Interesting: PJR lives in New Jersey
Amadeus Jinn
At least that's what they say on alt.config.
I figured you are all frauds.
Colin, clearly, jr, wow, Dale, is prima facia etc...
Heh.
Did any of you ever have a shred of integrity?
Tom Bishop
Will Dockery
If Bishop didn't have me killfiled, I'd mention to him that this smacks
of a big ole "hook line and sinker" type thing. There's hundreds,
thousands, maybe, guys named "Peter J. Ross"...
Even Superboy's childhood pal is Pete Ross.
--
"Mirror Twins":
<http://www.lulu.com/items/29000/29085/preview/Will_Dockery_-_03_-_Track__3.mp3>
"Black Eagle Lady" by Will Dockery & Henry Conley:
http://www.lulu.com/items/84000/84578/1/preview/Henry_Conley_-_06_-_Black_Eagle_Lady.mp3
Barbara's Cat
Colin Ward <no_spam...@mts.net> said:
> On 16 Jun 2005 10:04:55 -0700, "Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Amadeus Jinn wrote:
> >> At least that's what they say on alt.config.
> >>
> >> I figured you are all frauds.
> >>
> >> Colin, clearly, jr, wow, Dale, is prima facia etc...
> >>
> >> Heh.
> >>
> >> Did any of you ever have a shred of integrity?
> >
> >If Bishop didn't have me killfiled, I'd mention to him that this smacks
> >of a big ole "hook line and sinker" type thing. There's hundreds,
> >thousands, maybe, guys named "Peter J. Ross"...
> >
> >Even Superboy's childhood pal is Pete Ross.
>
> So what have we learned?
>
>
> Chuck is a fuck;
> Will is a pill
> but the Gummer is dumber.
Excellent; but, perhaps it should be: Will is a dill
(after all, he's always jerkin' his gherkin).
> Best regards,
>
> Colin
--
Cm~
Amadeus Jinn
>
> Chuck is a fuck;
> Will is a pill
> but the Gummer is dumber.
Still mad about being caught as a fraud?
A
Amadeus Jinn
>>> Did any of you ever have a shred of integrity?
>>
>>If Bishop didn't have me killfiled,
Will, you have integrity. I respect it.
I killfile you because I'm not interested in what you
have to say on Usenet, and it is too much. So much time.
You can always email me, and my phone is free.
Your tirade on the fatter ladies was crass and ugly.
A little joke here and there, even about gimps is fine
but you don't stop. 20 postings of the same links.
Plus jr trolls you like a fish with a permanently implanted
hook. All boring. Feh....
Plus you weren't listening to me when I spent time telling
you why your poetry is what it is. You are thick headed,
but have integrity. Cheers.
I'm into techno and really good poetry (oh... and
watching mikey become a gimp.)
I've been posting hundreds of pics to binary groups
every day, poster: ~~Jinn~~ . Some really cool artsy
treatments with ghosted hands and boobs ....
Many make Dale look like a doodler.
I've got code to turn text lines into embossed images
in preparation for bump mapping onto the porn pix.
Dylan Thomas lines to start. Few days.
Tom Bishop
Barbara's Cat
Amadeus Jinn <jinta...@yahooBURP.com> said:
What fraud?
> A
Liar! What's up with the "A"? You said
you'd always sign-off with "Tom Bishop".
Yeah, it was only a matter of time
before you started morphing again.
--
Cm~
Art
[snip]
> I've been posting hundreds of pics to binary groups
> every day, poster: ~~Jinn~~ . Some really cool artsy
> treatments with ghosted hands and boobs ....
> Many make Dale look like a doodler.
>
> I've got code to turn text lines into embossed images
> in preparation for bump mapping onto the porn pix.
> Dylan Thomas lines to start. Few days.
>
Back in the days when Art was staggering from the fatal assaut of
Abstract Expressionism, came the wooden steak of Pop Art: Johns,
Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, Clarke, and Warhol. The usual suspects.
Warhol began life as a Graphic Designer. He was right, of course: Some
of the ads in Bazaar and Vogue belonged in a museum. Andy gave good
Party, kissed patrons' asses, and got his fifteen minutes of shame.
The Fauve, the Surrealists, the AE's and the Pops were all correct, of
course. But to go along with them, one must swallow that which one
/knows/ not to be true.
Allan Kaprow became a really bad top 40 song.
I can stomach George Segal sometimes. Hopper often. But then, neither
were true Pop Artists.
One wonders: Is Porn with Thomas an internet version of Conceptual Art?
And is it your true voice?
---
Art
Jim Finney
but he doesn't mean a Ward of it.
Amadeus Jinn
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1118951575.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Amadeus Jinn wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> I've been posting hundreds of pics to binary groups
>> every day, poster: ~~Jinn~~ . Some really cool artsy
>> treatments with ghosted hands and boobs ....
>> Many make Dale look like a doodler.
>>
>> I've got code to turn text lines into embossed images
>> in preparation for bump mapping onto the porn pix.
>> Dylan Thomas lines to start. Few days.
>>
> Back in the days when Art was staggering from the fatal assaut of
> Abstract Expressionism, came the wooden steak of Pop Art: Johns,
> Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, Clarke, and Warhol. The usual suspects.
Mine isn't that abstract. You can still make out the important parts.
>
> Warhol began life as a Graphic Designer. He was right, of course: Some
> of the ads in Bazaar and Vogue belonged in a museum. Andy gave good
> Party, kissed patrons' asses, and got his fifteen minutes of shame.
>
> The Fauve, the Surrealists, the AE's and the Pops were all correct, of
> course. But to go along with them, one must swallow that which one
> /knows/ not to be true.
>
> Allan Kaprow became a really bad top 40 song.
>
> I can stomach George Segal sometimes. Hopper often. But then, neither
> were true Pop Artists.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps I should write a poem.
>
> One wonders: Is Porn with Thomas an internet version of Conceptual Art?
What I'm doing so far involves 2 images and some flipping/bluring/masking. The possibilities
once I figure out GM are quite awesome. And all automatic.
>
> And is it your true voice?
But consider a surrealistic picture
of a blonde fox with 2 heads and one boob
and this:
Man of my flesh, the jawbone riven,
Know now the flesh's lock and vice,
And the cage for the scythe-eyed raver.
Know, O my bone, the jointed lever,
Fear not the screws that turn the voice,
And the face to the driven lover.
- dt
....tastefully done, with an Amazon link to buy the book.
I think internet art and marketing have just hit a knee. :)
Tom Bishop
>
> ---
> Art
>
Dale Houstman
Yep, still do pornofruit, and since you have no actual reason for
calling anyone a fraud (it's one of the words you know off the top of
your flat head), it's obvious that it is you who are a fraud.
Creep.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Amadeus Jinn wrote:
>
> I've been posting hundreds of pics to binary groups
> every day, poster: ~~Jinn~~ . Some really cool artsy
> treatments with ghosted hands and boobs ....
> Many make Dale look like a doodler.
You can only draw flies Tom.
"Artsy treatments": what a pretentious piece of doo doo...
dmh
Art
Amadeus Jinn wrote:
> "Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1118951575.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Amadeus Jinn wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >> I've been posting hundreds of pics to binary groups
> >> every day, poster: ~~Jinn~~ . Some really cool artsy
> >> treatments with ghosted hands and boobs ....
> >> Many make Dale look like a doodler.
> >>
> >> I've got code to turn text lines into embossed images
> >> in preparation for bump mapping onto the porn pix.
> >> Dylan Thomas lines to start. Few days.
> >>
> > Back in the days when Art was staggering from the fatal assaut of
> > Abstract Expressionism, came the wooden steak of Pop Art: Johns,
> > Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, Clarke, and Warhol. The usual suspects.
>
> Mine isn't that abstract. You can still make out the important parts.
>
Well, Pop Art wasn't abstract, either. It was Anti-Abstract
Expressionism.
> >
> > Warhol began life as a Graphic Designer. He was right, of course: Some
> > of the ads in Bazaar and Vogue belonged in a museum. Andy gave good
> > Party, kissed patrons' asses, and got his fifteen minutes of shame.
> >
> > The Fauve, the Surrealists, the AE's and the Pops were all correct, of
> > course. But to go along with them, one must swallow that which one
> > /knows/ not to be true.
> >
> > Allan Kaprow became a really bad top 40 song.
> >
> > I can stomach George Segal sometimes. Hopper often. But then, neither
> > were true Pop Artists.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> Perhaps I should write a poem.
Join the freaking club.
>
> >
> > One wonders: Is Porn with Thomas an internet version of Conceptual Art?
>
> What I'm doing so far involves 2 images and some flipping/bluring/masking. The possibilities
> once I figure out GM are quite awesome. And all automatic.
Armor made the Knight; A crown, the King.
What are we?
Artists who hide behind Adobe.
>
> >
> > And is it your true voice?
>
> But consider a surrealistic picture
> of a blonde fox with 2 heads and one boob
> and this:
>
> Man of my flesh, the jawbone riven,
> Know now the flesh's lock and vice,
> And the cage for the scythe-eyed raver.
> Know, O my bone, the jointed lever,
> Fear not the screws that turn the voice,
> And the face to the driven lover.
> - dt
>
> ....tastefully done, with an Amazon link to buy the book.
>
>
> I think internet art and marketing have just hit a knee. :)
Just What Is It that Makes Today's Home so Different, so Appealing?
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/aapc/fun/hamilton-appealing.jpg
---
Art
Amadeus Jinn
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1118985461.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't bother with websites anymore, and the blogspots
don't want tit pics, even if they are artsy.
Here is a hi tho...
http://jinnsmisc.blogspot.com/
>
> ---
> Art
>
Will Dockery
Art wrote:
> Amadeus Jinn wrote:
> > >>
> > > Back in the days when Art was staggering from the fatal assaut of
> > > Abstract Expressionism, came the wooden steak of Pop Art: Johns,
> > > Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, <http://hans.presto.tripod.com/images03/royl_russ_heath_blam.jpg>
Lichtensten's been a grudge fuck since day one. He took comix panels
right off the printed page, blew 'em up, painted over them, and called
'em *his*... and the art world sucked it up to the tune of millions of
bucks.
Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Don Heck and others were literally robbed
blind by this thief.
Check out "Blam", RL's painting, and the original art, by Russ Heath:
<http://hans.presto.tripod.com/blam.html>
<http://hans.presto.tripod.com/products/royl_blam350x300.jpg>
<http://hans.presto.tripod.com/images03/royl_russ_heath_blam.jpg>
Well, it goes on and on like this, as the site below shows:
<http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
> Clarke, and Warhol. The usual suspects.
> >
> > Mine isn't that abstract. You can still make out the important parts.
> >
> > What I'm doing so far involves 2 images and some flipping/bluring/masking. The possibilities
> > once I figure out GM are quite awesome. And all automatic.
> >
> > But consider a surrealistic picture
> > of a blonde fox with 2 heads and one boob
> > and this:
> >
> > Man of my flesh, the jawbone riven,
> > Know now the flesh's lock and vice,
> > And the cage for the scythe-eyed raver.
> > Know, O my bone, the jointed lever,
> > Fear not the screws that turn the voice,
> > And the face to the driven lover.
> > - dt
>
Sargasso Kicks
Constable "stole" compositions,
every thing's taken from life,
this comic book guy's image is part of the world and Lichtenstein drew
from that.
