tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2328803310807154664.post8162393262928282044..comments2016-05-25T13:38:07.163+01:00Comments on Night thoughts at Boing: My Stuff - RoySimon_at_Boinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04556122055291618209noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2328803310807154664.post-79554187551476647622012-07-21T21:11:44.724+01:002012-07-21T21:11:44.724+01:00Hello Misterwolfe, thanks for joining in.
A few a...Hello Misterwolfe, thanks for joining in.<br /><br />A few answers in order of your points:<br /><br />• Roy Lichtenstein's name certainly appears on the titles accompanying any display of his work, but no one has argued that the source artists' names should appear on the works of another artist who copies from them. <br />Lichtenstein, and later the Foundation that bears his name, was assiduous in claiming ownership of his works and my point is that there was room to acknowledge the original creators within that process. <br /><br />• If Kirby used reference without credit that could come under the idea that two wrongs don't make a right.<br /> I'd also argue that the examples I've seen of such montage/reference work make far greater changes to their source and appear as smaller parts of a whole.<br /><br />• Whether uncredited appropriation is a fact or not does not impact on the question of SHOULD Lichtenstein have credited his sources given the unprecedented level of copying he indulged in. I think he should.<br /><br />• I have nothing against Damien Hirst. <br />Some of his works are quite beautiful. Most are not. <br />But I do not expect that he will be celebrated as a great artist a few generations after he passes. <br />Do you mean that Koons owns some work by Hirst or that he is the superior artist?<br /><br />No, this has nothing to do with money. However much art market cash flowed to Roy Lichtenstein, I'm pretty sure none would or should have gone to any comics illustrators.<br /><br />• I have no intention of claiming that Lichtenstein's comics painting work was 'easy' but it can be debated how much artistic skill above pure craftsmanship was required.<br />I think he did have a high level, by the way - hence the word 'apparently' in my text. <br />The reason Photoshop tutorials can't get it 'right' is probably a combination of the quality of the tutorial and the fact that they are not about painting.<br /><br />• I have seen a sizeable number of Lichtenstein paintings in exhibitions and will no doubt visit the Tate Modern show next year. I don't dislike his work. <br />I do leave the house on a daily basis.<br /><br />• I would be hard pressed to say whether I know more about comics than Art as that would be like saying one know more about painting than Art, but I have a feet in both the comics and painting camps as a former student and occasional practitioner as well as a consumer. <br />It's certainly easier to have a more complete overview of comics history than most other media, simply because of the form's relative youth, but I think you are being misled by the fact that I am writing about comics on this blog rather than a broader range of media.<br /><br />cheers<br />SimonSimon_at_Boinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04556122055291618209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2328803310807154664.post-80215488542505338842012-07-21T20:07:11.445+01:002012-07-21T20:07:11.445+01:00Hi Anonymous
thanks for commenting - if you do aga...Hi Anonymous<br />thanks for commenting - if you do again can you please use some method of identifying which anonymous you are in case there are others? I've seen online conversations tie themselves in knots by confusing who said what...<br /><br />This project is not a dissertation with full annotations, but in the interests of backing up my reading of his attitude to comics i will say the following:<br />The phrase 'debased' was ascribed to comics by critics writing about Roy Lichtenstein on a couple of occasions at least and in 1966 he told David Sylvester "There's a sense of order that is lacking. There is a kind of order in the cartoons, there's a sort of composition, but it's a kind of a learned composition. It's a composition more to make it clear, to make it read and communicate, rather than a composition for the sake of unifying the elements. In other words, the normal aesthetic sensibility is usually lacking"<br />and then <br />"I enjoy them, they're probably amusing in some way, and I get a genuine kick out of them, though usually only a few frames will be really interesting to me. They're even strong in some ways. I think when they're very well drawn, certain sections - it may be partly accidental or maybe it's an innate ability on the part of the person that is doing the cartoon - really may be good. But by and large I think I look at them as being kind of hokey, just as I would look at those three-dimensional plastic photographs. That kind of material has been a silly thing for us to be spending time and technology on."<br /><br />My understanding is that comics is a medium - just like painting or sculpture - within which art is sometimes produced. Comic art is not Art per se. <br /><br />Lichtenstein certainly did have a great impact on the public perception of comics (whether for the better or not might be debatable) but that is not what he was attempting to do according to his own legend. <br /><br />To judge his practice on those side effects would be like assessing NASA's space programme through the use of teflon in non-stick frying pans.<br /><br />I don't think Lichtenstein was in the business of telling the 'cognoscenti' (bit of an oxymoron that) anything about comics at all - he was striving to produce art on a different plane, seeking a 'new classicism' as he put it. And I don't think he should have been trying to proselytise on behalf of another medium either.<br /><br />cheers<br />SimonSimon_at_Boinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04556122055291618209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2328803310807154664.post-28940131117621843092012-07-21T10:51:39.395+01:002012-07-21T10:51:39.395+01:00Lichtenstein didn't sign his work; why would h...Lichtenstein didn't sign his work; why would he then put someone-else's name on it?<br /><br />Didn't Kirby use photographs (both in montage and for "reference") without crediting the original creator?<br /><br />Isn't uncredited appropriation a historical fact in both fine art and comics? Should the origins and precursors of a piece of Art be left for scholars and those who are interested in seeking them out?<br /><br />What do you have against Damian Hirst?<br />(Koons owns Hirst ;)<br /><br />Is this just about the money?<br /><br />And, if what Lichtenstein did was so easy, how come all the many photoshop tutorials on the 'net (and his "followers" as you put it) can't get it quite right?<br /><br />The way you speak of the work makes it seem like:<br /><br />a) you haven't seen it in the flesh and are looking at reproductions in books and on postcards. You should get out more :)<br /><br />b) that you know more about comics than you do about Art.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2328803310807154664.post-43304777111276885352012-07-20T22:46:58.766+01:002012-07-20T22:46:58.766+01:00"Roy Lichtenstein appropriated what he consid..."Roy Lichtenstein appropriated what he considered debased source material from pulp and newsprint origins and blew them up in the process of transposing them to an exalted medium. And then selling them at deluxe prices."<br /><br />"In the process of milking this idea, Lichtenstein consistently failed to credit the artists he copied – largely because they worked in a medium he did not value – which qualifies him as a SINISTER FIGURE in my book. (literally)"<br /><br />Do you have sources where Lichenstein said those things, that is was a debased source material, and that it held no value for him?<br />You should quote those wherever possible to qualify those "assumptions" that you're attributing to him.<br /><br />I have a problem that you come at Lichtenstein's work from a perspective of already understanding that comic art *is* Art.<br />The target of Lichtenstein's work was the cognoscenti who did not understand and needed to be hit over the head with it. After Roy, everyone knew comics were cool. Before, they were "just for kids".<br />You need to grasp the age in which this art appeared and the effect it had on society.<br />IMO, no-one has had a bigger influence on the global consciousness representing comics as an acceptable Art-form.<br />BTW, this is not just restricted to Lichtenstein, but to all the pop artists. And today's "street" artists who continue to tell the story that everything we humans produce is Art.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com