NEWS: Roy Lichtenstein dies
Mike Chary
He died yesterday. Very famous artist, he used images from cartoons in
his paintings, in case you're wondering why I thought this relevant for
rac.m.
I always had mixed vibes about his work as regards comics. While it did
get comic images exposed to the mass culture even more, it also sort of
gave them a niche feel even more than they already had.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
In Memoriam Richie Ashburn, the Greatest Defensive Center Fielder of All
Time. A hell of a hitter and the best announcer this biased Phillies fan
ever heard. We'll miss you Whitey. :'(
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: He died yesterday. Very famous artist, he used images from cartoons in
: rac.m.
: I always had mixed vibes about his work as regards comics. While it did
: get comic images exposed to the mass culture even more, it also sort of
: gave them a niche feel even more than they already had.
You know, I think Lichtenstein's work might have been my first exposure to
comic book art style, the first thing to kind of make it look cool to me.
He'll be greatly missed.
- Elayne
--
"The kiss originated when the first male reptile licked the first female
reptile, implying in a subtle, complimentary way that she was as succulent
as the small reptile he had for dinner the night before."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Dwight Williams
Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) writes:
> He died yesterday. Very famous artist, he used images from cartoons in
> his paintings, in case you're wondering why I thought this relevant for
> rac.m.
>
> I always had mixed vibes about his work as regards comics. While it did
> get comic images exposed to the mass culture even more, it also sort of
> gave them a niche feel even more than they already had.
He isn't the only one to do this: apparently George Ostrovsky(?) who wrote the
Mossad version of "Spycatcher", "By Way of Deception"(?) also has a
similar hobby. I've seen several of his comic-collage paintings on sale at
Koyman Galleries in the Rideau Centre here in Ottawa about 2-3 years ago.
It was a bit of a shock to learn that this fellow had such interests.
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
PatDOneill
In article <60qs5r$18j$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>He died yesterday. Very famous artist, he used images from cartoons in
>his paintings, in case you're wondering why I thought this relevant for
>rac.m.
>
>I always had mixed vibes about his work as regards comics. While it did
>get comic images exposed to the mass culture even more, it also sort of
>gave them a niche feel even more than they already had.
I've always been pissed that the people who originated the images he
appropriated were never given proper credit. The answer from the
academic art circles was always that they were "anonymous"--but
any comics fan could have identified many of them. I remember seeing
stuff swiped from the likes of Russ Heath and Werner Roth and
Bill Overgard (of syndication's STEVE ROPER strip).
For that matter, why weren't claims of copyright infringement and/or
plagiarism ever made against him? Or didn't "comics" count as something
it was wrong to steal from?
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and
do not represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
catherine yronwode
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> In article <60qs5r$18j$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes:
>
> >He died yesterday. Very famous artist, he used images from cartoons in
> >his paintings, in case you're wondering why I thought this relevant for
> >rac.m.
> >
> >I always had mixed vibes about his work as regards comics. While it did
> >get comic images exposed to the mass culture even more, it also sort of
> >gave them a niche feel even more than they already had.
>
> I've always been pissed that the people who originated the images he
> appropriated were never given proper credit. The answer from the
> academic art circles was always that they were "anonymous"--but
> any comics fan could have identified many of them. I remember seeing
> stuff swiped from the likes of Russ Heath and Werner Roth and
> Bill Overgard (of syndication's STEVE ROPER strip).
>
> For that matter, why weren't claims of copyright infringement and/or
> plagiarism ever made against him? Or didn't "comics" count as something
> it was wrong to steal from?
I agree with you, Pat -- it always bothered me that he was considered
cool and hip -- and made money -- off of the works of others. I am
surprised that the artists or copyright holders did not sue -- i think
they could have won a case. I have had long, pleasant disagreements
about this subject with Larry Marder, a big fan of Lichtenstein's, and
neither of us ever convinced the other of the justness of our cause. He
regards Lichtenstein to be a true artist; i consider him a swipe-artist
and a scamster.
catherine yronwode
c...@luckymojo.com
Comics Warehouse: http://www.luckymojo.com/comicswarehouse.html
check out news:alt.lucky.w for folk magic and good luck charms
Justin Erickson-Savage
In article <3431BC...@luckymojo.com>, catherine yronwode
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
He
> regards Lichtenstein to be a true artist; i consider him a swipe-artist
> and a scamster.