All this capitalist emphasis on ownership is like kids not wanting to
share toys.
Is this envy because Lichtenstein's famous?
Trivial arguments...
Sargasso Kicks
Will Dockery wrote: "Good artists borrow, JRS, great artists borrow it
and never return it. "
Exactly what I'm talkin' about
Art
Amadeus Jinn wrote:
>
> I don't bother with websites anymore, and the blogspots
> don't want tit pics, even if they are artsy.
>
> Here is a hi tho...
> http://jinnsmisc.blogspot.com/
Hello, Tom.
I don't bother with websites, either. But this one's paid up 'till '06.
"What Is It That Makes Today's Porn So Appealing?"
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/aapc/fun/Consume.jpg
Reduce in viewer, if you must.
---
Art
~~Jinn~~
the porn for the final cumshot.
Never forget the robots that gave their gears
for the cause of freedom.
--
Tom Bishop
http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119033994.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Will Dockery
Sargasso Kicks wrote:
> What's the problem!?!
> Constable "stole" compositions,
> every thing's taken from life,
Taking another man's art and calling it your own is taking from life,
but it ain't exactly like painting a picture of a bowl of fruit...
> this comic book guy's image is part of the world and Lichtenstein drew
> from that.
Lichtenstein /drew/ while looking at other guy's art, copied it almost
exactly, signed his name to it and made millions.
A good web site that lines RL's paintings up with the comic panels he
stole his work from:
<http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
> All this capitalist emphasis on ownership is like kids not wanting to
> share toys.
> Is this envy because Lichtenstein's famous?
Famous for looting other artists' visions.
--
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
Autograph Of Zorro" {from *Shadowville Live*}:
<http://www.kannibaal.nl/zorro.mp3>
Art
Will Dockery wrote:
> Art wrote:
> > Amadeus Jinn wrote:
> > > >>
> > > > Back in the days when Art was staggering from the fatal assaut of
> > > > Abstract Expressionism, came the wooden steak of Pop Art: Johns,
> > > > Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, <http://hans.presto.tripod.com/images03/royl_russ_heath_blam.jpg>
>
> Lichtensten's been a grudge fuck since day one. He took comix panels
> right off the printed page, blew 'em up, painted over them, and called
> 'em *his*... and the art world sucked it up to the tune of millions of
> bucks.
Oh come now, Will. You don't even deserve to be a primary color dot on
a Lichtenstein canvas.
Kulture as Art is as at least as expressive as Abstract Expressionism,
whom Lichtenstein married in his later years. "Com'on Roy, play 'Smoke
on the Water' one more time."
Ugh.
It's stealing, sure. But it's stealing to throw it back in the owner's
face. Spelled V-A-L-I-D-A-T-I-O-N.
A vomiting baby giving us the finger, as it were.
"Would you go to bed with me for $1.5 million?" asked the Rich Count of
the young girl he'd brought home that evening from the local pub.
She blushed, and smiled. After getting her breath back, she whispered
"Why...I suppose I /would/, Silly."
He frowned.
"Well, what about, instead of $1.5 mil, I offered you $750,000? Would
you sleep with me then?"
She giggled, and snuggled up closer to him on the couch. "Yes" she
murmured.
He frowned again.
"I've got $50 in my wallet here. Would you sleep with me if I offered
you $50?"
It was her turn to frown. She pulled away to sit straight up on the end
of the couch.
"You PIG! What the hell do you think I AM??!!"
It was his turn to smile.
"My Dear, we've already established /that/. We are merely haggling over
a price."
You see, Will? It's all about the pussy!
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/aapc/fun/yssup.jpg
Roy was a genius. Even he realized it was all about the pussy:
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/aapc/fun/puss.jpg
---
Art
Art
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> Many robot planes were used to prepare
> the porn for the final cumshot.
>
> Never forget the robots that gave their gears
> for the cause of freedom.
>
I, Robot.
---
Art
Will Dockery
Art wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Amadeus Jinn wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > > Back in the days when Art was staggering from the fatal assaut of
> > > > > Abstract Expressionism, came the wooden steak of Pop Art: Johns,
> > > > > Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, <http://hans.presto.tripod.com/images03/royl_russ_heath_blam.jpg>
> >
> > Lichtensten's been a grudge fuck since day one. He took comix panels
> > right off the printed page, blew 'em up, painted over them, and called
> > 'em *his*... and the art world sucked it up to the tune of millions of
> > bucks.
>
> Oh come now, Will. You don't even deserve to be a primary color dot on
> a Lichtenstein canvas.
I'm not talking about me, Art.
I'm talking about Kirby, Ditko, Heath and the other actual artists RL
ripped off to make his paintings.
Hell, he even ripped off poor old Don Heck!
You do have a point.
<http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
Doesn't change the fact that Roy Lichtenstein was a thief, though.
--
"Mirror Twins" [Will Dockery]
<http://www.lulu.com/items/29000/29085/preview/Will_Dockery_-_03_-_Track__3.mp3>
"Black Eagle Lady" [Will Dockery & Henry Conley]
http://www.lulu.com/items/84000/84578/1/preview/Henry_Conley_-_06_-_Black_Eagle_Lady.mp3
~~Jinn~~
Not to mention metaphors.
>
> ---
> Art
>
Will Dockery
Probably the most rankling facts of RL's "borrowing" Heath, Novick,
Kirby et al down to the crosshatch was that he not only left all credit
to the sources [to very day they're considered *anonymous*] but openly
sneered at the creators that designed and literally /drew/ his
paintings for him [the website below shows that what he added to the
originals was awkward and cheesy] calling them "production line
workers" and whatnot.
I just read on the web that Irv Novick, one of the comix greats RL
stole from turns out was supposedly the non-com over the sign painting
crew RL worked for in the Army, *and* Jack Kirby said that RL once
applied for a job with one of his comix studios, and was turned down
because his samples "weren't good enough".
Yep, a pattern is emerging as to the actual motives and agendas of ole
Roy:
<http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
So yeah, the phrase "great artists steal" may be appropriate in some
cases, but Roy Lichtenstein shows that lousy artists steal, also.
"Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make
you President."
And so on.
--
"Mirror Twins" [Will Dockery]
<http://www.lulu.com/items/29000/29085/preview/Will_Dockery_-_03_-_Track__3.mp3>
"Black Eagle Lady" [Will Dockery & Henry Conley]
http://www.lulu.com/items/84000/84578/1/preview/Henry_Conley_-_06_-_Black_Eagle_Lady.mp3
delt...@sbcglobal.net
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Amadeus Jinn wrote:
> > At least that's what they say on alt.config.
> >
> > I figured you are all frauds.
> >
> > Colin, clearly, jr, wow, Dale, is prima facia etc...
> >
> > Heh.
> >
> > Did any of you ever have a shred of integrity?
> >
> >
> > Tom Bishop
> >
> >
>
> Yep, still do pornofruit,
You are a slobbering failure of a man. Don't make me laugh.
> and since you have no actual reason for
> calling anyone a fraud
I never morphed to disguise my identity,
or the authorship of a poem... only for hijinks
and killfile avoidance on a fucken poetry group.
Colin's latetest deserves a /raspberry/ HAAAA!
P. Gardener... I said nice things and the fuckwit didn't
even acknowledge it. Typical fraud.
(as in an unwillingness to own up to reality)
> (it's one of the words you know off the top of
> your flat head), it's obvious that it is you who are a fraud.
>
> Creep.
I never call you names.
Just ask obvious questions like:
You're extra hurt about me producing better art than you:
automagically with my software while you drive other people's cars, eh?
Is that it, you mediocre never-were?
Some of my shots make anything you produced look like a doodle.
It is accidental, and most are crap, but there are some gems.
Tom Bishop
>
> dmh
Sargasso Kicks
Researchers should, in an ideal world, have full access to material
relevant to their research.
Placing extracts from the history of art/image-making/comic-books in an
exhibition context without referencing the original artist's name
implies that the original work has become part of the collective
ownership of humanity.
Own all images, own all rights to explore the world, the world should
not be the property of its creators. It is the property of its
experiencers. If you wish to keep something for yourself then don't
share it with others.
Will Dockery
You make me curious, Sargasso... what sort of art do /you/ do?
Any links?
I can see your point, though--- /but/ going the Lichtenstein route of just
taking another man's creation, blowing it up and slapping your name on it,
and pretending that the original artist is noting but a van filled with
roses or something is phoney work, and I don't see how a guy like that could
be saitisfied with merely stealing someone elses' visions like that.
Good or bad, I can't settle for anything less that putting /my/ visions down
on paper... anything else wouldn't satisfy the craving, the lust, the
/obsession/ to create art.
Just can't figure a thief out.
--
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
"Greybeard Cavalier" [0x0000/Fowler/Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/26000/26663/preview/Track__1.mp3
Fred Doyle
Campbell's soup can label is a copyrighted image, afterall. Or was he trying
to make a larger social comment with the prints by presenting that image as
fine art?
--
Fred Doyle
Will Dockery
Fred Doyle wrote:
> Were Andy Warhol's Campbell's screen prints of soup cans stolen, too? A
> Campbell's soup can label is a copyrighted image, afterall.
The Warhol connection to Lichtenstein's theft of comix art
<http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
would be his Superman paintings, which are even more direct rip offs:
<http://tinyurl.com/dzoqj>
I don't think much about the soup can stuff either way.
Fred Doyle
> The Warhol connection to Lichtenstein's theft of comix art
> <http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
> would be his Superman paintings, which are even more direct rip offs:
The point isn't the connection to Lichenstein, but to an art movement, i.e.
Pop Art. Jasper Johns "stole" the American Flag image. Prestel stole comic
book images, Rauchenberg used images of Kennedy that were probably
copyrighted photos. Warhol "stole" many copyrighted photos and images in his
art, but with the intent of making an artisitc and cultural statement about
what we call art and how we see as a society.
My question to those who see Lichenstein as a thief is, who else in that Pop
Art movement do you see as a thief. Where do you draw you lines, so to
speak?
> I don't think much about the soup can stuff either way.
But is it theft in the same way Lichentstien's art is theft? To be
consistant, it could be seen that way.
--
Fred Doyle
Will Dockery
> "Will Dockery" wrote
No, I don't see the soup can stuff as the same as the thefts by
Lichtenstein, that's why I made the Superman example: those were drawn
[mostly] by a man named Curt Swan. God knows, or cares who first "drew"
the soup can.
JFK, a public figure, the US flag, a flag.
Roy Lichtenstein took the actual drawings of indentifiable men: Russ
Heath, Irv Novick, Jack Kirby, and others, and made almost line for
line copies of their art. Not anonymous soupcan label makers, but men
that created this art from scratch.
RL signed his name on the work and collected the money. RL went to his
grave taking credit for someone elses' art.
~~Jinn~~
> Were Andy Warhol's Campbell's screen prints of soup cans stolen, too?
Did Campbell's get royalties?
--
Tom Bishop
http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
> A Campbell's soup can label is a copyrighted image, afterall. Or was he trying to make a larger social comment with the prints by
~~Jinn~~
"Sargasso Kicks" <earbar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119089227.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Artists are cultural researchers.
>
> Researchers should, in an ideal world, have full access to material
> relevant to their research.
>
> Placing extracts from the history of art/image-making/comic-books in an
> exhibition context without referencing the original artist's name
> implies that the original work has become part of the collective
> ownership of humanity.
