Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind

1 1

 

Roy Lichtenstein made a career copying comic book panels and selling them as pop art for millions. Now, one of his victims speaks out.

 

In this strip, veteran artist Russ Heath discuss his feelings toward Lichtenstein's Whaam! being based on one of his panels from DC Comics' All-American Men of War #89. Many of Lichtenstein's works were copied from comics, including works by legendary artists like Joe Kubert and Jack Kirby. Heath drew the piece in support of The Hero Initiative, a non-profit which gives support to comics professionals in need. The charity has helped figures such as ailing Rocket Raccoon creator Bill Mantlo, after a hit and run in 1992 left him requiring full-time medical care.

 

Source

I wonder how this would play out if it occurred today.

 

I'm sure Marvel/Disney would let it slide.

I love this old chestnut. Victim!!

Equally disturbing is the Hero Initiative: What We Do decription.

 

"Since its inception, The Hero Initiative (Formerly known as A.C.T.O.R., A Commitment To Our Roots) has had the good fortune to grant over $500,000 to over 50 comic book veterans who have paved the way for those in the industry today."

 

When you think about it, with all the millionaires vintage comics have made you'd think HERO would be drowning in cash. Heritage, Metropolis, ComicLink, Mile High, and on and on. And that's not even thinking about character projects and the gazillions of promotional dollars flowing through SDCC, New York and the like. Warner, Disney, Stan Lee, McFarlane, directors, performers and studios.

 

A single Action 1 or 'Tec 27 has probably gone up $500K since HERO's inception. (which may be hyperbole, I don't know, but keys have gone up A LOT).

 

Maybe that thinking is way, way off base, but $500K over multiple years seems like floor-sweepings. Seems like if only one those pinnacle-people cut them a decent check it would blow that amount away.

Every single artist has at some point in their career copied another one.

 

I'm a big fan of the Hero Initiative, but this is just a sour grapes side swipe.

If I use Rodin's statue of "The Thinker" as source material for a panel of Peter Parker contemplating his future after some tragic occurrence, do I owe something to Rodin? I don't think I do.

 

But, if I take a panel from a comic book drawn by Russ Heath and reproduce it exactly as printed, up to and including the color dots from the printing process, I should at the very least, credit the source and pay something to the copyright holder and hopefully the original artist.

 

There are artists who draw and paint from life models and photographs. And there are some artists who can create something from their "mind's eye" without the use of any source material. "Fine Art," as in what Lichtenstein's is purported to be, since it was "created" from neither source, should not be exempt from paying for copyright fees, because he used someone else's creation to "create" his vision.

 

Lichtenstein took panels from comic books and painted them blown up.

 

Warhol took soup cans and painted them in multiples.

 

Hirst put a shark in formaldehyde.

 

All art.

 

Lichtenstein did not take four million dollars from the wallet of Russ Heath. If he hadn't produced this particular piece, no one would have, not me, not Russ Heath.

 

Should Lichtenstein have given some of the proceeds of his sales to the artists who's work he copied?

 

Totally up to him.

 

Should he be condemned because he didn't?

 

Absolutely not.

 

Lichtenstein took panels from comic books and painted them blown up.

 

Warhol took soup cans and painted them in multiples.

 

Hirst put a shark in formaldehyde.

 

All art.

 

Lichtenstein did not take four million dollars from the wallet of Russ Heath. If he hadn't produced this particular piece, no one would have, not me, not Russ Heath.

 

Should Lichtenstein have given some of the proceeds of his sales to the artists who's work he copied?

 

Totally up to him.

 

Should he be condemned because he didn't?

 

Absolutely not.

Why, because unlike the other things you mentioned he took it from another artist. A shark in a jar is not the same as blatantly copying another artist drawing. He took work that was created by other artist that he then passed of as his own, and not even crediting them as where he got the idea from. His drawing are also inferior when viewed side by side with the originals Its even more hypocritical that on his website they say that you can't modify, edit, or reproduce the text and graphics without their consent even though that's exactly what he did himself.

I don't think Lichtenstein took four million dollars from Russ Heath's wallet. I do think he used a copyrighted panel from a comic book, for which he should have paid a fee.

 

I note that Lichtenstein did not copy any panels of trademarked characters because he would have left himself open to a lawsuit from the trademark holder. So, no panel of Superman flying through the air or Wonder Woman playing bullets and bracelets. Only non-descript panels from hard to identify sources.

I guess I see this differently as I see him presenting his work more as an 'idea' with the actual final images not meaning very much more than them being striking images.

 

He copied comic book panels - that was his art, his final pieces (the Russ Heath one inc) are just the way of presenting his 'art'. It really didn't matter whatsoever what panels he copied, what mattered is that he did it, no one else, that's his talent.

 

Now I can see people then countering that with 'anyone could do that!' - but yeah, well they could, but here's the kicker... they didn't did they...

 

Just as placing a moustache on the Mona Lisa and exhibiting a urinal is artistic, so is doing what he did.

 

Undoubtably Russ swiped art when drawing his panels, every artist does. The difference being, that was his artistic sphere, his work sold in the millions for 10 cents each time. Roy's sold one each time for millions.

 

I'm not even a Lichtenstein fan, but talent is talent.

 

But hey that's my opinion, your mileage may vary.

I guess I see this differently as I see him presenting his work more as an 'idea' with the actual final images not meaning very much more than them being striking images.

 

He copied comic book panels - that was his art, his final pieces (the Russ Heath one inc) are just the way of presenting his 'art'. It really didn't matter whatsoever what panels he copied, what mattered is that he did it,

 

+1

 

Which is why I don't have a problem with the lack of credit to Heath, et al..

