Is he a hack or a trust artist?
A hack and a thief. Fuck him.
I think some of the work he's done looks better than the original panels. I dunno, I feel weird about Lichtenstein. I could argue for and against him. I particularly do not care for him though.
>>78990510
Not a hack, but unnecessary since there's artists like Sienkiewicz and Wimberly that we can support instead.
One thing's for sure, he sucked dick at lettering.
How do you feel about Abhay's thoughts on Lichtenstein?
http://www.savagecritic.com/uncategorized/abhay-2014-another-year-that-i-mindlessly-consumed-entertainment/
But goddamn. Hearing dumbasses talk about this comic was like having all my nose hairs plucked out one after another. Comic book people and their multi-decade war with Roy Lichtenstein’s art is the dopiest, most exhausting bullshit that… It’s never going to stop! Lichtenstein’s become a Dick Tracy grotesque villain to comic book dopes, whose intellectual incuriosity and constant unfounded sense of victimization both intersect in a perfect marriage where Lichtenstein is concerned. There’s Fredric Wertham, then there’s Lichtenstein, then there’s some high school gym teacher that wasn’t nice enough to you weaklings. It is never going to stop. It’s exhausting. You’re exhausting.
Here’s what Larry Marder had to say in a two-page letter to the Comics Buyer Guide in 1989, when comic people were bitching and moaning about Lichtenstein — a letter Marder reprinted in 2011 because people were still bitching and moaning about Lichtenstein twenty-two years later: “Over the years, I’ve met and had conversations with many famous gallery artists (but not Lichtenstein). Quite a few knew and appreciated the art of comic books. But I’ve never yet had a conversation with a comic book artist who had anything less than a sneer for almost all modern artists. It’s a pity.”
>>78991569
There are people for whom the only “true” writing is fiction, who are quick to sneer about any kind of criticism as being somehow inherently less-than. But with criticism, an author can express themselves, can craft interesting phrases or sentences, can effect an audience emotionally or intellectually. It’s all writing. Criticism is just writing about writing. That’s it. That’s all it is. Pop Art? It’s still paintings– it’s just paintings of images, instead of a bowl of fruit or Jesus’s creepy virgin-momma. Not only is there not anything inherently less than about that, in the context of the time Pop Art was a major movement, that was arguably an interesting thing to question– what did art mean once images had become mechanized, industrialized, corporatized, constant and anonymous?
It’s not Roy Lichtenstein’s fault that comic art was anonymous industrial product; comics itself wouldn’t print the fucking names of the people who made them in the books for decades.
Is Roy Lichtenstein a “thief”? Well, to believe that you have to ignore that DC Comics had stolen all the rights to Russ Heath’s life work for themselves before Lichtenstein had ever shown up. DC Comics were the only people who could’ve made a legal issue of Lichtenstein’s appropriations because DC Comics is the true and exclusive “author” of those comics in any Court in this country– not Russ Heath. Is that right? No, it’s not– it sucks; it sucks; but that’s not Roy Lichtenstein’s fault either. P.S. when there was litigation to question whether that’s how we want society to work, how many comic creators did you see side with the creators of Superman? Long list…? Shya’right.
>>78991603
And hey, incidentally, how much did DC Comics share what it made off Russ Heath’s art with him? How much does it do that now? DC, through its sponsorship of the Hero Initiative, I guess helped chip in to buy a bottle of $2 Buck Chuck for the guy, and I’m supposed to be grossed out by Lichtentsein and think about what heroes DC are…?
And incidentally, the painting that Heath is complaining of, Whaam!…? Per Wikipedia at least, it’s based on an Irv Novick panel, with elements taken not only from Heath but also from a Jerry Grandenetti panel potentially…? Which is just weird. It’s “weird” that the people who should be educating the audience as to that point so that the audience can contextualize what Heath is saying failed to even so much as look at the Wikipedia for Whaam! But that weirdness isn’t Lichtenstein’s fault either– none of Lichtenstein’s paintings are called “hey, comics journalists, don’t bother to do any more than the bare minimum every single time” (though, if any were, he’d probably have stolen the art from Nick Cardy, so… the whole vicious cycle would’ve just started back up again).