When did that work? Art is an individual pursuit.
The name of the artist is the best indicator of what you will get when you open the box.
>
> Own all images, own all rights to explore the world, the world should
> not be the property of its creators. It is the property of its
> experiencers. If you wish to keep something for yourself then don't
> share it with others.
Pure horseshit.
Fred Doyle
> Did Campbell's get royalties?
No, not as far as I know. It was presented as fine art, not as a commercial
ventrue, and therefore there would be no royalies.
--
Fred Doyle
Fred Doyle
> Roy Lichtenstein took the actual drawings of indentifiable men: Russ
> Heath, Irv Novick, Jack Kirby, and others, and made almost line for
> line copies of their art. Not anonymous soupcan label makers, but men
> that created this art from scratch.
As a professional commercial graphic artsist who has anonymously created
many, many labels, logos, images, etc. I could take offense at that. Those
labels ARE someone's art and professional livelihood, just as much as those
panels were Kirby's, Heath's and Novik's art and livlihood. Were Saul Bass
(who created the AT&T logo) or William Golden (who created the CBS eye)
lesser artist than Kirby or Novick, therefore it would be alright to "steal"
there work?
> God knows, or cares who first "drew"
> the soup can.
Um, how about the guy who created the first soup can, himself (and probably
his mother). Because you don't know who he is, is it suddenly alright to
"steal" that artwork? Why does not knowing who the original artist he is,
make it alright to "steal" artwork? Why does that original artist have less
of a right to say his work was "stolen" than Kirby?
By your criteria, I can go out and "steal" the artwork of any unknown artist
and that is ok, its the known ones that are the problem. Is the criteria
that makes something "stolen" the number of people who know who the original
creator is/was? What is the magic number of people who must know about the
creator to make it be "stolen?" Just you? 10 people? 100 people? 1000
people?
> JFK, a public figure
But he is a public figure whose photo has been lifted from some professionl
photographer's copyrighted image. It isn't Kennedy they "stole" from, it was
the photographer who took the picture and earned his/her money from it and
probably held the copyright on it. That is OK because you don't know who it
was? Is that photographer somehow a lesser artist than Kirby or Novick or
Heath because you don't know who he/she is, and therefore it is ok to
"steal" that image?
> Roy Lichtenstein took the actual drawings of indentifiable men: Russ
> Heath, Irv Novick, Jack Kirby, and others, and made almost line for
> line copies of their art.
Andy Warhol took the actual drawings of an identifiable person when he silk
screened Campbell's soup can labels and made line for line copies of that
art. A little research at Campbell's corporate offices could probably turn
up that person's name. Why does the fact that you don't know who that is
make it alright?
Just asking.
--
Fred Doyle
"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119108631.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
~~Jinn~~
--
--
Tom Bishop
http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
"Fred Doyle" <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:ClYse.25621$fp6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Roy Lichtenstein took the actual drawings of indentifiable men: Russ
>> Heath, Irv Novick, Jack Kirby, and others, and made almost line for
>> line copies of their art. Not anonymous soupcan label makers, but men
>> that created this art from scratch.
>
> As a professional commercial graphic artsist who has anonymously created many, many labels, logos, images, etc. I could take
> offense at that. Those labels ARE someone's art and professional livelihood, just as much as those panels were Kirby's, Heath's
> and Novik's art and livlihood. Were Saul Bass (who created the AT&T logo) or William Golden (who created the CBS eye) lesser
> artist than Kirby or Novick, therefore it would be alright to "steal" there work?
Their "work-for-hire" assigns copyright to their employer usually.
If a marketing firm does it, it might be a special deal, but the artist
hardly ever makes more than a salary (maybe bonus) except in very
rare circumstances.
>
>> God knows, or cares who first "drew"
>> the soup can.
> Um, how about the guy who created the first soup can, himself (and probably his mother). Because you don't know who he is, is it
> suddenly alright to "steal" that artwork? Why does not knowing who the original artist he is, make it alright to "steal" artwork?
> Why does that original artist have less of a right to say his work was "stolen" than Kirby?
It is all /civil/ law. People do <whatever> and make a deal if things work
sue if they don't work. The laws are complex and specialized. Requires
special (expensive) lawyers to do much.
>
> By your criteria, I can go out and "steal" the artwork of any unknown artist and that is ok, its the known ones that are the
> problem. Is the criteria that makes something "stolen" the number of people who know who the original creator is/was? What is the
> magic number of people who must know about the creator to make it be "stolen?" Just you? 10 people? 100 people? 1000 people?
I think it is possibly a question, but Warhol just went to the store
and bought a can. I think that's all Campbells gets. Though if he is
copying designs perhaps he has a deal with Campbells?
>
>> JFK, a public figure
> But he is a public figure whose photo has been lifted from some professionl photographer's copyrighted image. It isn't Kennedy
> they "stole" from, it was the photographer who took the picture and earned his/her money from it and probably held the copyright
> on it. That is OK because you don't know who it was? Is that photographer somehow a lesser artist than Kirby or Novick or Heath
> because you don't know who he/she is, and therefore it is ok to "steal" that image?
Never best to copy images that you didn't take, but there
are circumstances. It is not black and white, and hard to litigate.
I think the whole system should be redone.
>
>> Roy Lichtenstein took the actual drawings of indentifiable men: Russ
>> Heath, Irv Novick, Jack Kirby, and others, and made almost line for
>> line copies of their art.
> Andy Warhol took the actual drawings of an identifiable person when he silk screened Campbell's soup can labels and made line for
> line copies of that art. A little research at Campbell's corporate offices could probably turn up that person's name. Why does the
> fact that you don't know who that is make it alright?
They probably got a model's fee, which is all they would ever get
unless they were famous, and cashing in on that fame.
~~Jinn~~
> "~~Jinn~~" <jinta...@yahooBURP.com> wrote
>
>> Did Campbell's get royalties?
>
> No, not as far as I know. It was presented as fine art, not as a commercial ventrue, and therefore there would be no royalies.
Do you feel they should?
I worked for software companies as a programmer, and was responsible for
tangible creative effort. It always pissed me off that my emp. agreement signed
over all intellectual property rights to the company.
Oh well, they only made millions on it.
--
Tom Bishop
http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
>
> --
> Fred Doyle
>
>
>
>
Art
Eye metaphor.
---
Art
Fred Doyle
> Their "work-for-hire" assigns copyright to their employer usually.
> If a marketing firm does it, it might be a special deal, but the artist
> hardly ever makes more than a salary (maybe bonus) except in very
> rare circumstances.
The same would be for very very true Heath, Novick and Kirby. Their work,
sadly, was all done as work for hire. Is your position that this makes it ok
to "steal" their work? That is the issue I was responding to.
> It is all /civil/ law. People do <whatever> and make a deal if things
> work
> sue if they don't work. The laws are complex and specialized. Requires
> special (expensive) lawyers to do much.
>
Very true, but I'm still not sure where this puts you in terms of
Lichtenstein's "stealing" others artwork.
> I think it is possibly a question, but Warhol just went to the store
> and bought a can. I think that's all Campbells gets.
Lichtenstein went to the store and purchased a comic book or two. I'm still
not sure where this puts you in terms of Lichtenstein's "stealing" others
artwork. Theft or not?
> Never best to copy images that you didn't take, but there
> are circumstances. It is not black and white, and hard to litigate.
> I think the whole system should be redone.
Again, I'm not sure where you fall on the issue at hand, but we agree that
the intellectual property laws are a mess as currently configured and with
changing technology, they really need to be rethought.
--
Fred Doyle
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > Art wrote:
> > > Amadeus Jinn wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > > Back in the days when Art was staggering from the fatal assaut of
> > > > > Abstract Expressionism, came the wooden steak of Pop Art: Johns,
> > > > > Rauschenberg, Lichtenstein, <http://hans.presto.tripod.com/images03/royl_russ_heath_blam.jpg>
> >
> > Lichtensten's been a grudge fuck since day one. He took comix panels
> > right off the printed page, blew 'em up, painted over them, and called
> > 'em *his*... and the art world sucked it up to the tune of millions of
> > bucks.
>
> Oh come now, Will. You don't even deserve to be a primary color dot on
> a Lichtenstein canvas.
>
> Kulture as Art is as at least as expressive as Abstract Expressionism,
> whom Lichtenstein married in his later years. "Com'on Roy, play 'Smoke
> on the Water' one more time."
>
> Ugh.
>
> It's stealing, sure. But it's stealing to throw it back in the owner's
> face. Spelled V-A-L-I-D-A-T-I-O-N.
They reckoned it rocky the roster of Müdberg,
Nine of the noblest, naming and numbers,
Solidly sacked four to two in the scoring,
And one was the one inning waiting to play.
So when the scoreboard sneered at the watchers
Old Cooney was clobbered, cooled by the baseman,
And Burrows the Brave was bagged by the same,
Pallor reposed on the pates of the patrons.
A few of the fickle followed the ushers,
Leaving the lovers longing for miracle,
Hoping for hap or the help of the Gods.
Pondered if Pijt Rös could pick up his Slugger,
Wishing their wonder to one whack at that,
Recking the Rhinegold they'd roll on his swinging,
Heard they the hobbling humpback who jeered them,
"Parse in your programs the precedent batting
And bet on the Bishop to butter his purse!"
For following Flynnyng, flimsy excuse
Propping his pudding to paddle the plate,
Was Blakoth of broken bread, never of bat,
Flailing and failing, a fake of a pastry,
Numbing the multitude lumpy and deathlike,
Both of these babies barring their Pijtr.
But wonderment washed the woes of the patrons,
For Flynnyng had flogged a fly in their ointment,
Socking a single to soar up the middle,
And Blakoth had blasted the ball from its cover.
Dark was the dust when done was the sliding,
But light was the light that lifted the watchers,
For Blakoth had breasted the bagman at second,
And Flynnyng shed feathers to flutter to third.
Glory and glee then gladdened the multitude
Yelled them a yodel yare in the throat;
It rumbled the range, it rattled the dell,
It beat on the barrow, rebounded the flat,
...
>
> A vomiting baby giving us the finger, as it were.
Naaah, that's spelled "V-a-l-e-d-i-c-t-o-r-i-a-n."
--
-------(m+
~/:o)_|
/This/ -- is the end of the Line. /We/ are It.
-- COL Joshua Chamberlain, 20th Maine Volunteers, 3 July 1863
http://scrawlmark.org/bysword.html
Fred Doyle
>> No, not as far as I know. It was presented as fine art, not as a
>> commercial ventrue, and therefore there would be no royalies.
>
> Do you feel they should?
Personally, no.
> I worked for software companies as a programmer, and was responsible for
> tangible creative effort. It always pissed me off that my emp. agreement
> signed
> over all intellectual property rights to the company.
>
> Oh well, they only made millions on it.
Tell that to Kirby, Stan Lee, and hundreds of other comic book artists
through the years. They have been fighting that battle for years, How
publishers have compensated and given ownership to the artists who created
the industry has been a black eye for the industry for years.
When I was 24 I creaed a logo that I sold for $35. That logo was used for
over a decade on everything from signage to brochures to newspaper ads to
sales proposals. It helped create a corporate identity and helped earn that
company literally millinos of dollars. Such is life. The apocraphyl tale in
the graphic arts industry is about the woman who created the Nike "swoosh."
