- Joined
- May 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,877
Whoops!
-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
Cancelled (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter therealjohnny
- Start date
- Replies 2K
- Views 105K
- Watchers 7
Roy Liechtenstein
www.theguardian.com
‘It’s called stealing’: new allegations of plagiarism against Roy Lichtenstein
Pop art founder made millions, but the comic book artists he copied struggled financially
- Joined
- May 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,877
Roy Liechtenstein
‘It’s called stealing’: new allegations of plagiarism against Roy Lichtenstein
Pop art founder made millions, but the comic book artists he copied struggled financially
It's kinda not plagiarism
Is anyone walking into an art gallery and confused that they are reading a comic book?
This is what popular art has always been - taking something that's gone before and remaking it into something new.
The argument mainly seems to be that these guys had horrible deals with the comic book publishers and are now poor, which is awful, but hardly old Roy's fault.
He took their work and didn't pay for it. It *is* his fault they're poor, in that they wouldn't be if they'd been given a cut of what has been made off their work without their permission.
now — if you’re attempting to be consistent — generalise this principle to, y’know, all images ever created... how does that work
that’s a useful read, even though it comes off as, let’s say, slightly-highbrow smug centrist, or something like that... and then, close to the end of that article there’s this innocuous little line:
...which seems to be doing an awful lot of heavy lifting — the “good reasons” aren’t specified, nor are the “harmful things”
handy outline of one corner of the culture wars nonetheless
Cormcolash
Well-Known Member
Isn't the entire point of Pop Art that it's reusing contemporary culture or every day bits of life and presenting them for consideration in a different medium? It's not exactly Lichtenstein's fault that the new medium is patronised by cunts that will pay millions of quid for it
- Joined
- May 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,877
I dunno, man. They seem to be two completely different things to me anyway.
Like if I sell paintings of bridges on the Liffey, can Santiago Calatrava sue me?
No one thinks my painting is a bridge.
No one tried to make soup out of Warhol painting.
The original guys made a deal with the comic publishers - to draw a comic for money - and were presumably alright with it at the time.
Until Roy made the big time.
I see where you're coming from, but artists should be free to create what they want.
I think it's a super interesting model, regardless of what box the author fits in
that doesn't address the issue that he took the images without consent though?
Cormcolash
Well-Known Member
Take the estate to court or whatever then. They're probably fucked though.
Ligeti took "Kubrick" to court over his music being used without asking for 2001, after like 30 years he was awarded 100 quid or some bollocks.
Doesn't stop 2001 from fuckin ruling
Ligeti took "Kubrick" to court over his music being used without asking for 2001, after like 30 years he was awarded 100 quid or some bollocks.
Doesn't stop 2001 from fuckin ruling
- Thread starter
- #1,472
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2002
- Messages
- 38,569
- Solutions
- 3
- Thread starter
- #1,473
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2002
- Messages
- 38,569
- Solutions
- 3
Another good read on the subject
Brian Bolland Takes On Erró... And Wins!
Recently, Bleeding Cool ran a piece on Icelandic artist Erró, who of late has specialised in taking comic book artwork, redrawing it, mixing it up,
bleedingcool.com
this is a really, really stoopid essay
like in fifteen different directions
this guy is a comic nerd, and his instinct to defend what he perceives as his corner of culture results in him deciding that lichtenstein is now his enemy. what a stupid hill to want to die on.
it’s just dumb, it hurt my brain to read it
sorry johnny, I’m not trying to be a prick, I just think it’s maybe one of the least-persuasive pieces of writing I’ve seen in years
can someone explain to me like i'm dumb, how 'i'm taking what you've created, but when i pass it off as my own, it's now *art*' works?
but that's not what he did. as you mention, a painting of a bridge is not a bridge. but he didn't convert a piece into a completely different medium, in many cases he may as well have photocopied prior art. he did create a piece of art out of a plane exploding, he created a piece of art from a piece of art and added bugger all.
in musical terms, it'd be like doing a nearly carbon copy of someone else's song and then claiming 'but my context is different'.
Cormcolash
Well-Known Member
I think it's a very good essay, in parts. I think his actual description of what the intention and themes of Lichtenstein's work was is good – there is this alienation to what could be described as mass hyperconsumerist culture present in all of Pop Art that I've seen, and that is essentially what's behind the movement for the most part, and the essay explains that well.
In saying that, I also absolutely agree that he does have this weird vendetta against Lichtenstein in the article, it's odd. It's strange to display the understanding of the actual idea behind the art, and then just pan the whole thing because you happen to like/be active in the appropriated medium. It's funny, he gives a good analysis of how the comic book industry works, but it's like he doesn't want anyone taking the piss out of it, even though he's pointing out how shit it is. If anything, he displays how the industry has just been completely co-opted by capitalist culture, which he is clearly against, but then is complaining that some pop artist was kind of saying the same thing in their work decades ago.
I mean yeah, he can call Lichtenstein a one-trick pony, but eh it's a pretty good trick and that's why it was successful. Lichtenstein isn't shite just because he didn't credit the original artists – you've actually explained how that would have a negative effect on the actual work.
I guess maybe he's trying to make the point that artists like Lichtenstein could have actually given something back of social value from the massive earnings they may have made in their lifetimes, especially to the mediums from which they took their ideas – but I'd rather go after the Bezos and Musks first, the ultrarich fucks.
Cormcolash
Well-Known Member
It's a bit similar to Cage's 4:33 - it's not the silence, it's actually about the sounds made in the space where it's being 'performed', mostly by the audience. The actual work is the process, not the purported canvas/manuscript/whatever.
With the Pop Art stuff, the art is the process in which the 'canvas' is taken out of its normal context and presented for consideration as a representation of contemporary mass culture of the time. Essentially, the fact that it is displayed in some gallery somewhere is intended to insulate it from its origins and invite the viewer to consider its 'validity' or 'relevance' to contemporary culture and most importantly to consider what it says or implies about modern society. If that makes sense.
It's post-modern as fuck really. I might try and start my own art career by presenting Pop Art works in a gallery for consideration as to what they say about the society that produced them, but some other prick probably already did that 40 years ago and made all the money.
David Kronenbourg
Well-Known Member
The Dalai Lama
- Thread starter
- #1,480
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2002
- Messages
- 38,569
- Solutions
- 3
Came here to post this
Dalai Lama apologises after kissing boy and asking him to ‘suck his tongue’
Interaction at temple in India seen in video that has gone viral condemned as ‘inappropriate’ and ‘scandalous’
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now