>
> catherine yronwode
> c...@luckymojo.com
I tend to agree, but some of his other work was cool. As far as
swipeartists and scamsters go though, I've always thought of Warhol
first...
savage
T.J.Stansbie
Dwight Williams wrote:
> Mike Chary (fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) writes:
> > He died yesterday. Very famous artist, he used images from cartoons in
> > his paintings, in case you're wondering why I thought this relevant for
> > rac.m.
> > I always had mixed vibes about his work as regards comics. While it did
> > get comic images exposed to the mass culture even more, it also sort of
> > gave them a niche feel even more than they already had.
> He isn't the only one to do this: apparently George Ostrovsky(?) I've seen several of his
> comic-collage paintings on sale
*snipped*
Sad news about Lichenstein.
On the second point. Tim Rollins and KOS (Kids Of Survival) did
some famous pieces using pages from the X-men...
TJS. Sworn to fear and hate a world that protects him.
----------------------------------------------------------
USE WHAT IS DOMINANT IN A CULTURE TO CHANGE IT QUICKLY
----------------------------------------------------------
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: For that matter, why weren't claims of copyright infringement and/or
: plagiarism ever made against him? Or didn't "comics" count as something
: it was wrong to steal from?
Did the Campbell Soup Company ever sue Andy Warhol?
Ennead
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
: You know, I think Lichtenstein's work might have been my first exposure to
: comic book art style, the first thing to kind of make it look cool to me.
: He'll be greatly missed.
Not by me. I'm sure he was a wonderful guy personally, but a more mediocre
and crass artist is hard to imagine, and the fact that he's most famous
for plagerism (which he excused only by his belief that cartoonists aren't
artists) doesn't warm my heart to him, either.
A local paper here had the headline:
ROY LICHTENSTEIN DIES
Made Comics into Art
To me, that pretty much sums up what I loathe about the Lichtenstien view
of comics and cartooning.
Yours,
--Ampersand
(...Apparently some typesetter accidentally dropped a word between
"into" and "Art," that word being "lucrative.")
Tom Vincent
>He died yesterday. Very famous artist, he used images from cartoons in
>his paintings, in case you're wondering why I thought this relevant for
>rac.m.
>
>I always had mixed vibes about his work as regards comics. While it did
>get comic images exposed to the mass culture even more, it also sort of
>gave them a niche feel even more than they already had.
Me too.
Well, actually, they weren't een mixed- I just hated it. I was studying
Fina Arts in the post-pop 70s, and the existence of Litchenstein only
served to lower comics as legitimate art in the eyes of the 'art
intellegensia'.
"That's not art- it's *illustration!" Tom's printmaking professer upon
seeing one of his etchings in 1977. "What do you call the ceiling of the
Sistine Chapel?" - Tom's response to same, 1977
---Tom Vincent
Her eyes brimmed with tears. "The Princess is dead, and now the Mother is
gone too. Who will care for all those people? Who will care for the infirm
and the unwanted? Who will do the good works now?" The simplicity of the
answer startled her. "Us", came the reply, "all of us."
michael kelly
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
|> PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
|>
|> : For that matter, why weren't claims of copyright infringement and/or
|> : plagiarism ever made against him? Or didn't "comics" count as something
|> : it was wrong to steal from?
|>
|> Did the Campbell Soup Company ever sue Andy Warhol?
I don't know if they ever sued him, but the definitely hired him at one
point (to design the box for a dry soup mix, I believe).
--
+ Mike Kelly, University of Michigan Department of Physics +
+ +
+ Oh, and never mind the words, just hum along and keep on going. +
+ - Ian Anderson +
Kevin J. Maroney
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>He
>regards Lichtenstein to be a true artist; i consider him a swipe-artist
>and a scamster.
Everybody, say it along with me: "There's nothing in the rules says he
can't be both."
I think that Lichtenstein was, in fact, a genius, and not just for his
comics-panel pieces, though those sometimes show genius as well;
however, that does not eliminate the fact that some--many?--of his
works were copyright violations.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
John P. Selegue
I spent a couple of hours at a major Roy Lichtenstein exhibit at
Ohio State University a year or so ago. I really enjoyed it -- I have
been a Lichtenstein fan for a long time.