Originally, she was paid a pittance for that. I understand that Nike has
since made it up to her in the form of Nike stock, however.
--
Fred Doyle
~~Jinn~~
Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119116196.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What is a Tornado?
>
> ---
> Art
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "Fred Doyle" <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:7nYse.25635$fp6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>"~~Jinn~~" <jinta...@yahooBURP.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Did Campbell's get royalties?
>>
>>No, not as far as I know. It was presented as fine art, not as a commercial ventrue, and therefore there would be no royalies.
>
>
> Do you feel they should?
>
> I worked for software companies as a programmer, and was responsible for
> tangible creative effort. It always pissed me off that my emp. agreement signed
> over all intellectual property rights to the company.
>
> Oh well, they only made millions on it.
>
--
I do not know as much as god, but I know as much as god did at my age
- unnamed mathematician quoted by Milton Shulman
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
~~Jinn~~
> "~~Jinn~~" <jinta...@yahooBURP.com> wrote
>> Their "work-for-hire" assigns copyright to their employer usually.
>> If a marketing firm does it, it might be a special deal, but the artist
>> hardly ever makes more than a salary (maybe bonus) except in very
>> rare circumstances.
>
> The same would be for very very true Heath, Novick and Kirby. Their work, sadly, was all done as work for hire. Is your position
> that this makes it ok to "steal" their work? That is the issue I was responding to.
The use of other people's creative efforts and images against their wishes,
can be a charged situation. If Kirby's company had a valid complaint and didn't
pursue I would be pissed if I was Kirby, but I am not very familiar with your case.
>
>> It is all /civil/ law. People do <whatever> and make a deal if things work
>> sue if they don't work. The laws are complex and specialized. Requires
>> special (expensive) lawyers to do much.
>>
> Very true, but I'm still not sure where this puts you in terms of Lichtenstein's "stealing" others artwork.
I have a fuckwit on this poetry group that is stealing my personal picture
and putting it in a gay-sex defamation. No money stolen, but I'm pissed and have
graphic visions of him disabled, blind and dickless for life.
In other words, I have my own problems, and my own solultions.
Perhaps someone should FUCK Lich, I don't know.
>
>> I think it is possibly a question, but Warhol just went to the store
>> and bought a can. I think that's all Campbells gets.
>
> Lichtenstein went to the store and purchased a comic book or two. I'm still not sure where this puts you in terms of
> Lichtenstein's "stealing" others artwork. Theft or not?
Like I say, I don't know the case. Even specialized lawyers would need
to be called in. I was married to a lawyer who would constantly tell me
that she didn't know enough about some <particular area of> law to even
start to answer my question. Sorry.
>
>> Never best to copy images that you didn't take, but there
>> are circumstances. It is not black and white, and hard to litigate.
>> I think the whole system should be redone.
>
> Again, I'm not sure where you fall on the issue at hand, but we agree that the intellectual property laws are a mess as currently
> configured and with changing technology, they really need to be rethought.
Unfortunatly life being what it is, I won't be here. (blessed be)
>
> --
> Fred Doyle
>
>
>
~~Jinn~~
--
--
Tom Bishop
http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
"Fred Doyle" <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:43Zse.25799$fp6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>>> Did Campbell's get royalties?
>
>>> No, not as far as I know. It was presented as fine art, not as a commercial ventrue, and therefore there would be no royalies.
>>
>> Do you feel they should?
>
> Personally, no.
The alternative gets complex.
>
>> I worked for software companies as a programmer, and was responsible for
>> tangible creative effort. It always pissed me off that my emp. agreement signed
>> over all intellectual property rights to the company.
>>
>> Oh well, they only made millions on it.
>
> Tell that to Kirby, Stan Lee, and hundreds of other comic book artists through the years. They have been fighting that battle for
> years, How publishers have compensated and given ownership to the artists who created the industry has been a black eye for the
> industry for years.
He ripped off Stan... That's different! :)
I used to read Marvel 35 years ago.
>
> When I was 24 I creaed a logo that I sold for $35. That logo was used for over a decade on everything from signage to brochures to
> newspaper ads to sales proposals. It helped create a corporate identity and helped earn that company literally millinos of
> dollars. Such is life. The apocraphyl tale in the graphic arts industry is about the woman who created the Nike "swoosh."
> Originally, she was paid a pittance for that. I understand that Nike has since made it up to her in the form of Nike stock,
> however.
What a deal, eh?
>
> --
> Fred Doyle
>
>
Dale Houstman
It's all about the money to be lost and the money to gained. Campbell's
soup company might have seen that the prints - and all the media
firestorm about them - was actually a shitstorm of free advertisement.
It gave them cultural cachet. Undoubtedly they could have started a
lawsuit, but - at any rate - satire is protected by the Constitution as
interpreted by the courts and copyright law. They might have known they
would have lost both the case, and the cachet.
It is difficult to know Warhol's intentions, which is part of the reason
he was (and is) fascinating as a cultural figure.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Fred Doyle wrote:
> "Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>The Warhol connection to Lichtenstein's theft of comix art
>><http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
>>would be his Superman paintings, which are even more direct rip offs:
>
>
> The point isn't the connection to Lichenstein, but to an art movement, i.e.
> Pop Art. Jasper Johns "stole" the American Flag image.
The American flag is not copyrightable. It cannot be "stolen" even
according to law. Some courts have tried to make it protectable against
"abuse" but that's just idol worship.
dmh
~~Jinn~~
> ~~Jinn~~ wrote:
>> "Fred Doyle" <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:7nYse.25635$fp6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>
>>>"~~Jinn~~" <jinta...@yahooBURP.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Did Campbell's get royalties?
>>>
>>>No, not as far as I know. It was presented as fine art, not as a commercial ventrue, and therefore there would be no royalies.
>>
>>
>> Do you feel they should?
>>
>> I worked for software companies as a programmer, and was responsible for
>> tangible creative effort. It always pissed me off that my emp. agreement signed
>> over all intellectual property rights to the company.
>>
>> Oh well, they only made millions on it.
>>
> You always have the option of not remembering to sign such agreements.
I KNOW they had tremendous value-added, and I could never
get any of it beyond my salary (and bonuses) even if I did /forget/.
Will Dockery
This is also what I've read was the reason DC shrugged and looked the
other way on Warhol's Superman rip offs- the publicity was enormous, of
course. Too bad Warhol didn't have the ethical sense to give a guip "A
man named Curt Swan drew the Superman in my painting".
<http://tinyurl.com/dzoqj>
Warhol's case is a bit different than Lichtenstein: AW seemed to
deliberately go for the well known, the /universal/ subjects: the soup,
the Supes... while RL comes off as a sleazy creep deliberately picking
much more obscure pieces of comix art, probably at first thinking he
/could/ pass these visions off as his own.
After all, who in /his/ audience would be caught dead with a comic
book? <http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
And until the day he died, I've read that lichtenstein /never/ admitted
that his famous paintings were, to put it nicely, /collaborations/ with
Russ Heath, Irv Novick, Jack Kirby, et al.
delt...@sbcglobal.net
citizen and human being. Your great wisdom blesses
all it surveys. You are without pickle.
Will Dockery
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> "Sargasso Kicks" <earbar...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Artists are cultural researchers.
> >
> > Researchers should, in an ideal world, have full access to material
> > relevant to their research.
> >
> > Placing extracts from the history of art/image-making/comic-books in an
> > exhibition context without referencing the original artist's name
> > implies that the original work has become part of the collective
> > ownership of humanity.
>
> When did that work? Art is an individual pursuit.
> The name of the artist is the best indicator of what you will get when you open the box.
>
> > Own all images, own all rights to explore the world, the world should
> > not be the property of its creators. It is the property of its
> > experiencers. If you wish to keep something for yourself then don't
> > share it with others.
>
> Pure horseshit.
> http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
Got that right.
>From an interview with both Lichtenstein and Warhol:
----
GLASER : You are saying that one of the purposes of the subject matter
of Pop art is to confuse the spectator as to whether the advertisement,
comic strip, or movie magazine photograph is really what it seems to
be.
LICHTENSTEIN : This is true. In my own work there is a question about
how much has been transformed. You will discover the subjects really
are if you study them, but there is always the assumption that they are
the same, only bigger.
GLASER : Well, even if there is a transformation, it is slight, and
this has given rise to the objection that Pop art has encroached on and
plundered the private pleasure of discovering interest in what are
ordinarily mistaken as banal subjects. For example, if one privately
enjoyed aspects of the comics, today one finds this pleasure made
public in the galleries and museums.
LICHTENSTEIN : I am crying.
WARHOL : Comic strips now give credit to the artist. They say "art by."
Comic books didn't give credit to the artist in the past.
Glaser: There is a question in my mind as to whether much of the
subject matter of Pop art is actually satirical. I have felt so many
times that the subject matter and the technique are, indeed, an
endorsement of the sources of Pop imagery. It is certainly true that
there are some satirical elements in this work, but apparently that
doesn't concern you too much. I wonder then, whether you are not saying
that you really like this banal imagery.
Lichtenstein: I do like aspects of it. ... In the parody there is the
implication of the perverse and I feel this in my own work even though
I don't mean it to be that, because I don't dislike the work that I am
parodying. The things that I have apparently parodied I actually admire
and I really don't know what the implication of that is.
----
Lichtenstein says "I am crying.".
--
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
Autograph Of Zorro" {from *Shadowville Live*}:
<http://www.kannibaal.nl/zorro.mp3>
Dennis M. Hammes
What he said. How could Johns "steal" something he already owned?
Phlip
I always figured he was high on monosodium glutamate, and wanted to express
that.
(Note the lack of winky in my post...)
--
Phlip
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand
Will Dockery
Fred Doyle wrote:
> "Will Dockery" wrote
>
> > Roy Lichtenstein took the actual drawings of indentifiable men: Russ
> > Heath, Irv Novick, Jack Kirby, and others, and made almost line for
> > line copies of their art. Not anonymous soupcan label makers, but men
> > that created this art from scratch.
>
> As a professional commercial graphic artsist who has anonymously created
> many, many labels, logos, images, etc. I could take offense at that. Those
> labels ARE someone's art and professional livelihood, just as much as those
> panels were Kirby's, Heath's and Novik's art and livlihood. Were Saul Bass
> (who created the AT&T logo) or William Golden (who created the CBS eye)
> lesser artist than Kirby or Novick, therefore it would be alright to "steal"
> there work?
There's a definite point, there... I've been exposed as a /comix snob/!
I guess the real difference, to me, is that Roy Lichtenstein was
passing off the paintings as his own creative vision, and that he
expected everyone to assume that he was making parodies of comix from
his own "fertile" imagination.
This is why he pilfered what seemed to him to be very obscure comix
panels from love and war comix. Which also can be noted that he went to
his grave /never/ naming or crediting Heath, Novick, Ditko, et al:
<http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
> > God knows, or cares who first "drew"
> > the soup can.
> Um, how about the guy who created the first soup can, himself (and probably
> his mother). Because you don't know who he is, is it suddenly alright to
> "steal" that artwork? Why does not knowing who the original artist he is,
> make it alright to "steal" artwork? Why does that original artist have less
> of a right to say his work was "stolen" than Kirby?
He'd have that right, I guess. The bigger question on the soup can icon
would be the soup company, though.
> By your criteria, I can go out and "steal" the artwork of any unknown artist
> and that is ok, its the known ones that are the problem.
