Michelangelo created art because it was his job, not because he was wanting to make some inspirational statement as an artist. I feel that many artists that are purposely trying to inspire, fall flat on their faces. At least Picasso understood this.
Wow. I would have walked too.
I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there.
That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade.
Everhart's Peanuts paintings have been featured at the Lourve, among other places. When I said he was the "official" Peanuts painter what I meant was that he has q contract allowing him to paint these characters for the duration of his life.
His paintings are already selling for 10's of thousands. I imagine that when he dies we'll see some stupid money spent.
_________________________
WANTED: (preferably pedigreed) Extreme High Grade Vampirella's Savage Sword of Conan Magazines needed VF++ or better: 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 129, 132, 192, 194, 196-200, 204-210, 216, 217, 218, 221, 223 http://www.donwalthropphotography.com
“Widespread acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity. -Robert Langdon”
#5178266 - 10/24/1110:34 AMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: pinupcartoonguy]
comix4funcomix4fun This is one of the rare times that having no friends works in my favor.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 06/30/02
Posts: 23961
Loc: No Soup For You!
Originally Posted By: pinupcartoonguy
Originally Posted By: SC in SC
Aman619
So basically, what you're trying to say is it's ok to steal as long as some uber-rich people say it's ok? Well let's just goahead and let Bernie Madoff out and get his stuff back because he obviously didn't do anything wrong by taking the money that was gleefully given to him to invest. After all, they gave it to him.
And I'm certain other uber-rich people won;t disagree that he didn't do anything wrong.
Forget all this "art is this, and art is that" junk. Let's get down to the real meat of the argument.
Is it ok to profit from the use of someone else's property without having their permission to use that property?
I say "property" to mean ANYTHING that is legally owned by a person or entity such as a business. That means patents, copyrights, equipment, buildings, monies, and anything else that can be covered as legally ownable.
You DO understand that this is exactly what happened don't you? Lichtenstein painted an image (through whatever method) that was owned by someone else by copyright law without their permission and profited from it.
Do you think us to be such sheep that because a few of the "elite" of the art world like his work and think it great work, we are going to believe he did nothing wrong? Heck, I like what he did too, and I could actually see some value to it had he gotten permissiontouse the panel first. As it stands right now though, it's nothing more than stealing and all the profits from his works should be taken from his estate and heirs, divided up, and given to the artists and their families/heirs whose work he stole.
Wait a minute. Let's assume for argument's sake the Lichenstein did violate a copyright. Even if that were true, it's the publishers that have a claim (since they own the copyright), not the individual artist. Since the publishers don't seem to care, what's the big deal?
If a copyright is violated in the forest and no one's there to sue, was a copyright violated?
Don't equate a publisher not seeing the value in pursuing an IP infringement case where they failed to understand the ramifications of the work in question with no copyright being violated. They aren't the same thing.
I've never been a fan of "no one got caught" so "nothing wrong or dishonest or insulting" happened-type of arguments.
We've seen what happens when someone attempts that type of thing now. The laws haven't changed as much as levels of understanding of rights have changed.
I expect an artist to be deferential and respectful for other artists, especially when he thinks highly of the other artist's work enough to appropriate it for his own commercial uses.
#5178285 - 10/24/1110:45 AMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: AtlasFan]
comix4funcomix4fun This is one of the rare times that having no friends works in my favor.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 06/30/02
Posts: 23961
Loc: No Soup For You!
Originally Posted By: AtlasFan
I presume that Sparky's estate must be getting a % of those sales. its probably in the contract this artist signed with United Features.
I have heard (maybe here) that some countries have laws that require that the original artist gets a % forevermore for each re-sale!
Well the countries themselves don't have the laws, except France it seems, creating a duty as much as they allow agreements between the artist and buyer to be enforceable against subsequent buyers. This has been pushed through the EU, but the UK has resisted and there is some disagreement about whether it only applies to auction sales or all sales.
It's far more common in Europe but, yes, it's a % of the profit from sale and it runs with the piece. It's questionable as to whether or not, outside of voluntary compliance, these Transfer and Sale Agreements are enforceable beyond the original buyer and the artist, in the US under established contract law.