There is a difference between looking at a panel of a comic in a comic book, and standing before paintings the size of a Lichtenstein. There is a difference between getting a flood of noise and someone stopping and saying “No, stop and have a visual experience with just this one moment, with just this one image, divorced of any commercial context.” There is a difference between preferring one experience to another, which is entirely valid, and claiming that the latter experience is fraudulent, which is the nonsense of fanboys.
>>78991569
>Quite a few knew and appreciated the art of comic books. But I’ve never yet had a conversation with a comic book artist who had anything less than a sneer for almost all modern artists. It’s a pity.”
that's such a good line
He's got a point but also when you're an artist seeing your panels sell for crazy money when you get nothing? fucked upcourse this doesn't stop us from loving big 2 so
>>78991633
Would it have been a more moral world if Lichstenstein had shared generously with Heath and Novick and others he took from during the extremely-brief period of time where Lichtenstein was doing comic-based paintings (which p.s. not even remotely his whole career… if only someone had invented a google where you could google basic information necessary to reach an informed opinion)? Yes. Absolutely. That would have been the more moral choice and I wish he had made it. Could Lichtenstein have questioned the manufactured image without appropriating specific instances of comic art? Maybe; maybe not; I think that something essential would have been lost if he had used his own images, but I can understand the argument. Is Russ Heath’s expression of his frustrations a legitimate way for him to feel? Absolutely. Again, Russ Heath is a great artist who deserved better, and certainly has everybody’s respect and admiration; that he ended up in a rough spot is fucking terrible and far too common. Could and should Lichtenstein have done a better job promoting the artists he took from? Okay. I don’t think that’s really his job, actually, but that’d have been nice of him, too, if we’re making up our Dream Boyfriend. Is Lichtenstein a plagiarist? Sure, yeah– I also heard Quentin Tarantino ripped off a Hong Kong movie one time, and that the Beastie Boys didn’t make all the noises on Paul’s Boutique themselves, if you want to go get angry about that too, heroes. But sure, is this the best of all possible worlds? It is not. Do Lichtenstein’s recreations suffer in comparison to the original work? I think so– I think there are things about the comics source drawing that Lichtenstein’s work loses in their recreations, to their detriment, though I do think I feel why he made those choices when I’ve look at his paintings.
>>78991667
I’m not saying that there aren’t valid criticisms of the guy to be made, with a reasonable temperament– though I don’t think any of those criticisms remotely rise to the level of “interesting“.
But if we’re going to have hear about this asshole for the next 22 years, can you just at least try to have a better conversation about it than this last round? Pop Art artists weren’t just pirates with a xerox machine. Art museums aren’t in a conspiracy against comics. And the Hero Initiative is a band-aid on a gushing wound that wasn’t the fault of Roy Lichtenstein.
>>78991569
>then there’s some high school gym teacher that wasn’t nice enough to you weaklings
Oh sick burn
>>78991663
>loving big 2
How gay are you?
I liked Liechtenstein when I thought he appreciated the work of comic book artists and was attempting to promote it to an audience that hadn't considered it art until it was in a gallery context.
Then when I found out that he didn't consider comic books art, or the illustrators artists, and was only doing it "ironically." I lost all my respect for him.
>>78991993
100% this.
>>78991993
>>78992050
>someone took some trash and made millions with it
Why aren't you following his example, NEETs?
I think his "comic panel" output is sheer garbage, but I like his other work- specially his Brushstrokes series, which achieve both an aesthetic appeal and an interesting statement on art (making the brushstroke the only component of the painting, when the Old Masters had concealing it completely as one of their main goals, thus making the process of the painting the painting itself) without having to drag comic books into modern art's retarded "high brow vs. low brow" squabble.
>>78992206
because we're the trash
>>78993084
>an exec makes millions with terrible comics: FINE
>an artist makes millions with terrible comics: SIN!
You whites, seriously.
>>78992206
For the same reason not all fanfics relabelled turn out moneymakers like 50 Shades of Grey did: that kind of shit is pure luck
>>78993192
So you're angry because he got lucky and you losers didn't.
>>78990510
Plagiarist.
He is an outstanding plagiarist.