Nope, that ain't /my criteria/ at all.
Roy Lichtenstein, however, showed that someone /can/ go out, and blow a
comic panel up, spash some paint on it and call it /his/--- he did it
over 40 years ago, and not only got away with it, it made him rich.
> Is the criteria
> that makes something "stolen" the number of people who know who the original
> creator is/was? What is the magic number of people who must know about the
> creator to make it be "stolen?" Just you? 10 people? 100 people? 1000
> people?
As long as they shrug and look the other way, it doesn't seem to matter
how many people know.
> > JFK, a public figure
> But he is a public figure whose photo has been lifted from some professionl
> photographer's copyrighted image. It isn't Kennedy they "stole" from, it was
> the photographer who took the picture and earned his/her money from it and
> probably held the copyright on it. That is OK because you don't know who it
> was? Is that photographer somehow a lesser artist than Kirby or Novick or
> Heath because you don't know who he/she is, and therefore it is ok to
> "steal" that image?
Not /lesser/ than Kirby and the others, but /different/.
As I wrote above... I've been exposed as a /comix snob/... but yeah,
the photographer that took the original photo /should/ be credited, but
these art house folks don't seem to worry about "minor" things like who
actually concieved and/or created the work they're gawking at in the
galleries... and the so-called artist runs a good scam.
> > Roy Lichtenstein took the actual drawings of indentifiable men: Russ
> > Heath, Irv Novick, Jack Kirby, and others, and made almost line for
> > line copies of their art.
> Andy Warhol took the actual drawings of an identifiable person when he silk
> screened Campbell's soup can labels and made line for line copies of that
> art. A little research at Campbell's corporate offices could probably turn
> up that person's name. Why does the fact that you don't know who that is
> make it alright?
>
> Just asking.
I'm more curious about why Campbell's Soup didn't sue, and if Warhol
made some deal with them. The label on the cans was almost certainly
"work for hire" [as were almost all comix of that time], so the company
was the owner... probably they saw it as some great exposure of their
icon?
I suspect DC comix felt the same way about Warhol's use of Superman.
The actual artists, Novick and Kirby that I know of, possibly the
others, went to /their/ graves without a dime, and without any official
credits.
"It's a wicked world, but what the Hell..." -Dylan
Art
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119116196.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > ~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> >> "Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119042060....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> >> >> Many robot planes were used to prepare
> >> >> the porn for the final cumshot.
> >> >>
> >> >> Never forget the robots that gave their gears
> >> >> for the cause of freedom.
> >> >>
> >> > I, Robot.
> >>
> >> Not to mention metaphors.
> >>
> > Eye metaphor.
>
> What is a Tornado?
>
A two-door Coupe produced by Oldsmobile between 1966-1992?
Oh wait. You said Tornado, not Toronado.
Tornado: That's the newest water ride at Six Flags Over Mid-America. We
were there last weekend. Don't do the Ninja or The Boss. You'd have to
be right out of your mind to do the Ninja or the Boss. The Screaming
Eagle's okay. The Batman's okay.
Don't even THINK about the Excalibur.
I couldn't talk ANYONE into going on the Mr. Freeze ride. I think it
looks cool: 0-60-0-60-0 all in 60 seconds. But I'm NOT going on it by
myself.
---
Art
~~Jinn~~
>
>
> ~~Jinn~~ wrote:
>> Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119116196.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > ~~Jinn~~ wrote:
>> >> "Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119042060....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ~~Jinn~~ wrote:
>> >> >> Many robot planes were used to prepare
>> >> >> the porn for the final cumshot.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Never forget the robots that gave their gears
>> >> >> for the cause of freedom.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I, Robot.
>> >>
>> >> Not to mention metaphors.
>> >>
>> > Eye metaphor.
>>
>> What is a Tornado?
>>
> A two-door Coupe produced by Oldsmobile between 1966-1992?
>
> Oh wait. You said Tornado, not Toronado.
As in the Jepardy question to "eye metaphor"
>
> Tornado: That's the newest water ride at Six Flags Over Mid-America. We
> were there last weekend. Don't do the Ninja or The Boss. You'd have to
> be right out of your mind to do the Ninja or the Boss. The Screaming
> Eagle's okay. The Batman's okay.
>
> Don't even THINK about the Excalibur.
>
> I couldn't talk ANYONE into going on the Mr. Freeze ride. I think it
> looks cool: 0-60-0-60-0 all in 60 seconds. But I'm NOT going on it by
> myself.
Wow... I gotta get out more.
When I was in flight training, for stall practice /nerves/ the best I could
think of was to ride the rollercoaster at Santa Cruz. (which I did repeatedly)
>
> ---
> Art
>
Art
~~Jinn~~
Ha!
>
> ---
> Art
>
Art
[snip]
> As in the Jepardy question to "eye metaphor"
>
Trebek: I'm sorry, Tom. The /correct/ question would be: What is a
Hurricane?"
Bishop: "But Tornados have an eye too!"
Trebek: "Yeah. Well, so does The Code of Hammurabi, but we were LOOKING
for Hurricane."
> >
> > Tornado: That's the newest water ride at Six Flags Over Mid-America. We
> > were there last weekend. Don't do the Ninja or The Boss. You'd have to
> > be right out of your mind to do the Ninja or the Boss. The Screaming
> > Eagle's okay. The Batman's okay.
> >
> > Don't even THINK about the Excalibur.
> >
> > I couldn't talk ANYONE into going on the Mr. Freeze ride. I think it
> > looks cool: 0-60-0-60-0 all in 60 seconds. But I'm NOT going on it by
> > myself.
>
> Wow... I gotta get out more.
>
> When I was in flight training, for stall practice /nerves/ the best I could
> think of was to ride the rollercoaster at Santa Cruz. (which I did repeatedly)
http://www.sixflags.com/parks/stlouis/Rides/index.html
(not that you don't have much cooler parks out by you)
---
Art
Will Dockery
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote
I've learned you're pretty damned good at what you do!
Bravo!
--
Will Dockery performt 'Zorro' op Video:
De Amerikaanse dichter Will Dockery performt de engelstalige versie van
het gedicht van Benders ondersteund door uitstekende muzikanten...een
bewijs dat de relatie Nederland-USA springlevend is!
Art
Heh.
>
> >
> > A vomiting baby giving us the finger, as it were.
>
> Naaah, that's spelled "V-a-l-e-d-i-c-t-o-r-i-a-n."
HAH!
~~Jinn~~
--
--
Tom Bishop
http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1119159182.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ~~Jinn~~ wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> As in the Jepardy question to "eye metaphor"
>>
> Trebek: I'm sorry, Tom. The /correct/ question would be: What is a
> Hurricane?"
>
> Bishop: "But Tornados have an eye too!"
>
> Trebek: "Yeah. Well, so does The Code of Hammurabi, but we were LOOKING
> for Hurricane."
But Alex: "But the Toronado was only driven by a little old Mafia bag lady."
>> >
>> > Tornado: That's the newest water ride at Six Flags Over Mid-America. We
>> > were there last weekend. Don't do the Ninja or The Boss. You'd have to
>> > be right out of your mind to do the Ninja or the Boss. The Screaming
>> > Eagle's okay. The Batman's okay.
>> >
>> > Don't even THINK about the Excalibur.
>> >
>> > I couldn't talk ANYONE into going on the Mr. Freeze ride. I think it
>> > looks cool: 0-60-0-60-0 all in 60 seconds. But I'm NOT going on it by
>> > myself.
>>
>> Wow... I gotta get out more.
>>
>> When I was in flight training, for stall practice /nerves/ the best I could
>> think of was to ride the rollercoaster at Santa Cruz. (which I did repeatedly)
>
> http://www.sixflags.com/parks/stlouis/Rides/index.html
>
> (not that you don't have much cooler parks out by you)
Nothing within hours of me, actually. Which is nice.
But we do have river rafting on several forks of the American
river.
>
> ---
> Art
>
Will Dockery
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> "Fred Doyle" wrote
> >>>> Did Campbell's get royalties?
> >
> >>> No, not as far as I know. It was presented as fine art, not as a commercial ventrue, and therefore there would be no royalies.
> >>
> >> Do you feel they should?
> >
> > Personally, no.
>
> The alternative gets complex.
>
> >> I worked for software companies as a programmer, and was responsible for
> >> tangible creative effort. It always pissed me off that my emp. agreement signed
> >> over all intellectual property rights to the company.
> >>
> >> Oh well, they only made millions on it.
> >
> > Tell that to Kirby, Stan Lee, and hundreds of other comic book artists through the years. They have been fighting that battle for
> > years, How publishers have compensated and given ownership to the artists who created the industry has been a black eye for the
> > industry for years.
>
> He ripped off Stan... That's different! :)
No, actually Stan ripped off Jack, and most recently, Ditko.
Stan just sits back and takes the credit reporters [such as on the
recent 60 Minutes interview] give him as "creator of Spider-Man,
Fantastic Four, et cetera"... when he could and /should/ point out that
Ditko and Kirby has as much, some say more, hand in the creation of the
Marvel characters as he did.
And now when karma comes around and the movie guys using /their/
characters cheat him, he whines on national television.
I love Stan Lee and know that without him in the mix Marvel wouldn't
have happened, but he didn't do it all alone.
> I used to read Marvel 35 years ago.
The house that Jack built "with a little help from my friends".
> > When I was 24 I creaed a logo that I sold for $35. That logo was used for over a decade on everything from signage to brochures to
> > newspaper ads to sales proposals. It helped create a corporate identity and helped earn that company literally millinos of
> > dollars. Such is life.
Sounds like one Hell of a logo.
artangel
lesser artist than Kirby or Novick, therefore it would be alright to
"steal"
there work?
William Golden stole the CBS eye from Magritte
Sargasso Kicks
> When did that work? Art is an individual pursuit.
An individual pursuit!?! What art are you talking about!
Art includes audience, context, time, space, etc.
Do you work without these considerations?
A gallery director is as involved with an artwork as a film director is
with a film.
There is no communication without an audience and there is no art
without communication.
Masturbation is an individual pursuit.
> The name of the artist is the best indicator of what you will get when you open the box.
For a collector or investor. Art has a higher function of
understanding our subjective world.
> Pure horseshit.
More clarity please.....!
Sargasso Kicks
>
> Any links?
Sorry Will, I don't make art. More of a researcher.
Dale Houstman
Magritte stole the eye from the human race.
Dale Houstman
Sargasso Kicks wrote:
>>When did that work? Art is an individual pursuit.
>
>
> An individual pursuit!?! What art are you talking about!
> Art includes audience, context, time, space, etc.
> Do you work without these considerations?
Plenty of artists work without either an audience (save themselves) or
an idea of an audience (save themselves), and - as awesome as time and
space are - they don;t really count as customers.
> A gallery director is as involved with an artwork as a film director is
> with a film.
Hardly ever.
> There is no communication without an audience and there is no art
> without communication.
True, but communication can occur between one person and themselves.
People talk to themselves all the time. And space.
>
> Masturbation is an individual pursuit.
What about time and space? What about the object of desire? What about
the laundress?
dmh
Will Dockery
> "Art" wrote
This would make an excellent coffee cup.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>"Will Dockery" <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> The Warhol connection to Lichtenstein's theft of comix art
>> <http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
>> would be his Superman paintings, which are even more direct rip offs:
>
>The point isn't the connection to Lichenstein, but to an art movement, i.e.
