• 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

Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for

It was certainly shown to a different audience, and audience for whom the original subject matter may be foreign or entirely unknown. That seem to have helped it gain a footing at its origin. It also seems intentional to market the art to this audience that is so far removed form the original subject matter it allowed the "artist" and now family to give as little credit as possible (usually zero) and little to no attribution to the artist that created the work.

 

As to the reception the art receives that seems like the art world translation of the concept of "marketing"...because, from my experience, marketing in the gallery and artwork world creates reception and certainly creates perception.

 

Give an artist or a group of pieces a prestigious enough position in a prestigious enough gallery and people will be lined up to say it's the greatest thing they've ever seen regardless of its actual quality.

 

Do that often enough to people with large enough trust funds and BOOM.... $12 million dollar shark.

 

There's a big difference between what the old masters created turning what they saw and felt into masterpieces on canvas and this.

 

 

I don't want to argue about this. I too think the art world is a ponzi scheme. But even there, many works "speak to people's emotions" beyond the hype that may or may not have been responsible for you seeing it somewhere.

 

 

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.

 

It wasn't until centuries later that the leisure classes could paint from the heart. Ironically a large impetus came in the early 19th century with the invention of the camera, and more specifically, film on which to record with photographic realism. That was the painters goal all along, and now painters weren't necessary for realism, or even as good as a camera. Soon after widespread usage of film and prints did Impressionism begin, when an artist could interpret what he say on canvas.

 

One more thing about the old masters. Many scholars call them that because they had the god given talent to paint so realistically suddenly. Well, did you know they cheated? Just as artists today utilize technology to make their work easier, so did the old masters after the invention of lenses and then the camera obscura. Hockney published an exhaustive study proving the use of lenses so that artists could trace (light box) from real life, then paint on top of the accurate photographic layouts.

 

Shocking!!!!

 

There is an element of subterfuge in some sales. Look at the non-completed sales rates in Chinese contemporary art auctions circa 2010-2012 all while record prices were being set. And on the 12 million dollar shark, remember when Hirst's "For the Love of God" sold for a reported 50 million pounds only for it later to be revealed Hirst had essentially sold the work to himself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again? The difference lies in the purpose and execution, and in the reception the art receives. As one panel in a Crappy comic book aimed at kids and miscreants, he image is easily forgettable.

 

But singled out and recreated as a full size painting, hung in a Gallery where it is reeaxamined by itself, or in a series of similar images on canvas, invites an appreciation of the meaning of the elements and emotions of the panel. Taken out of its original context increases the focus of the throwaway panel drawn for a per page rate on a deadline. The viewer sees the image and experiences the same image in a completely different way.

 

Anyway, that's the theory. It works for me. How different is lichtensteins work, basically reinterpreting an existing man made creation, than any painter painting any other found object and reinterpreting it in a new context?

 

You could argue tht Lichtenstein saw more value in the original panel than the comic book artists did, having sold it for pennies.

 

This makes perfect sense to me. i don't know that i agree with it but it's a very illuminating point of view.

Edited by KingKoa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just happen to be reading the ASM TPB which includes issue #560, which features a Lichtenstein-inspired cover (see below). There's also a great fight scene in a museum where Spidey punches the villain with Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" in the background providing the sound effects. lol

149989.jpg.516793cb35652f58337f79396acab6d4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just happen to be reading the ASM TPB which includes issue #560, which features a Lichtenstein-inspired cover (see below). There's also a great fight scene in a museum where Spidey punches the villain with Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" in the background providing the sound effects. lol

 

That's a pretty cool idea. I like it. :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope people know this is a joke and not a real thing.

 

Yeah, it's totally fake. It's sad if there are real news agencies reporting this as real, just like they did with that ludicrous story about an Abstract Expressionist hoard that was found in a Long Island garage allegedly worth tens of millions even though nobody had even heard of the artist. :facepalm:

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