I guess I see this differently as I see him presenting his work more as an 'idea' with the actual final images not meaning very much more than them being striking images.

 

He copied comic book panels - that was his art, his final pieces (the Russ Heath one inc) are just the way of presenting his 'art'. It really didn't matter whatsoever what panels he copied, what mattered is that he did it,

 

+1

 

Which is why I don't have a problem with the lack of credit to Heath, et al..

 

Without the artist, in this case, Heath, he wouldn't have had anything to copy. He should have given credit to the original artists. Did Roy L owe Heath or any other artists a piece of the pie? That's another issue.

Whats the difference between what he did, and this http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/brian-bolland-takes-on-erro-and-wins/ besides the fact that Bolland did something in this case, as opposed to the publishers not doing anything about Lichtenstein? You can't criticize one, and give the other a pass for doing the same thing. Lichtenstein got lucky with the publishers back then, if he was here today, and attempted to do what he always did he would have lawyers on him faster then he could pick the panel to copy from. All because he wasn't called out for plagiarizing all those years ago doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Wow. You'd think most artist would be very uncomfortable doing 'direct lift' of other artists works like that. That's a whole 'nother level than homage, reinterpretation or found-object stuff.

 

Is there any other biz-sector where 'direct lift' is so casually excepted and rewarded? It's hard to imagine that in the automobile world, some carmaker just blatantly leeching a Corvette design as their own work.

 

Is there any other biz-sector where 'direct lift' is so casually excepted and rewarded? It's hard to imagine that in the automobile world, some carmaker just blatantly leeching a Corvette design as their own work.

 

The concept of theft is apparently conditional

All revisionist history and nonsense. Let's say Lichtenstein did "the right thing" and contacted DC for the rights to the Whammm panel. DC would have had to cover the receiver so Roy didn't hear them laughing, and the fee would have been like $50. AND Riss Heath wouldn't have seen a dime!

 

Is that what would have been okay by you guys crying foul??

 

And, having secured the rights Roy would have been free and clear to sell the paintings and never share another penny. Somehow I think you'd still be saying DC and Heath were left out of the money, even though it was a fairly negotiated exchange.

 

 

So, it's silly to be so upset now, fifty years later because if how things worked out. Heath is near broke NOT because Lichtenstein ripped him off, but because the comics industry did! Never paying enough money so the artists and writers to save up for retirement...

 

But gee, in this economy, lots and lots of professions don't pay enough either. Maybe Lichtenstein is to blame there too.

 

 

And, just wait til gene comes home and posts on the subject!!

His drawing are also inferior when viewed side by side with the originals

 

If you're comparing the drawing quality of Lichtenstein to the original comic book artists, you're asking the wrong question (plus you're just wrong anyway; Lichtenstein's versions were much more evocative than the throwaway panels he swiped). Lichtenstein at this point in his career (he only did these paintings for a few years out of a glorious multi-decade career) was all about turning everyday commercial images into art. Taken out of a nondescript comic book and blown up to huge size with vivid colors, Ben-Day dots, etc., and putting it into a gallery setting? It's as much about the idea as it is the execution. Seeing one of RL's paintings in a gallery or a museum evokes a much difference response from staring at two identically sized images on David Barsalou's anti-Lichtenstein website (which, I'm sorry, is just pointless and preposterous).

 

Comics historian Arlen Schumer has some things to say about this latest round of Lichtenstein-bashing:

 

Here we go again! Dean, the "blame" for Russ Heath's old-age situation should be placed where it belongs: not at Lichtenstein, who made legitimate fine art out of Heath's found-art, commercial panel (the very definition of pop art), but at the very comic companies who used Heath as a full-time freelancer, and never paid royalties or benefits or anything that longtime company employers should provide workers like Heath who gave their best years, blood, sweat and tears to them. Instead, we get the usual boogeyman-blaming of Lichtenstein. OK, so maybe back in his early years Lichtenstein should've credited his sources (his Estate credits them in shows & catalogs now)--but no one was doing that back then, or in the early years of music sampling either. But in NO WAY does Lichtenstein owe ANY of his comic book sources ANYTHING. Blame DC and Marvel Comics for never doing the right thing by their artists or writers.

 

Again, let's separate what RL "should've" done from what he "had" to do, and still "has" to do, legally, ethically and morally. Led Zeppelin didn't credit the blues songs they "covered" for their 1st album in 1969 (credited as Page-Plant "originals") until they were hauled into court decades later.

 

Roy Lichtenstein's work is the VERY DEFINITION of pop art itself: the idea that everyday objects and motifs/ideas/forms from our commercial and popular culture environment could be legitimate areas of artistic study and exploration as valid as the more traditional ones of the "natural" world (landscapes and still lifes) and the inner imagination (abstract expressionism). Lichtenstein chose the world of comic art for his particular pop art, and produced a body of work that turned out to be his life's work. Through his artistic transformation of his "found" art subject matter (what Pop shared with the Dadaist/surrealists like Duchamp)--not the pejorative of "tracing comic panels," "ripping them off," etc.--Lichtenstein explored many of the most classic artistic subjects of culture, society, relationships, image, identity, perception--and art itself, in a complete turning inside-out of the art-imitates-life-imitates-art moebius strip that both confounded and won over art critics, and is the source of a kind of humor in his work.

 

He also makes a great point (can't find his exact post on Facebook) about how comic book fans have this perception that the fine art world snubs their noses at them, and yet, they're doing the same thing in reverse when it comes to Lichtenstein.

And, just wait til gene comes home and posts on the subject!!

 

 

In any case, we've debated this topic at length before:

 

The Definitive Roy Lichtenstein Thread to End All Roy Lichtenstein Threads in the OA Forum

; )