• 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

It all down to opinion anyway . . .

 

 

:gossip: And marketing...don't forget the all powerful influence of effective marketing. (worship)

 

 

Yep . . . maybe some of the used-car-salesmen moved in to the fine art business? :jokealert:

 

 

 

What was the old line about Leo Castelli? "He could sell 2 Beer Cans if he wanted to"

 

Then Jasper Johns made a sculpture of 2 beer cans, called Painted Broze (Ale Cans), and sure enough...Castelli sold it. lol

 

 

Yeah, fact is often stranger (and funnier) than fiction! :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to like Modern Art, but it does help to understand it a little.

We don't like it all either. I happen to not like de Kooning.

 

But I kind of like this piece :devil: Which I have seen in person :insane:

http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/interactive_features/78

 

Nothing against modern art. I grew up in a city which housed a major Art Gallery exhibiting such works.

 

Some of it I liked (and still do).

 

Having an 'understanding' doesn't necessarily help you appreciate something that doesn't strike an emotional chord with you.

 

You can appreciate the idea behind the work, if not the execution.

 

This thread was about an artist whose comic-book panels were direct lifts from published (comic-book) works.

 

It's relevant to this forum.

 

I'm sure there are fine art forums, elsewhere, where you can dazzle one another with your knowledge and taste for such things.

 

On a fine art forum, would you want to bring attention to (to your peers) your collection of G.I. Joe comic-strip originals? (shrug)

 

 

Certainly it doesn't always help.

But if the dislike is based on a misunderstanding, or if the artwork is taken out of context then sometimes it helps to understand the why.

 

Unless its an internet chat forum, then it just pisses people off :baiting:

Edited by Rip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

It would be a little bit like loving a song until you discover an entire 30 second stretch was sampled (not realistic but illustrates that your appreciation for the song would diminish).

 

It was a different time and all that, and no doubt there would have been a different attitude to lifting a couple panels from a kids book, but jeez louise change them up at least a little. Make them yours.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it Basquiat that lived with some friends for a while and painted their refrigeration door as a gift?

 

I can't remember if it was him.

 

Yes, that's Basquiat, but it wasn't just his friends, it was his longtime girlfriend who he lived with as well. He used to scrible everywhere. He even gave works to landlords in lieu of rent or he would do a scribble for the proprietor of a restaurant he enjoyed. It really irked him when he would do these things and they would immediately be sold to a gallery. If you're interested in Basquiat, there is an EXCELLENT documentary that was just recently released on DVD called "Radiant Child." Downtown81 is also an excellent time period piece. And though Jeffrey Wright does a wonderful job playing Basquiat in Schnabel's movie, please don't take any of that movie as anything more than entertainment. There are so many inaccuracies and historical warpings that its basically a total piece of fiction. Basquiat admired Schnabel greatly and would always ask him what he though of him - if this movie is his response, well, I don't think he thought much of him at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to like Modern Art, but it does help to understand it a little.

We don't like it all either. I happen to not like de Kooning.

 

But I kind of like this piece :devil: Which I have seen in person :insane:

http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/interactive_features/78

 

This thread was about an artist whose comic-book panels were direct lifts from published (comic-book) works.

 

It's relevant to this forum.

 

I'm sure there are fine art forums, elsewhere, where you can dazzle one another with your knowledge and taste for such things.

 

On a fine art forum, would you want to bring attention to (to your peers) your collection of G.I. Joe comic-strip originals? (shrug)

 

In fine art class I loved talking about comics. Often the topics would overlap.

Sometimes its fun to chit chat with what other comic collectors think.

That's also why we have the water cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

It would be a little bit like loving a song until you discover an entire 30 second stretch was sampled (not realistic but illustrates that your appreciation for the song would diminish).

 

It was a different time and all that, and no doubt there would have been a different attitude to lifting a couple panels from a kids book, but jeez louise change them up at least a little. Make them yours.

 

 

Have you seen them in person? Be honest :baiting:

It helps.