>Pop Art. Jasper Johns "stole" the American Flag image. Prestel stole comic
>book images, Rauchenberg used images of Kennedy that were probably
>copyrighted photos. Warhol "stole" many copyrighted photos and images in his
>art, but with the intent of making an artisitc and cultural statement about
>what we call art and how we see as a society.
>
The whole lot are uninspired charlatans. Their so called artwork can
be imitated by anyone with a bit of technical skill. The monetary
value of this sort of stuff depends on how well Modern Art Bullshit
salesmen can sell a signature. With no major signature this sort of
crap is just more garbage.
~~Jinn~~
>
>> When did that work? Art is an individual pursuit.
>
> An individual pursuit!?! What art are you talking about!
Pretty much all of it. Creative work is rarely done by a team.
Sometimes, like stage events, symphonies, architecture etc.. people work together
to realize the creation, but the original /creation/ was always the result of one
or at most 2 men. Refute if you wish.
> Art includes audience, context, time, space, etc.
> Do you work without these considerations?
A play has one, at most a 2 man collaboration. Symphonic music
has one composer. Performances use other /artists/ but not the creators
of the work. Only room for one. Creative types don't play well with others,
usually.
> A gallery director is as involved with an artwork as a film director is
> with a film.
> There is no communication without an audience and there is no art
> without communication.
The audience is superfluous to the creation. The artist would be driven
to it even if there was none. Charles Ives waited decades until he had made
enough money in Insurance to commission one of his symphonies.
There was no audience for such beauty the world has never known for decades,
(please excuse, but Charles Ives was a fucken genious)
>
> Masturbation is an individual pursuit.
Not at best. I like a team of 2 or 3 for a really good time.
Smilage varies.
>
>> The name of the artist is the best indicator of what you will get when you open the box.
>
> For a collector or investor.
For anyone, of course.
> Art has a higher function of
> understanding our subjective world.
>
>
>> Pure horseshit.
>
> More clarity please.....!
What could I say?
Creativity is very lacking on this planet.
People live in mundane, rutted patterens of thought
that explains why every tyro poet writes the same inane angst poem.
To break out of it is a rudness to reality itself that is the only
thing that produces poetry. It is always an idividual thing.
Sometimes 2 people can work off each other, but I've never
heard of 3 people creating anything of much worth (artistically).
Will Dockery
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> "Sargasso Kicks" wrote
> >
> >> When did that work? Art is an individual pursuit.
> >
> > An individual pursuit!?! What art are you talking about!
>
> Pretty much all of it. Creative work is rarely done by a team.
> Sometimes, like stage events, symphonies, architecture etc.. people work together
> to realize the creation, but the original /creation/ was always the result of one
> or at most 2 men. Refute if you wish.
And with Lichtenstein, the /original creations/ were in the pages of a
pulpy comic books by /created/ by Heath, novick, Kirby, that he assumed
none of his arthouse pals and patrons would notice, and he was right.
What notice they gave was packaged in a sneer.
> > Art includes audience, context, time, space, etc.
> > Do you work without these considerations?
>
> A play has one, at most a 2 man collaboration. Symphonic music
> has one composer. Performances use other /artists/ but not the creators
> of the work. Only room for one. Creative types don't play well with others,
> usually.
As we know so well in these parts!
> > A gallery director is as involved with an artwork as a film director is
> > with a film.
> > There is no communication without an audience and there is no art
> > without communication.
>
> The audience is superfluous to the creation. The artist would be driven
> to it even if there was none. Charles Ives waited decades until he had made
> enough money in Insurance to commission one of his symphonies.
> There was no audience for such beauty the world has never known for decades,
> (please excuse, but Charles Ives was a fucken genious)
Damn, there's so many people being called /genius/ that it's better to
be a retard, these days... less crowded here.
> > Masturbation is an individual pursuit.
>
> Not at best. I like a team of 2 or 3 for a really good time.
> Smilage varies.
"I saw the photograph..." -Lennon
> >> The name of the artist is the best indicator of what you will get when you open the box.
> >
> > For a collector or investor.
>
> For anyone, of course.
>
> > Art has a higher function of
> > understanding our subjective world.
> >
> >> Pure horseshit.
> >
> > More clarity please.....!
>
> What could I say?
> Creativity is very lacking on this planet.
> People live in mundane, rutted patterens of thought
> that explains why every tyro poet writes the same inane angst poem.
> To break out of it is a rudness to reality itself that is the only
> thing that produces poetry. It is always an idividual thing.
> Sometimes 2 people can work off each other, but I've never
> heard of 3 people creating anything of much worth (artistically).
Even a garage band has the guy with the /ideas/.
Dale Houstman
Will Dockery wrote:
>
> ~~Jinn~~ wrote:
>
>>"Sargasso Kicks" wrote
>>
>>>>When did that work? Art is an individual pursuit.
>>>
>>>An individual pursuit!?! What art are you talking about!
>>
>>Pretty much all of it. Creative work is rarely done by a team.
>>Sometimes, like stage events, symphonies, architecture etc.. people work together
>>to realize the creation, but the original /creation/ was always the result of one
>>or at most 2 men. Refute if you wish.
>
>
> And with Lichtenstein, the /original creations/ were in the pages of a
> pulpy comic books by /created/ by Heath, novick, Kirby, that he assumed
> none of his arthouse pals and patrons would notice, and he was right.
>
> What notice they gave was packaged in a sneer.
>
Maybe, but this sort of "sampling' is nothing new, and it scarcely
qualifies as theft: there is nobody in the world who could confuse one
of these Pop canvases with the actual comic, and even less than that who
would buy them instead of a comic book if they wanted a comic book. The
"transgression" (at least in the capitalist sense; and money is what
copyright laws are out to protect) simply doesn't exist. Kirby himself
used a lot of "borrowed" images for his collage panels, and older
artists often "quoted" other artists, either in theme, composition,
technique, etc. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass for copyright laws,
especially as they have become so corrupted that the original intent (to
protect the originator and to provide him with a reasonable profit for
his labor) has been blurred beyond recognition, to the point that things
never pass into the public domain anymore. Now generation after
generation of the artist's untalented offspring make more money off the
objects than the artist ever dreamed of, and a corporation can buy up a
creator's production and create a copyright, even though they have
nothing to do with the creation, only with the profits to be made. The
song "Happy Birthday" is still copyrighted for pete's sake!
Artists have always found inspiration in the work of others. If you make
a copy of the "Mona Lisa" and try to sell it as the original, you're a
schmuck and the guy who buys it is a fool. But if you paint a moustache
on it, and give it a new title, you're Marcel Duchamp.
dmh
Erik A. Mattila
appropriated image." In Pop Art is had nothing to do with theft, or
even creativity, for that matter. The project was dubbed "detournement"
by author Guy Debord, who probably wrote the best critique on Pop Art
that I know of. "Detournment" is the act of removing an object from
it's original context to a new context, thus changing the meaning of
that object. Warhol's soup cans, for example, were "detourned" from
their original advertising context to Leo Castalli's art gallery in NYC.
Once in the gallery, the possibility of meaning was wide open. You
could say "the artist shows the commercial image is infringing more and
more on our visual culture, even dominating it." But if the soup can
remains in the grocery store, you would have trouble saying the same
thing with any credibility.
Lictenstein did the same thing with comic strip art, and adds a few
things to boot. The photo-offset image, printed with halftone screens
or simple tinting screens, is nothing but a pattern. It is simply
amazing how the human eye, aided by culture, can assemble a bunch of
dots into a meaningful image. Lictenstein uses scale to emphasize this
amazing thing. The tiny little dots of the original comic book tinting
screen are represented as 1" dots, so we can't ignore how we assemble
this pattern into an image.
And it's a painting "of" a comic book panel, so it cannot be "theft" any
more than say an artist who paints the grand canyon. The "Pop" part is
that the source is drawn from our visual culture, rather than Arizona's
natural attractions.
Will Dockery
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
If Lichtenstein /did/ want to make a painting of the Grand Canyon, he'd
no doubt have cribbed the image from John Severin's "Rawhide Kid"
comix... or one from Dick Ayers or Jack Kirby.
<http://tinyurl.com/dx7rl>
No /love/--- only theft.
--
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
"Greybeard Cavalier" [0x0000/Fowler/Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/26000/26663/preview/Track__1.mp3
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Will Dockery wrote:
> No /love/--- only theft.
Since of course we are not dealing with theft but alleged copyright
infringement (from
the comic book company or the artist/inker/writer or these artists
sources)
I have to wonder why you insist on using an inaccurate term.
Which of Lichtenstein's images is closest to a comic book source?
Which is furthest?
Can you detect any change in his practice after 1967?
Will Dockery
s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > No /love/--- only theft.
>
> Since of course we are not dealing with theft but alleged copyright
> infringement (from
> the comic book company or the artist/inker/writer or these artists
> sources)
> I have to wonder why you insist on using an inaccurate term.
It goes beyond /copyright infringement/ although the stuff he swiped
/was/ work-made-for-hire. He took /all/ of his ideas from the guys
during this time period... did something with them, yeah, but
apparently didn't have an original bone in his worthless body.
Or an ethical one.
> Which of Lichtenstein's images is closest to a comic book source?
> Which is furthest?
They're laid out here, side by side:
<http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
All are basically the same drawing, the same creative vision... which
was seen and put down on paper by /another man/.
In the comix themselves, he'd fit more under the job title "inker"
"colorist", or to use a Stan Lee credit sometimes used: "embellisher".
Clearly, Heath, Novick, Kirby and the others were the ones with the
creative vision, here... in music, Lichtenstein might get a credit as
"arranger" or even "producer", not /top billing/ as he recieved... only
billing, actually, since his name was and is the only one on the
paintings.
> Can you detect any change in his practice after 1967?
Heh. Did he get scared?
--
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
Autograph Of Zorro" {from *Shadowville Live*}:
<http://www.kannibaal.nl/zorro.mp3>
Dale Houstman
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>>
> The "sampling" is usually called "appropriation" in artspeak, as in "the
> appropriated image." In Pop Art is had nothing to do with theft, or
> even creativity, for that matter. The project was dubbed "detournement"
> by author Guy Debord, who probably wrote the best critique on Pop Art
> that I know of. "Detournment" is the act of removing an object from
> it's original context to a new context, thus changing the meaning of
> that object. Warhol's soup cans, for example, were "detourned" from
> their original advertising context to Leo Castalli's art gallery in NYC.
I know all about "detournment" and if you don't think "changing the
meaning" of an object is a creative act, I don't know where you're
coming from. As for "theft": not my pronouncement, so I won't defend it.
>
> Once in the gallery, the possibility of meaning was wide open. You
> could say "the artist shows the commercial image is infringing more and
> more on our visual culture, even dominating it." But if the soup can
> remains in the grocery store, you would have trouble saying the same
> thing with any credibility.
>
> Lictenstein did the same thing with comic strip art, and adds a few
> things to boot. The photo-offset image, printed with halftone screens
> or simple tinting screens, is nothing but a pattern. It is simply
> amazing how the human eye, aided by culture, can assemble a bunch of
> dots into a meaningful image. Lictenstein uses scale to emphasize this
> amazing thing. The tiny little dots of the original comic book tinting
> screen are represented as 1" dots, so we can't ignore how we assemble
> this pattern into an image.