The exhibit took care to credit the sources of Lichtenstein's painting in
detail whenever possible. Most of the images are NOT simply copies
of comic book panels. Usually the elements are arranged to make an
effective painting. Sometimes elements of several panels are combined.
Where the sources could not be tracked down, like the famous "Hey Mickey,
I caught a big one" which supposedly came from a bubble-gum cartoon but
no one has able to find the original, this was discussed in some detail.
In several cases, the Russ Heath originals which inspired Lichenstein's
paintings were displayed nearby, if my memory serves. Even more of the
sources were properly credited in the books in the museum bookstore.
Later, I went to an art library and tracked down a few books which gave
the issue numbers. In fact, these are now on my want list.
All-American Men of War; 1962; 89,90
GI Combat; 1962; 94
Girls' Romances; 1962; 81
Our Army at War; 1962?; I couldn't find this issue number. Anyone know it?
Our Fighting Forces; 1962; 71
Secret Hearts; 1962; 83
Young Romance; 1956; 26, 28
If anyone out there is trying to get rid of these horribly uncredited
sources, let me know... but maybe I just raised their Overstreet values
if many people who read racmisc feel that the sources are hidden.
To me, the best of the Lichtenstein paintings are like still lifes
where he chose comic art as his subject instead of yet another
bowl of fruit. He moved beyond these paintings where the sources
were existing comics panels, and created other works of art which used
the comics style in original ways. Take a look at "Peace Through
Chemistry" for example.
Write "I don't like Roy Lichtenstein's paintings," if that's what
you mean, but don't gripe about supposedly uncredited sources.
In article <19970930153...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>I've always been pissed that the people who originated the images he
>appropriated were never given proper credit. The answer from the
>academic art circles was always that they were "anonymous"--but
>any comics fan could have identified many of them. I remember seeing
>stuff swiped from the likes of Russ Heath and Werner Roth and
>Bill Overgard (of syndication's STEVE ROPER strip).
>
>plagiarism ever made against him? Or didn't "comics" count as something
>it was wrong to steal from?
and the paintings.
Jack Selegue
Hernan Espinoza
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>For that matter, why weren't claims of copyright infringement and/or
>plagiarism ever made against him? Or didn't "comics" count as something
>it was wrong to steal from?
Suing a famous artist for something as crass as a copyright
infringement would be a PR nightmare and simply not worth the cost,
I'll wager.
-Hernan, *not* condoning it, just making an observation
PatDOneill
In article <espinoza....@cgl.ucsf.edu>, espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu
(Hernan Espinoza) writes:
> Suing a famous artist for something as crass as a copyright
>infringement would be a PR nightmare and simply not worth the cost,
>I'll wager.
OTOH, Lichtenstein seemed to be damned careful not to "swipe" from the
most litigious of the comics creators, such as Al Capp. Maybe he
was shrewder than you think?
PatDOneill
In article <17BFA14185...@ukcc.uky.edu>, SEL...@ukcc.uky.edu
(John P. Selegue) writes:
>>For that matter, why weren't claims of copyright infringement and/or
>>plagiarism ever made against him? Or didn't "comics" count as something
>>it was wrong to steal from?
>
>Because he did not infringe or plagiarize. Go take a look at the comic
>sources
> and the paintings.
Horse hockey. If the source of the work is readily identifiable by anyone
with a knowledge of comics, then he plagiarized. I've seen the paintings
and the sources side-by-side; in a copyright case between two artists
of equal "social value" they'd be considered actionable.
John P. Selegue
In article <19971002130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) writes:
>In article <espinoza....@cgl.ucsf.edu>, espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu
>(Hernan Espinoza) writes:
>
>> Suing a famous artist for something as crass as a copyright
>>infringement would be a PR nightmare and simply not worth the cost,
>>I'll wager.
>
>OTOH, Lichtenstein seemed to be damned careful not to "swipe" from the
>most litigious of the comics creators, such as Al Capp. Maybe he
>was shrewder than you think?
omething like that) featuring Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
Is Disney shy about defending copyrights?
JPS
Hernan Espinoza
>>(Hernan Espinoza) writes:
>>
>>> Suing a famous artist for something as crass as a copyright
>>>infringement would be a PR nightmare and simply not worth the cost,
>>>I'll wager.
