#5186769 - 10/27/1103:26 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: Buffyfan]
bluechipbluechip
If you have a dream about out-posting me, you better wake up and apologize.
Registered: 09/09/06
Posts: 2899
Originally Posted By: Buffyfan
This is what it states that you have to agree to on the Lichtenstein Foundation web site:
Quote:
The contents of this websire are for personal and/or educational use only. The texts, graphics and designs contained in this website may not be reproduced, downloaded or modified in any form without the express written permission of the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. Imagines of any work of visual art that are contained in this website may not be reproduced, downloaded or modified in any form without the express written permission of the Estate of Roy Lichtenstein or, if another copyright holder is identified on any such image, such other copyright holder...
...Nothing contained in this website shall be construed as conferring any license or right to any copyright or trademark in this website.
Oh the irony!
Nobody needs to reproduce or modify Lichtenstein's work when they can go back to the source material themselves and redraw it themselves in their own way (perhaps better?), print it up big and put it in a show.
Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.
Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .
As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.
It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.
Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.
Blatantly ripping off someone's work in such a huge, far-reaching manner is not art or expression for that matter. Taking an image the size of a business card and blowing it up 1000% does not constitute as an "original idea".
Coming to the defense of someone who's entire reputation is based on infringing on other people's art? I'm pretty sure you're going to be in the minority on that.
I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.
Registered: 02/16/11
Posts: 9916
Loc: Your mom's house.
Originally Posted By: DailySuperpower
I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.
Have you even read this thread?
We can agree to disagree. There is nothing close-minded about vilifying someone who's entire career and reputation is based upon the stealing of other people's work to make a buck. It's an embarrassment, and standing up for it under the guise of being "open-minded" is insulting to most artists. End of story.
I didn't need to read the thread, and I don't care to. The only people who value Lichtenstein's work are people who own it and need to convince themselves that a lifetime of lifting, lightboxing, photo referencing, tracing or whatever he did was "artistic license", people that actually never realized that he stole his compositions from comic books or people who think that stealing others' art and claiming it's your own is an acceptable form of expression.
I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.
Have you even read this thread?
We can agree to disagree. There is nothing close-minded about vilifying someone who's entire career and reputation is based upon the stealing of other people's work to make a buck. It's an embarrassment, and standing up for it under the guise of being "open-minded" is insulting to most artists. End of story.
Again, happy to be in the minority here as most artists take themselves way too seriously.
Originally Posted By: Dr. Balls
I didn't need to read the thread, and I don't care to. The only people who value Lichtenstein's work are people who own it and need to convince themselves that a lifetime of lifting, lightboxing, photo referencing, tracing or whatever he did was "artistic license", people that actually never realized that he stole his compositions from comic books or people who think that stealing others' art and claiming it's your own is an acceptable form of expression.
#5187321 - 10/27/1106:28 PMRe: Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
[Re: DailySuperpower]
comix4funcomix4fun This is one of the rare times that having no friends works in my favor.
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 06/30/02
Posts: 24038
Loc: No Soup For You!
Originally Posted By: DailySuperpower
Originally Posted By: Dr. Balls
Originally Posted By: DailySuperpower
Originally Posted By: Dr. Balls
Originally Posted By: Terry Doyle
Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.
Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .
As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.
It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.
Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.
Blatantly ripping off someone's work in such a huge, far-reaching manner is not art or expression for that matter. Taking an image the size of a business card and blowing it up 1000% does not constitute as an "original idea".
Coming to the defense of someone who's entire reputation is based on infringing on other people's art? I'm pretty sure you're going to be in the minority on that.
I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.
Have you even read this thread?
Did you ever read the part of Roy's biography where his kids were looking at a Disney drawing and they challenged their dad saying " I bet you can't draw this that well, Dad." and he proceeded to create his copy of the Disney piece?
That's where the "big idea" came from. That's it's origin.
All the ivory tower "deconstruct modern society and shine a light on the insignificant corners of it that speak to the basics of humanity" stuff got tacked on at the end by people that had nothing to do with the creation of the art....it was really to win a bet with his kids.
Out of curiosity, are people more offended by the fact the Lichtenstien profited from the use of the work or the fact that the original artist didn't profit?
Neither.
Credit, attribution, and honest disclosure. That's what's set me off from the beginning. Rob Granito gets my ire up too, and that's a few hundred dollars total.
Those original artists' names belong right there, next to Roy's on every single piece. The dollar amount is inconsequential to the overarching ethical issue.
Russ Heath, one of the artists swiped by Lichtenstein, was invited to a NY showing of Roy's paintings that was to have a special appearance by Roy. In following up he found it was a ticket only (no travel expenses) and he (Russ) was included to allow him to help honor Roy. He declined to attend.
_________________________
"You want me to trade you my comic for small rectangular sheets of green paper with the images of dead white men?"
As for the old masters, basically they were old, working a long time ago. Times were very different. They painted NOT what they felt or even chose to paint.. They painted to eat! They always had a benefactor paying them for each portrait, etc.
Plenty of old masterpieces were painted by the artist for themselves. The Mona Lisa isn't known to be a commission and it was in his possession until he died. Who exactly did Van Gogh paint for? Only a couple were sold in his lifetime. Rembrandt didn't do self-portraits because he was such a popular pin-up model.
Regardless, I view this modern/academic argument that it is somehow "lesser" art if there is a commission as a rather silly distinction. Critics and agents have often played a strong role in influencing the direction of many of the modern artists who are more "purely" motivated than their predecessor. Furthermore, if it is a universal rule, then practically no architecture could ever be art as it is almost all commissioned and often very closely supervised by the client and modified by the engineer/builder.
_________________________
"You want me to trade you my comic for small rectangular sheets of green paper with the images of dead white men?"
Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.
Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .
As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.
It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.
Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.
Blatantly ripping off someone's work in such a huge, far-reaching manner is not art or expression for that matter. Taking an image the size of a business card and blowing it up 1000% does not constitute as an "original idea".
Coming to the defense of someone who's entire reputation is based on infringing on other people's art? I'm pretty sure you're going to be in the minority on that.
I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.
Have you even read this thread?
Did you ever read the part of Roy's biography where his kids were looking at a Disney drawing and they challenged their dad saying " I bet you can't draw this that well, Dad." and he proceeded to create his copy of the Disney piece?
That's where the "big idea" came from. That's it's origin.
All the ivory tower "deconstruct modern society and shine a light on the insignificant corners of it that speak to the basics of humanity" stuff got tacked on at the end by people that had nothing to do with the creation of the art....it was really to win a bet with his kids.
I did read that part and it didn't change my view of the pieces. Good ideas come from all sorts of places.