>
> And it's a painting "of" a comic book panel, so it cannot be "theft" any
> more than say an artist who paints the grand canyon. The "Pop" part is
> that the source is drawn from our visual culture, rather than Arizona's
> natural attractions.
Of course.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Will Dockery wrote:
>
>
> If Lichtenstein /did/ want to make a painting of the Grand Canyon, he'd
> no doubt have cribbed the image from John Severin's "Rawhide Kid"
> comix... or one from Dick Ayers or Jack Kirby.
And that would have been fine. As a matter of fact, many artists (and
comic book artists amongst them in particular) "crib" their images from
an image file, and many of those images are - no doubt - copyrighted. so
if it were theft (and it isn't) it would be a mutual one.
dmh
Will Dockery
As well as "crib" from each other.
The history of comix is filled with stories of the "swipe files".
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Will Dockery wrote:
> s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Since of course we are not dealing with theft but alleged copyright
> > infringement (from
> > the comic book company or the artist/inker/writer or these artists
> > sources)
> > I have to wonder why you insist on using an inaccurate term.
>
> It goes beyond /copyright infringement/
Well no the legal term would be alleged copyright infringement. Again
why are you insisting
on an inaccurate term?
although the stuff he swiped
> /was/ work-made-for-hire.
So the copyright would belong to the company that the comic book
artist's worked for
provided that their work itself didn't come from another source. Right?
He took /all/ of his ideas from the guys
> during this time period.
Balderdash! Take a look at his work from the period from the
Lichtenstein foundation site.
http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php?work_id=0070&year=1962&decade=60
The source material is acknowledged albiet not the artist.
Were the artists credited on the original source material?
Can you be assured that none of these artist's work came from other
sources?
.. did something with them, yeah, but
> apparently didn't have an original bone in his worthless body.
> Or an ethical one.
You're substituting insult for arguement.
> > Which of Lichtenstein's images is closest to a comic book source?
> > Which is furthest?
>
> They're laid out here, side by side:
>
> <http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
Well yeah which *one* is closest?
> All are basically the same drawing, the same creative vision... which
> was seen and put down on paper by /another man/.
Well don't know how much "creative vision" you would attribute to any
one of these particular panels. Aside from the changes in scale, color,
materials, linework etc., the images take on new meanings when placed
in a gallery context.
> In the comix themselves, he'd fit more under the job title "inker"
> "colorist", or to use a Stan Lee credit sometimes used: "embellisher".
But they *aren't* in the comix themselves so your point is irrelevent.
> > Can you detect any change in his practice after 1967?
>
> Heh. Did he get scared?
Probably. Warhol moved towards original material as well. But
Lichtenstein used the signature comic book style he established in the
mid-sixties for the next twenty years.
Will Dockery
s_l_adam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Since of course we are not dealing with theft but alleged copyright
> > > infringement (from
> > > the comic book company or the artist/inker/writer or these artists
> > > sources)
> > > I have to wonder why you insist on using an inaccurate term.
> >
> > It goes beyond /copyright infringement/
>
> Well no the legal term would be alleged copyright infringement. Again
> why are you insisting
> on an inaccurate term?
>
> although the stuff he swiped
> > /was/ work-made-for-hire.
>
> So the copyright would belong to the company that the comic book
> artist's worked for
> provided that their work itself didn't come from another source. Right?
>
> He took /all/ of his ideas from the guys
> > during this time period.
>
> Balderdash! Take a look at his work from the period from the
> Lichtenstein foundation site.
>
> http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php?work_id=0070&year=1962&decade=60
>
> The source material is acknowledged albiet not the artist.
> Were the artists credited on the original source material?
> Can you be assured that none of these artist's work came from other
> sources?
>
> .. did something with them, yeah, but
> > apparently didn't have an original bone in his worthless body.
> > Or an ethical one.
>
> You're substituting insult for arguement.
>
> > > Which of Lichtenstein's images is closest to a comic book source?
> > > Which is furthest?
> >
> > They're laid out here, side by side:
> >
> > <http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
>
> Well yeah which *one* is closest?
At this early stage of comparison, it seems the Russ Heath swipes are the
closest.
> > All are basically the same drawing, the same creative vision... which
> > was seen and put down on paper by /another man/.
>
> Well don't know how much "creative vision" you would attribute to any
> one of these particular panels. Aside from the changes in scale, color,
> materials, linework etc., the images take on new meanings when placed
> in a gallery context.
And Lichtenstein does interesting, enjoyable versions of the original works.
The main grudge I have is he never nodded at the guys like Heath that,
obviously without whom, he'd never have made it on his own.
> > In the comix themselves, he'd fit more under the job title "inker"
> > "colorist", or to use a Stan Lee credit sometimes used: "embellisher".
>
> But they *aren't* in the comix themselves so your point is irrelevent.
Not really: all RL did was "embellish" the actual works of art he found in
the comix.
> > > Can you detect any change in his practice after 1967?
> >
> > Heh. Did he get scared?
>
> Probably. Warhol moved towards original material as well. But
> Lichtenstein used the signature comic book style he established in the
> mid-sixties for the next twenty years.
Yeah, funking around with other stolen images.
--
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
Autograph Of Zorro" {from *Shadowville Live*}:
<http://www.kannibaal.nl/zorro.mp3>
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Will Dockery wrote:
> s_l_adam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Well yeah which *one* is closest?
>
> At this early stage of comparison, it seems the Russ Heath swipes are the
> closest.
Ok could you provide *one* example so we can acess the changes?
> And Lichtenstein does interesting, enjoyable versions of the original works.
> The main grudge I have is he never nodded at the guys like Heath that,
> obviously without whom, he'd never have made it on his own.
Well no I don't think it's that obvious. Lichtenstein's critical
apprasal is primarily based on the variations and new meanings produced
by the recontexualization of the works. Can you site a critic
who *didn't* think these images were taken from comic books?
> > > In the comix themselves, he'd fit more under the job title "inker"
> > > "colorist", or to use a Stan Lee credit sometimes used: "embellisher".
> >
> > But they *aren't* in the comix themselves so your point is irrelevent.
>
> Not really: all RL did was "embellish" the actual works of art he found in
> the comix.
Yes really. In the sense you are using the term "embellish".
> > Lichtenstein used the signature comic book style he established in the
> > mid-sixties for the next twenty years.
>
> Yeah, funking around with other stolen images.
No. Sorry, you don't really seem to know too much about the artist and
again you are making an
accusation of theft when the issue (if any) would appear to be
copyright. In issues of copyright once would have to establish such
things as the orginality of the claimed source material, exercise of
due dilligence etc.
Once again I have to refer you to the Lichtenstein foundation site:
http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php?work_id=0070&year=1962&decade=60
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Will Dockery wrote:
> s_l_adam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Well yeah which *one* is closest?
>
> At this early stage of comparison, it seems the Russ Heath swipes are the
> closest.
Ok could you provide *one* example so we can acess the changes?
> And Lichtenstein does interesting, enjoyable versions of the original works.
> The main grudge I have is he never nodded at the guys like Heath that,
> obviously without whom, he'd never have made it on his own.
Well no I don't think it's that obvious. Lichtenstein's critical
apprasal is primarily based on the variations and new meanings produced
by the recontexualization of the works. Can you site a critic
who *didn't* think these images were taken from comic books?
> > > In the comix themselves, he'd fit more under the job title "inker"
> > > "colorist", or to use a Stan Lee credit sometimes used: "embellisher".
> >
> > But they *aren't* in the comix themselves so your point is irrelevent.
>
> Not really: all RL did was "embellish" the actual works of art he found in
> the comix.
Yes really. In the sense you are using the term "embellish".
> > Lichtenstein used the signature comic book style he established in the
> > mid-sixties for the next twenty years.
>
> Yeah, funking around with other stolen images.
No. Sorry, you don't really seem to know too much about the artist and
again you are making an
accusation of theft when the issue (if any) would appear to be
copyright. In issues of copyright one would have to establish such
Will Dockery
s_l_adam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > >
> > > Well yeah which *one* is closest?
> >
> > At this early stage of comparison, it seems the Russ Heath swipes are the
> > closest.
>
> Ok could you provide *one* example so we can acess the changes?
>
> > And Lichtenstein does interesting, enjoyable versions of the original works.
> > The main grudge I have is he never nodded at the guys like Heath that,
> > obviously without whom, he'd never have made it on his own.
>
> Well no I don't think it's that obvious. Lichtenstein's critical
> apprasal is primarily based on the variations and new meanings produced
> by the recontexualization of the works. Can you site a critic
> who *didn't* think these images were taken from comic books?
>
> > > > In the comix themselves, he'd fit more under the job title "inker"
> > > > "colorist", or to use a Stan Lee credit sometimes used: "embellisher".
> > >
> > > But they *aren't* in the comix themselves so your point is irrelevent.
> >
> > Not really: all RL did was "embellish" the actual works of art he found in
> > the comix.
>
> Yes really. In the sense you are using the term "embellish".
>
> > > Lichtenstein used the signature comic book style he established in the
> > > mid-sixties for the next twenty years.
> >
> > Yeah, funking around with other stolen images.
>
> No. Sorry, you don't really seem to know too much about the artist
I know he got his /big break/ riding on the backs of other artists he
stole his ideas from, though, and that's enough to see him for a sham
and a scam... a different kind of /artist/.
> and
> again you are making an
> accusation of theft when the issue (if any) would appear to be
> copyright. In issues of copyright one would have to establish such
> things as the orginality of the claimed source material, exercise of
> due dilligence etc.
>
> Once again I have to refer you to the Lichtenstein foundation site:
>
> http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php?work_id=0070&year=1962&decade=60
Okay, I'll have a look-see.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Will Dockery wrote:
> s_l_adam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Sorry, you don't really seem to know too much about the artist
>
> I know he got his /big break/ riding on the backs of other artists he
> stole his ideas from, though, and that's enough to see him for a sham
> and a scam... a different kind of /artist/.
Once again since we're talking about copyright, the verb "stole" does
not apply.
Why do you persist in making the same mistake?
As I pointed out earlier, "Lichtenstein's critical
apprasal is primarily based on the variations and new meanings produced
by the recontexualization of the works." So although he would
certainly acknowlege the kinetic appeal provided by the original
images, (though
I suspect he was ambivalent about the ideas they projected about war
and romance)
we're actually talking about *Lichtenstein's* ideas.
The joke about mimesis in "Good Morning Darling" is a good example.
> > http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php?work_id=0070&year=1962&decade=60
>
> Okay, I'll have a look-see.
>
Good!
Will Dockery
s_l_adam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, you don't really seem to know too much about the artist
> >
> > I know he got his /big break/ riding on the backs of other artists he
> > stole his ideas from, though, and that's enough to see him for a sham
> > and a scam... a different kind of /artist/.
>
> Once again since we're talking about copyright, the verb "stole" does
> not apply.
Sure it does. Lichtenstein [let's say "borrowed"] the images for his
paintings /directly/ from the art of Heath, Novick, Kirby et al
directly and with very little changes, straight from the comic panels:
<http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html>
> As I pointed out earlier, "Lichtenstein's critical
> apprasal is primarily based on the variations and new meanings produced
>
> by the recontexualization of the works." So although he would
> certainly acknowlege the kinetic appeal provided by the original
> images,
He never did... Heath and the others were consistantly ignored.