>>
>>OTOH, Lichtenstein seemed to be damned careful not to "swipe" from the
>>most litigious of the comics creators, such as Al Capp. Maybe he
>>was shrewder than you think?
>
>His groundbreaking comics-based work was "Hey Mickey, I caught a big one" (or s
>omething like that) featuring Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
>Is Disney shy about defending copyrights?
That was exactly my point. Disney is not usually shy about
these things (less now then back then), but the suit would be a public
relations disaster for very little gain. I'll just bet the cost/benefit
analysis didn't work out.
-Hernan, suing artists is a losing proposition
IHCOYC XPICTOC
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: Horse hockey. If the source of the work is readily identifiable by anyone
: with a knowledge of comics, then he plagiarized. I've seen the paintings
: and the sources side-by-side; in a copyright case between two artists
: of equal "social value" they'd be considered actionable.
In one sense, I would have to agree. Lichtenstein's images are -almost-
line for line, if not dot for dot, copies of the originals. (The dots in
Lichtenstein's pictures are -too- perfect, and as such are obvious
additions rather than -merely- artifacts of a printing process.) Even the
text in the captions is related to the text from the original comics.
This is especially obvious in pictures like "Drowning Girl" and "OK,
Hot-Shot, I'm Pouring. . . " (although the latter is a pastiche of figures
from several panels.)
OTOH, the fact that threats of copyright lawyering might be used to
prevent the creation or display of Lichtenstein's images more or less
underlines what's wrong with intellectual property law, at least as
defined by its group of plaintiff's lawyers.
It isn't like anybody interested in either the original comic art in its
context will be satisfied by looking at Lichtenstein's pictures. Much
less will they get the story. Lichtenstein was making a comment on the
images by exaggerating them and certain features of their production.
Whether we grasp the nature of his comment, or if so, agree with it, is
beside the point. Likewise, whether Lichtenstein's use of the images is
"fair use" is up in the air until a court actually rules, which again
underlines the problem; legal rights that can't be exercized without
litigation are substantially devalued. Any law that would empower anyone
to impose costs on Lichtenstein for making, displaying, or selling his
pictures is an infringement of free speech.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus gustavus(at)iglou.com
+ Vibrabimus volvemurque usque ad reditum boum. +
+ Sanctum est flumen arcanum lacrimarum. +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
Tom Spurgeon
In article <bbailie-0310...@nrf-as15s28.erols.com>,
bba...@erols.com (Brian H. Bailie) wrote:
> In article <17BFB8C06S...@ukcc.uky.edu>, SEL...@ukcc.uky.edu (John
> P. Selegue) wrote:
>
> > His groundbreaking comics-based work was "Hey Mickey, I caught a big
one" (or
> > something like that) featuring Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
>
> I saw this in person for the first time just a few years ago, and to this
> day, I have no idea why it's groundbreaking, and even less idea of why
> it's in a museum. All I could think of was how badly drawn Mickey and
> Donald were and how badly executed the piece was, and that it was nothing
> less than a crime that Lichtenstein was revered in a museum and that Carl
> Barks was unheard of in the "legitimate" art world.
An interpretation of that Lichtenstein piece is available in just about
every book on the man, and was paraphrased in almost every major obituary.
It's pretty much a textbook example of the re-contextualizing that was
going on in his work.
As far as Carl Bark being unheard of in the "legitimate" art world, who
cares? The legitimate art world has its own concerns and its own
standards, and disparaging them because they don't appreciate comics' best
talents seems to lend validity to the notion that such recognition has
value.
Great talents in comics are often "unheard of" in _comics_, in a context
where what they've done should have inarguable value.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
In article <19971002130...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> In article <espinoza....@cgl.ucsf.edu>, espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu
> (Hernan Espinoza) writes:
>
> > Suing a famous artist for something as crass as a copyright
> >infringement would be a PR nightmare and simply not worth the cost,
> >I'll wager.
>
> OTOH, Lichtenstein seemed to be damned careful not to "swipe" from the
> most litigious of the comics creators, such as Al Capp. Maybe he
> was shrewder than you think?
>
And you know, he seemed to be damned careful not to "swipe" from the
Marvel Comics imagery. Maybe he was a bowling partner of Stan Lee's?