A hack. Recoloring official artwork and claiming it as your own is a sign of lacking talent.
art is short for artifice
>>78991569
>>78991603
>>78991633
>>78991667
>>78991698
This reads like a mashup of Zero Punctuation and the "Leave Brittany Alone" video.
>>78991993
Fag
>>78990510
>Is he a hack or a trust artist?
He was a trueconartist, like most pop art pretenting to be some kinda high art.
What's yours is mine what mine is mine.
Nothing like a copyright page that says you can't use his art with art traced from a Joe Kubert comic. Though Kurbert did say he didn't really care about it and never made a fuss.
The only time /co/ cares about Art is when the artist is a hack
>>78996978
>This reads like a mashup of Zero Punctuation and the "Leave Brittany Alone" video.
Pop art defenders are pretty much the same mental level as "Leave Brittany Alone" and Roy is probably on the same level as Brittany Spears.
Yeah, it's not Roy's fault "that comic art was anonymous industrial product". It is his fault for helping to further that scenario while promoting his own name for personal fame and fortune. He could have helped elevate comic art and its artists, he instead elevated himself by stepping on them.
>>78998782
Wasn't there some big essay back in the day from some contemporary art critic who woke up one day and couldn't pretend art meant anything for any longer? It seems like a constant struggle.
>>78991569
It's basically a complete asspull. His only argument is "Oh yeah? Well Liechtenstein may be bad but DC is just as bad."
>>78991569
And this person is supposed to be an adult?
>>78990510
To be a true artist, you only need a message, even if that message is "Lulz this art is artless." So yes, he was an artist.
However, his pointillism work is a fake. Using stencils is cheating. Paint it dot by dot like Seurat intended.
>>79001686
>"Oh yeah? Well Liechtenstein may be bad but DC is just as bad."
Abhay is annoying and overrated but he has a point here, DC is the one who would have the most to set things right back when Lichtenstein was doing this and yet they didn't.
And he's also right that comics did not always credit their creators back then so the onus was more on DC to act.
>>78991569
This guy loves Lumberjanes and Bitch Planet
>>78991603
>But with criticism, an author can express themselves, can craft interesting phrases or sentences, can effect an audience emotionally or intellectually. It’s all writing. Criticism is just writing about writing. That’s it.
No, "criticism" is nothing, but pretentious navel gazing. I have no respect for "critics." It's different if it's a fellow creator criticizing someone's work, but anyone who's propping up their critiques as a legitimate creative pursuit should fucking kill themself.
>>78990510
A thief. Anyone who supports him reveals themselves to be a retard with shit opinions
>>78991569
The sneering at modwrn artists happens because they have a strong tendency to produce meaningless talentless nonsense.
>>79002589
>To be a true artist, you only need a message
No, you don't. This is a lie spread by art academia to con students into art history courses and to allow pretentious fucks to think themselves someone enlightened. Yes, there is are out there which is crafted with a "message," but it's not a requirement for something to be art. To be an artist you simply have to create.
>>79002950
Good criticism should be an instructive pursuit.
Here is a link discussing Lichtenstein's work.
http://legionofandy.com/2013/06/03/roy-lichtenstein-the-man-who-didnt-paint-benday-dots/
I started reading up on it to learn more and thought this was interesting enough to share.
>>79002808
It's true but it isn't an argument for Liechtenstein, it's an argument against DC. And it assumes that all the people complaining about Liechtenstein are just DC fanboys.
>>78991569
>I’ve met and had conversations with many famous gallery artists (but not Lichtenstein). Quite a few knew and appreciated the art of comic books.
This really sounds like bullshit to me.
Why are comic book critics so stupid? I hate all those TCJ guys and the hooded utilitarian
>>79004172
The argument is against DC because the arguments were against Lichtenstein instead of elevating comics as an artform. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Another day of people mistaking their own understandings and ideas as objective meaning and then implicitly flattering themselves for it. Life is good.
>>79004220
Larry Marder's best known for his Beanworld comic that he started back in the 80's (and I think continues to do) and helped run Image Comics . He has more reason to side with the comics creators over the fine artists, so there's no real reason for you to think he's bullshitting.