Edited by Rip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

It would be a little bit like loving a song until you discover an entire 30 second stretch was sampled (not realistic but illustrates that your appreciation for the song would diminish).

 

It was a different time and all that, and no doubt there would have been a different attitude to lifting a couple panels from a kids book, but jeez louise change them up at least a little. Make them yours.

 

 

Have you seen them in person? Be honest :baiting:

It helps.

 

 

oooh oooh! I have! I have!

 

It makes you feel like characters in those "incredible shrinking" sci fi movie from the 50's. I was waiting for a giant hand to come down and turn the comic page.

 

I used to think how cool it how he made all those dots so perfectly and all the same size, until I found out he used a wire screen to do it. lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

It would be a little bit like loving a song until you discover an entire 30 second stretch was sampled (not realistic but illustrates that your appreciation for the song would diminish).

 

It was a different time and all that, and no doubt there would have been a different attitude to lifting a couple panels from a kids book, but jeez louise change them up at least a little. Make them yours.

 

 

Have you seen them in person? Be honest :baiting:

It helps.

 

I've seen a fair bit of modern art in person, I enjoy going to galleries, but Lichty's in particular - no, I have not, I will grant you that. I'm sure they look great, but that isn't really the point. If I did a 10 foot tall snoopy or superman or garfield as a line for line copy I bet it would look like the cats azz too, but if you are going to celebrate concepts over aesthetics (fine) then you can't point to the aesthetics in your defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you look at it on your computer screen they tend to look a lot closer.

But yes, when the size is larger you can see more of what went into the piece.

 

It certainly doesn't look as close when you see it in person. Some art galleries in fact have the original beside Lichtenstein so you can compare them first hand.

 

Its certainly not the same as if I blew up Snoopy.

Edited by Rip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

 

You beat me to it . . .

 

See my post #5687804 on page 26 for starters.

 

Maybe this will help guide some people to the progression of gamesmanship and running dialog at hand within the found object, popular culture, and banality.

 

Wikipedia actually does a decent job here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_objects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

Edited by Rip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you look at it on your computer screen they tend to look a lot closer.

But yes, when the size is larger you can see more of what went into the piece.

 

It certainly doesn't look as close when you see it in person. Some art galleries in fact have the original beside Lichtenstein so you can compare them first hand.

 

Its certainly not the same as if I blew up Snoopy.

 

 

 

Well, to be fair, you'd probably have to blow up the source material to the same size if a "how close to the original" comparison is going to be done.

 

I do see variations and slight changes between the source and the finished in the line work. Usually thicker lines with far less technique and extremely clunky draftsmanship in how hands, fingers, eyes, and facial features are rendered.

 

There are changes, they just aren't very material or complimentary to the artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

 

You beat me to it . . .

 

See my post #5687804 on page 26 for starters.

 

Maybe this will help guide some people to the progression of gamesmanship and running dialog at hand within the found object, popular culture, and banality.

 

Wikipedia actually does a decent job here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_objects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

 

Already seen all that stuff, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get to far off track, but just curious, who would you champion as more influential, Duchamp or Picasso?

 

Well, given how much art from the past half century-plus can be traced back, in whole or in part, to ready-mades/found objects, moves away from painting and drawing, and towards conceptual art in general, I'd have to say that Duchamp was not only the more influential of the two, but he was by a wide margin.

 

Did you know, though, that it is virtually certain that the Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven was behind "Duchamp's" famous "R. Mutt" Fountain? :whatthe:hm

 

 

But I kind of like this piece :devil: Which I have seen in person :insane:

http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/interactive_features/78

 

lol...amazing that de Kooning gave him the drawing to erase! Tom Friedman did an erased version of a Playboy centerfold in the '90s as kind of an homage to the piece - it was on sale at Christie's in March.

 

 

What was the old line about Leo Castelli? "He could sell 2 Beer Cans if he wanted to"

 

Then Jasper Johns made a sculpture of 2 beer cans, called Painted Broze (Ale Cans), and sure enough...Castelli sold it. lol

 

There's more to it than that. :baiting:

 

 

In fine art class I loved talking about comics. Often the topics would overlap.