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
In article <17BFA14185...@ukcc.uky.edu>, SEL...@ukcc.uky.edu
(John P. Selegue) wrote:
> Write "I don't like Roy Lichtenstein's paintings," if that's what
> you mean, but don't gripe about supposedly uncredited sources.
That's a great point, and thank you for taking the time to make it. Pat
would admit you nailed him on this specific issue, but he's much more
likely to take an aside or supporting point and run with it than address
the main point of your post.
Lichtenstein's approach to art seems to me highly valid, and is supported
by a great number of better thinkers on aesthetics and visual art than
myself. (Not that I always agree with them, but it should be remembered
that Lichtenstein was working in a particular artistic context.) I don't
think Lichtenstein "swiped" any more than Anna Deveare-Smith "swiped" the
content of her monologue plays.
I don't think Lichtenstein was a very good artist, and find his comics
recontextualizations very obvious. And I think that one point comics
observors can make is that the critical conception that these panels, as
was said in the Washington Post [I'm paraphrasing] "lack any sort of
artistic effectivness before Lichtenstein worked them over" is pretty
drastically wrong, and speaks to both Lichtenstein's ability as an artist
and these critics' inability to speak about comics art.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
In article <19971002130...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> In article <17BFA14185...@ukcc.uky.edu>, SEL...@ukcc.uky.edu
> (John P. Selegue) writes:
>
> >>For that matter, why weren't claims of copyright infringement and/or
> >>plagiarism ever made against him? Or didn't "comics" count as something
> >>it was wrong to steal from?
> >
> >Because he did not infringe or plagiarize. Go take a look at the comic
> >sources
> > and the paintings.
>
> Horse hockey. If the source of the work is readily identifiable by anyone
> with a knowledge of comics, then he plagiarized. I've seen the paintings
> and the sources side-by-side; in a copyright case between two artists
> of equal "social value" they'd be considered actionable.
Is the "social value" of the artists involved really something that's been
used as legal precedent in cases of this type?
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Ennead
IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
: OTOH, the fact that threats of copyright lawyering might be used to
: prevent the creation or display of Lichtenstein's images more or less
: underlines what's wrong with intellectual property law, at least as
: defined by its group of plaintiff's lawyers. [...]
I agree. Also see the book THE LETTER U AND THE NUMERAL TWO, by the music
group Negativeland, for a lot of good information on the legal status and
moral philosophy of appropriated images and sounds in art.
: [...] Likewise, whether Lichtenstein's use of the images is
: "fair use" is up in the air until a court actually rules, which again
: underlines the problem; legal rights that can't be exercized without
: litigation are substantially devalued. Any law that would empower anyone
: to impose costs on Lichtenstein for making, displaying, or selling his
: pictures is an infringement of free speech.
I'm in agreement with most of your post, until this last sentence. The
fact that US copyright law might well have (if any of those artists had
wanted to sue - although in fact it would be the publishers who would sue,
since I think most of those images came from work-for-hire artists) led to
the prevention of Lichenstien creating his most famous works is a serious
problem with our laws.
On the other hand, I don't think a law requiring Lichtenstein to share
some small portion of his profits with the original artists would have
been an undue infringement of _his_ free speech. After all, he generally
used only one artistic source per painting, and he really didn't modify
the images much beyond changing their context.
I would be against such a law, however, since it would make the sort of
work Negativeland does (in which hundreds of different sources may be used
in a single album) impossible to create. Ditto for my friend Amy, a
collage artist (you may have seen some of her works on the back covers of
NAUGHTY BITS and DESERT PEACH). There's a very good free-speech reason for
artistic appropriations to be protected speech.
In any case, had Lichtenstien been a better person, after he started
selling those paintings for five-figure amounts he would have sought out
and paid the original artists, regardless of the status of the law. (For
all I know, he did do that, but I doubt it, somehow.)
Yours,
--Ampersand
IHCOYC XPICTOC
Ennead (enn...@user2.teleport.com) wrote:
: I agree. Also see the book THE LETTER U AND THE NUMERAL TWO, by the
music : group Negativeland, for a lot of good information on the legal
status and : moral philosophy of appropriated images and sounds in art.
Negativland truly are prophets when it comes to this whole issue. Their
most recent record takes on cola ads. I wonder how long it will last. . .