> (though
> I suspect he was ambivalent about the ideas they projected about war
> and romance)
> we're actually talking about *Lichtenstein's* ideas.
Stolen ideas.
> The joke about mimesis in "Good Morning Darling" is a good example.
>
> > > http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php?work_id=0070&year=1962&decade=60
> >
> > Okay, I'll have a look-see.
>
> Good!
But how it will change the fact that Lichtenstein was a blatant thief
that never credited his sources, I can't possibly imagine.
--
The Netherlands/Shadowville cross cultural exchange
project <http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm>
"Greybeard Cavalier" [0x0000/Fowler/Dockery]
http://www.lulu.com/items/26000/26663/preview/Track__1.mp3
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Since you persist in refering to "theft" when clearly this is a matter
of copyright,
and have not provided any new arguments to support your case (you just
seem to be repeating inaccurate allegations) perhaps you should admit
you utter defeat.
Will Dockery
s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ROTFL !!
> Since you persist in refering to "theft" when clearly this is a matter
> of copyright,
The artists Lichentstein stole his ideas from did not own the
copyrights, so that's /not/ the issue. Lichtenstein not having anything
original to offer is.
Lichtenstein /won/ over forty years ago... I have nothing to win or
lose, but the original artists that he walked on the backs of will be
remembered.
Your link tells the tale as well as any:
<http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php>
And, of course, it doesn't.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
Will Dockery wrote:
> s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > ROTFL !!
> > Since you persist in refering to "theft" when clearly this is a matter
> > of copyright,
>
> The artists Lichentstein stole his ideas from did not own the
> copyrights, so that's /not/ the issue. Lichtenstein not having anything
> original to offer is.
Well since theft isn't the issue and you conceed that copyright isn't
the issue, then you apparently
have no arguement against Lichentstein whatsoever.
>
> Lichtenstein /won/ over forty years ago... I have nothing to win or
> lose, but the original artists that he walked on the backs of will be
> remembered.
Again, you are substituting melodrama for logic.
> Your link tells the tale as well as any:
>
> <http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php>
Yes it does and I would encourage any one reading the group to visit
this excellent site.
The included articles on the site plus a simple google search for his
name will help provide the background necessary to appreciate his many
innovations.
Since I anticipate you want the last word, I will leave it to you to
either concede, or merely repeat the flawed arguements you have posted
previously.
~~Jinn~~
like a wheel within a wheel
Willly;s drunk, his head is spinning
like a unevolving pearl
like the barnacles you find
on the clam shells of your mind.
Sorry Will... Couldn't resist...
--
Tom Bishop
http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
<s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119240655.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
~~Jinn~~
<s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1119242609.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Will Dockery wrote:
>> s_l_a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > ROTFL !!
>> > Since you persist in refering to "theft" when clearly this is a matter
>> > of copyright,
>>
>> The artists Lichentstein stole his ideas from did not own the
>> copyrights, so that's /not/ the issue. Lichtenstein not having anything
>> original to offer is.
>
> Well since theft isn't the issue and you conceed that copyright isn't
> the issue, then you apparently
> have no arguement against Lichentstein whatsoever.
But he's still mad, dammit!
>
>>
>> Lichtenstein /won/ over forty years ago... I have nothing to win or
>> lose, but the original artists that he walked on the backs of will be
>> remembered.
>
> Again, you are substituting melodrama for logic.
A rare gift. He is mellow about it, isn't he?
>
>
>> Your link tells the tale as well as any:
>>
>> <http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php>
>
> Yes it does and I would encourage any one reading the group to visit
> this excellent site.
> The included articles on the site plus a simple google search for his
> name will help provide the background necessary to appreciate his many
> innovations.
I feel swollen in my mind from your abundance.
But I hate him for copying DC. DC sucked.
Marvel rules.
Go Silver Surfer, you misunderstood galactic tube rider
I love you Silver!
>
> Since I anticipate you want the last word, I will leave it to you to
> either concede, or merely repeat the flawed arguements you have posted
> previously.
>
Will never repeats himself, he just moves on.
Will Dockery
> > copyrights, so that's /not/ the issue. Lichtenstein not having anything
> > original to offer is.
>
> Well since theft isn't the issue and you conceed that copyright isn't
> the issue, then you apparently
> have no arguement against Lichentstein whatsoever.
It never was an /argument/ Lichtenstein lifted the work of Heath,
Novick, Kirby and others, jiggled it a bit, and called it his own.
> > Lichtenstein /won/ over forty years ago... I have nothing to win or
> > lose, but the original artists that he walked on the backs of will be
> > remembered.
>
> Again, you are substituting melodrama for logic.
The case is clear: Lichtenstein is a thief.
> > Your link tells the tale as well as any:
> >
> > <http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php>
>
> Yes it does and I would encourage any one reading the group to visit
> this excellent site.
> The included articles on the site plus a simple google search for his
> name will help provide the background necessary to appreciate his many
> innovations.
Innovations such as taking another man's creations and calling them his
own.
Will Dockery
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> <s_l_adams> wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> > Since you persist in refering to "theft" when clearly this is a matter
> >> > of copyright,
> >>
> >> The artists Lichentstein stole his ideas from did not own the
> >> copyrights, so that's /not/ the issue. Lichtenstein not having anything
> >> original to offer is.
> >
> > Well since theft isn't the issue and you conceed that copyright isn't
> > the issue, then you apparently
> > have no arguement against Lichentstein whatsoever.
>
> But he's still mad, dammit!
Why would I be mad about a case of one man stealing the art of several
other artists?
Not like I'd make /threats/ against the guy... after all, it happened
to someone else.
So how much $$$ are you offering to break Cook's arms again?
> >> Lichtenstein /won/ over forty years ago... I have nothing to win or
> >> lose, but the original artists that he walked on the backs of will be
> >> remembered.
> >
> > Again, you are substituting melodrama for logic.
>
> A rare gift. He is mellow about it, isn't he?
>
> >> Your link tells the tale as well as any:
> >>
> >> <http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php>
> >
> > Yes it does and I would encourage any one reading the group to visit
> > this excellent site.
> > The included articles on the site plus a simple google search for his
> > name will help provide the background necessary to appreciate his many
> > innovations.
>
> I feel swollen in my mind from your abundance.
> But I hate him for copying DC. DC sucked.
> Marvel rules.
I /have/ read that he ripped off Rimita, as well... one of the top guys
in the Marvel heyday. Drew Spidey after Ditko left, as you know.
> Go Silver Surfer, you misunderstood galactic tube rider
> I love you Silver!
Who could not? The Jack kirby rendition, of course. Lichtenstein is a
unoriginal thief.
> > Since I anticipate you want the last word, I will leave it to you to
> > either concede, or merely repeat the flawed arguements you have posted
> > previously.
>
> Will never repeats himself, he just moves on.
Speaking of /moving on/, how about ten bucks for a classic Tom Bishop,
created by that master auteur, Michael Cook?
Will Dockery & The River Mutants, featuring Baby Bishop:
That's ten bucks worth, send cash check or mo to:
Will Dockery
P.O.B. 7394
Columbus GA 31908
More where that came from, if the $$$ is right.
s_l_a...@hotmail.com
~~Jinn~~ wrote:
> <s_l_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:> >> > of copyright,
> >> <http://www.image-duplicator.com/main.php>
> >
> > Yes it does and I would encourage any one reading the group to visit
> > this excellent site.
> > The included articles on the site plus a simple google search for his
> > name will help provide the background necessary to appreciate his many
> > innovations.
>
> I feel swollen in my mind from your abundance.
> But I hate him for copying DC. DC sucked.
> Marvel rules.
>
> Go Silver Surfer, you misunderstood galactic tube rider
> I love you Silver!
Ahh Rats! And now we have to be mortal enemies. ;-) Even though I
ended up buying every issue of
Batman, (Neal Adams was God!) I never got into Marvel because I felt
like I was always getting into the middle of the story a couple issues
too late. (That is until the excellent later anthologies)
> > Since I anticipate you want the last word, I will leave it to you to
> > either concede, or merely repeat the flawed arguements you have posted
> > previously.
> Will never repeats himself, he just moves on.
> Tom Bishop
> http://jinnspyx.blogspot.com
Well paraphrases.....
Erik A. Mattila
>
>
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
>>>
>> The "sampling" is usually called "appropriation" in artspeak, as in
>> "the appropriated image." In Pop Art is had nothing to do with theft,
>> or even creativity, for that matter. The project was dubbed
>> "detournement" by author Guy Debord, who probably wrote the best
>> critique on Pop Art that I know of. "Detournment" is the act of
>> removing an object from it's original context to a new context, thus
>> changing the meaning of that object. Warhol's soup cans, for example,
>> were "detourned" from their original advertising context to Leo
>> Castalli's art gallery in NYC.
>
>
> I know all about "detournment" and if you don't think "changing the
> meaning" of an object is a creative act, I don't know where you're
> coming from. As for "theft": not my pronouncement, so I won't defend it.
But I'm not even challenging you - just merely making some points. But
another point is that the artist doesn't make meaning in the first
place. Culture does. That's where I'm coming from, at any rate.
I mean, did you ever think that the mystique of the "creative artist" is
a component of the systematic valorization of art and artists in our
culture? I can't for the life of me remember the critic who wrote "the
theory of modern art is a theory of comsumption disquised as a theory of
production," but it illustrates an alternative way of looking at art in
culture. (It may have been Meyer Shapiro). In this alternative
universe, the artist and the view (let's say the entire "art world" for
that matter) are coparticipants in the production and consumption of
works of art.
And that is what culture is - a meaning machine.
Erik A. Mattila
That really doesn't address the point I made, in case you're interested.
J Rinier
<will_d...@knology.net> wrote:
>
>
>Dale Houstman wrote:
>> Will Dockery wrote:
>>
>> > If Lichtenstein /did/ want to make a painting of the Grand Canyon, he'd
>> > no doubt have cribbed the image from John Severin's "Rawhide Kid"
>> > comix... or one from Dick Ayers or Jack Kirby.
>>
>> And that would have been fine. As a matter of fact, many artists (and
>> comic book artists amongst them in particular) "crib" their images from
>> an image file, and many of those images are - no doubt - copyrighted. so
>> if it were theft (and it isn't) it would be a mutual one.
>
>As well as "crib" from each other.
>
>The history of comix is filled with stories of the "swipe files".
Has your whole history on usenet been marked by this type of useless
non-contribution?
Shall I dub thee 'Fart' because you only make noise and stink of
shite?
Fer fuck's sake, blow the bloody fuck off usenet, Fart.
J Rinier
Will Dockery
J Rinier wrote:
> >> Will Dockery wrote:
> >>
> >> > If Lichtenstein /did/ want to make a painting of the Grand Canyon, he'd
> >> > no doubt have cribbed the image from John Severin's "Rawhide Kid"
> >> > comix... or one from Dick Ayers or Jack Kirby.
> >>
> >> And that would have been fine. As a matter of fact, many artists (and
> >> comic book artists amongst them in particular) "crib" their images from
> >> an image file, and many of those images are - no doubt - copyrighted. so
> >> if it were theft (and it isn't) it would be a mutual one.
> >
> >As well as "crib" from each other.
> >
> >The history of comix is filled with stories of the "swipe files".
>
> Has your whole history on usenet been marked by this type of useless
> non-contribution?
So, what have you got to throw in, J?