Sometimes its fun to chit chat with what other comic collectors think.

That's also why we have the water cooler.

 

(thumbs u There are many comic collectors and comic art collectors who appreciate all kinds of art. There are also those who don't. In any case, it makes for some very interesting conversation. Nothing wrong with that - if this subject gets anyone's blood pressure worked up unnecessarily, no one is putting a gun to their head to read it. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

 

You beat me to it . . .

 

See my post #5687804 on page 26 for starters.

 

Maybe this will help guide some people to the progression of gamesmanship and running dialog at hand within the found object, popular culture, and banality.

 

Wikipedia actually does a decent job here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_objects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

 

Already seen all that stuff, thanks.

 

So which section confused you the most :baiting:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What was the old line about Leo Castelli? "He could sell 2 Beer Cans if he wanted to"

 

Then Jasper Johns made a sculpture of 2 beer cans, called Painted Broze (Ale Cans), and sure enough...Castelli sold it. lol

 

There's more to it than that. :baiting:

 

 

 

Yes there's a nice gallery, in a great location, and champagne, canapes, nice lighting, soft music, and lots and lots and lots of nodding yes men, sycophants, and enablers. lol

 

It's a metaphor, and it applies perfectly. Some people have a gift for selling. It is a gift that can be so powerful that eskimos will indeed find themselves ordering pallets full of ice cubes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

 

You beat me to it . . .

 

See my post #5687804 on page 26 for starters.

 

Maybe this will help guide some people to the progression of gamesmanship and running dialog at hand within the found object, popular culture, and banality.

 

Wikipedia actually does a decent job here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_objects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

 

Already seen all that stuff, thanks.

 

So which section confused you the most :baiting:

 

Your arrogance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I was at the Neue Gallerie museum yesterday. It was actually my first visit there (a glaring oversight) and, hence, my first viewing of Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, which, I have to admit, is amazing in person and much more impressive than I expected. There's also a spectacular exhibition of early German/Austrian photography going on now - room #2 of the exhibition is mindblowingly good. I'd highly recommend it to anyone in the NYC area.

 

I also saw the incredible The Steins Collect exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art yesterday, which showcases the art collection of Gertrude Stein and her siblings that they assembled (on an upper-middle class type budget) in Paris in the 1900s-1940s. The exhibition ends this weekend and I can't recommend it highly enough, especially if you enjoy Picasso and Matisse. It's just amazing seeing collections like this, the Frick collection in NYC and the Barnes collection in Philly (among others) and to think that these used to be private collections of some of the most important art in Western history.

 

It also makes me wonder if someone with a decent (but not necessarily unlimited) bankroll and a keen eye could build a collection of contemporary art that would be viewed as amazing, say, 30-40 years from now. Or, is it just an insiders' game now and is that no longer possible? Could it still be done in comic art, or did you have to get in on the big land grab when prices were still (relatively) cheap and the best pieces still largely available in the 1980s and 1990s? hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be much easier in comic art IMO. Less material to buy, and at smaller price points.

 

From my view on the sidelines, I think the fine art market has become so much about the sizzle that having a good eye for steak won't help much.

 

Its just a different world too.

 

To put it in comic terms if the Steins saw a Neal Adams equivalent they could simply buy his work at what were then high prices for life (and I believe they did that with Matisse IIRC, or perhaps that was the Cone sisters?). Anyways, a Matisse today would be raised (and priced) to the stratosphere so quickly that those many years of cheap buys wouldn't really be possible.

 

In other words, I imagine truly high prices while the artist lived rarely if ever happened back then (this is 100 years ago!). Nowadays, I imagine the prices for a real superstar (or even a perceived one) get completely out of hand in no time. So you couldn't really buy in bulk at the source for long periods on the cheap, and anything good that's 30-40-50 years old is already priced to the moon... so... how would you even make a dent?

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