: : [...] Likewise, whether Lichtenstein's use of the images is
: : "fair use" is up in the air until a court actually rules, which again
: : underlines the problem; legal rights that can't be exercized without
: : litigation are substantially devalued. Any law that would empower anyone
: : to impose costs on Lichtenstein for making, displaying, or selling his
: : pictures is an infringement of free speech.
: On the other hand, I don't think a law requiring Lichtenstein to share
: some small portion of his profits with the original artists would have
: been an undue infringement of _his_ free speech. After all, he generally
: used only one artistic source per painting, and he really didn't modify
: the images much beyond changing their context.
I wonder how much L. -knew- about the artists who created the pictures he
based his on. In the early Silver Age, art credits and signatures were
still often hard to find in mainstream serial comics. It might take
significant expertise or contacts within the industry or within fandom to
be able to put a name to the picture during that time.
This is probably one thing that drew L. to the images, for that matter:
they seemed to him to be the more or less anonymous products of an
industry, rather than the signed works of named artists. The relative
sophistication and knowledge we have as fans vis a vis particular creators
was at best just beginning in the pre-Marvel Silver Age. If I didn't know
already, I would often search in vain for the names of artists in early
Silver Age books. They might appear from time to time in letter columns,
but not everyone read 'em, nor did every book have 'em. It wasn't until
Marvel began cashing in on the fame of Kirby and Lee, that credits started
appearing regularly in DC hero books.
It is significant that L. did -not- use cartoonists with distinctive,
idiosyncratic styles --- even if they were the semi-industrial products of
studios, like Al Capp's. I don't think those would have served his
purpose; the caricature style is too instantly recognizable and
individual. Nor did he seem to dip into the EC style; for that too was a
subgenre of relative sophistication, with named artists and idiosyncratic,
recognizable styles.
He chose war and space adventure, and romance books, and it seems to me
that he chose them largely because they were highly stylized and drawn in
what might have seemed to him --- and probably would seem to anyone
outside of fandom --- to be a fungible and predictable style. This was
what he wanted --- mass produced imagery, not ripping off a named artist's
unique creations. The fact that comic book "sophisticates" know better
may in fact be undermining what he was trying to say in the pictures.
: In any case, had Lichtenstien been a better person, after he started
: selling those paintings for five-figure amounts he would have sought out
: and paid the original artists, regardless of the status of the law. (For
: all I know, he did do that, but I doubt it, somehow.)
Perhaps he should; but a law that would allow someone to sue still strikes
me as undesirable. And given what he was apparently trying to do, he was
apparently starting from a viewpoint that was rather aloof to actual
comics readership. In a way, he was insulting the artists, calling their
original works mass-produced and kitschy; and certainly from one
perspective, they probably were so.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus gustavus(at)iglou.com
+ Vibrabimus volvemurque usque ad reditum boum. +
+ Sancta sunt flumina arcana lacrimarum subter vias. +
Tom Vincent
In article <tom-031097...@c00-camilla.blarg.net>, t...@tcj.com (Tom
Spurgeon) wrote:
>As far as Carl Bark being unheard of in the "legitimate" art world, who
>cares? The legitimate art world has its own concerns and its own
>standards, and disparaging them because they don't appreciate comics' best
>talents seems to lend validity to the notion that such recognition has
>value.
Absolutely true. Now disparaging the "legitimate artworld" because they are
a bunch of pompous asses, well, then you could make a case.
Brian H. Bailie
> His groundbreaking comics-based work was "Hey Mickey, I caught a big one" (or
> something like that) featuring Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
I saw this in person for the first time just a few years ago, and to this
day, I have no idea why it's groundbreaking, and even less idea of why
it's in a museum. All I could think of was how badly drawn Mickey and
Donald were and how badly executed the piece was, and that it was nothing
less than a crime that Lichtenstein was revered in a museum and that Carl
Barks was unheard of in the "legitimate" art world.
Of course, I once had an arguement with a museum official who insisted
that the art on the wall was an important work of art by Andy Warhol,
while I kept saying that it was nothing of the kind. I maintained then, as
I do now, that the Superman art was indeed an important piece and the
artist should in fact be in every art history book around. But since the
artist was Curt Swan, it should be his name people see, not Warhol's.
Some people still fear to say the emperor's not wearing any clothes.
Brian
--
As a dreamer of dreams, and a travelin' man
I have chalked up many a mile.
I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I've learned much from both of their styles.
- J. Buffett
Addie B500
Just a thought...
Did it occur to any of you that comic book "art" was not considered* important
at all at the time Lichtenstein did his ground breaking work?
Yes -- ground breaking. After years of absract expressionist painters
excercising their domination with their ever increasingly solipsistic work
came artists like Mr. Lichtenstein who asked us to open our eyes and see the
art in the "everyday" objects around us. A sentiment more in tune with the
likes of Duchamp. (Who issued the proclamation that the profane could be
considered sacred when he elevated a urinal to the status of art with his
signature)
The elevation of popular art to the regard we now hold it today is due in a
large part to the works of Roy Lichtenstein, Warhol, et al.
The artists that were "swiped" from might never have been considered artists at
all were it not for "Pop Art" -- a fact recognized early on by Stan Lee
himself -- Or does nobody remember Marvel's brief stint at dubbing itself "Pop
art comics".
I now return you to your regulary scheduled programming ;)
Justin Erickson-Savage
In article <19971004005...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
addi...@aol.com (Addie B500) wrote:
> The artists that were "swiped" from might never have been considered
artists at
> all were it not for "Pop Art" -- a fact recognized early on by Stan Lee
> himself -- Or does nobody remember Marvel's brief stint at dubbing
itself "Pop
> art comics".
I hate to tell you this, but as far as most of the American Fine Arts
community goes it didn't help. If you look at the respect given to comics
by the fine arts community, major publishers , and the general public,
cave artists get more respect. This is slowly changing thanks to books
like Maus. But the respect is being gained more as literature. If anything
these artists were a novelty.
Justin Savage
Sabre's Edge
John P. Selegue
In article <19971004005...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
addi...@aol.com (Addie B500) writes:
>Did it occur to any of you that comic book "art" was not considered* important
> at all at the time Lichtenstein did his ground breaking work?
>Yes -- ground breaking. After years of absract expressionist painters
> excercising their domination with their ever increasingly solipsistic work
> came artists like Mr. Lichtenstein who asked us to open our eyes and see the
> art in the "everyday" objects around us. A sentiment more in tune with the
A rheotorical question (labelled so that no one feels obligated to answer
it like the one about Disney) -- how about Oldenberg?
Do you think that Sunbeam (etc.) should have sued him for the image of the
electric mixer and many other household objects he used?
Oldenberg and Lichtenstein did open people's eyes.
I don't understand why some writers in this thread (which is listing dangerousl
y off-topic) feel that one must choose between Lichtenberg's paintings and the
comics themselves. I like them both.
> likes of Duchamp. (Who issued the proclamation that the profane could be
> considered sacred when he elevated a urinal to the status of art with his
> signature)
>
>
>The elevation of popular art to the regard we now hold it today is due in a
> large part to the works of Roy Lichtenstein, Warhol, et al.
>
> all were it not for "Pop Art" -- a fact recognized early on by Stan Lee
> himself -- Or does nobody remember Marvel's brief stint at dubbing itself "Pop
> art comics".
It was Marvel Pop Art Productions-- and this was during what many feel was the
peak of their form in the mid 1960s, with Kirby, Ditko and others in the bullpe
n.
Mike Chary
Brian H. Bailie <bba...@erols.com> wrote:
>In article <17BFB8C06S...@ukcc.uky.edu>, SEL...@ukcc.uky.edu (John
>P. Selegue) wrote:
>
>> His groundbreaking comics-based work was "Hey Mickey, I caught a big one" (or
>> something like that) featuring Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.
>
>I saw this in person for the first time just a few years ago, and to this
>day, I have no idea why it's groundbreaking, and even less idea of why
>it's in a museum. All I could think of was how badly drawn Mickey and
>Donald were and how badly executed the piece was, and that it was nothing
>less than a crime that Lichtenstein was revered in a museum and that Carl
>Barks was unheard of in the "legitimate" art world.
Carl Barks wasn't doing "legitimate" art. He was doing comics. That's
what he wanted to do. His images, by themselves, while interesting,
aren't all that groundbreaking or innovative. It's only when his work is
*comics* that his genius shines through.
>Of course, I once had an arguement with a museum official who insisted
>that the art on the wall was an important work of art by Andy Warhol,
>while I kept saying that it was nothing of the kind. I maintained then, as
>I do now, that the Superman art was indeed an important piece and the
>artist should in fact be in every art history book around. But since the
>artist was Curt Swan, it should be his name people see, not Warhol's.
Curt Swan, again, drew a comic book. Warhol's choice to use that image
for another purpose in another context is *HIS* insight, not Curt
Swan's. Should painters have to credit the canvas makers or the frame
artisans (those aren't easy to do, and within the community of such
artisans, those people are quite famous and respected.) Of course not.
There venues in which people get credited in a certain way. Warhol and
Lichtenstein using images from every day life to comment on society is to
*their* credit.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
In Memoriam Richie Ashburn, the Greatest Defensive Center Fielder of All
Time. A hell of a hitter and the best announcer this biased Phillies fan
ever heard. We'll miss you Whitey. :'(
Mike Chary
B. P. Uecker <uec...@cris.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary wrote:
>
>>Curt Swan, again, drew a comic book. Warhol's choice to use that image
>>for another purpose in another context is *HIS* insight, not Curt
>>Swan's. Should painters have to credit the canvas makers or the frame
>>artisans (those aren't easy to do, and within the community of such
>>artisans, those people are quite famous and respected.) Of course not.
>>There venues in which people get credited in a certain way. Warhol and
>>Lichtenstein using images from every day life to comment on society is to
>>*their* credit.
>
>want to take it that far) do not create any content, just material. I
THe Mona Lisa would look rather different on different wood, I should think.
>cannot equate Curt Swan's drawing of Superman with mere raw materials,
>and don't see how you can.
Well, it's not that it is *Curt Swan's* drawing of Superman, it's that it
is Curt Swan's drawing of *Superman*. Superman was used not because of
the artist, though that particular image might have been picked for the
art value, but rather because Superman is *famous*. Any picture would do,
I should think. Warhol just happened to pick that one. Sort of the
difference between two different brands of paint.
Justin Erickson-Savage
> Lichtenstein using images from every day life to comment on society is to
> *their* credit.
When an image make r uses another image makers work without credit its
derivation and theft. It's this attitude of separation that has kept
comics as an art form locked in the dungeon for the last 90 years. Curt
Swan created the art Warhol stole it. Thats the reality. Thankfully, some
of the art world is starting to realize that.
Hernan Espinoza
SEL...@ukcc.uky.edu (John P. Selegue) writes:
>A rheotorical question (labelled so that no one feels obligated to answer
>it like the one about Disney) -- how about Oldenberg?
>Do you think that Sunbeam (etc.) should have sued him for the image of the
>electric mixer and many other household objects he used?
Sunbeam makes appliances, Disney makes art. The latter is
more likely to be/feel harmed when its products' images are co-opted
by "legit" artists for commercial gain (i.e. when the painting is sold).
It's different. (sorry for answering)
>Oldenberg and Lichtenstein did open people's eyes.
>I don't understand why some writers in this thread (which is listing dangerousl
>y off-topic) feel that one must choose between Lichtenberg's paintings and the
>comics themselves. I like them both.
Good point. Me too.
Ob Comics: Does anyone out there think comics are _not_ art?
-Hernan, who still thinks it would have been silly to sue,
but for more banal PR reasons...and heck, it's
free advertising. 8-)
Justin Erickson-Savage
> Well, it's not that it is *Curt Swan's* drawing of Superman, it's that it
> is Curt Swan's drawing of *Superman*. Superman was used not because of
> the artist, though that particular image might have been picked for the
> art value, but rather because Superman is *famous*. Any picture would do,
> I should think. Warhol just happened to pick that one. Sort of the
> difference between two different brands of paint.
That may be the rationalization you learned in art school and it may even
be the rationalization Warhol used, but a rationalization is all it is. If
Warhol would've had enough guts to try and draw his own version of the
"man of steel" it would be different, after all he was dealing in icons
and an icon is defined by itself not the artist who makes it, by his own
argument. By negating Curt Swans contribution to the icon he denies comics
viability as an artform and thats just plain stinky....
PatDOneill
>Lichtenstein's approach to art seems to me highly valid, and is supported
>by a great number of better thinkers on aesthetics and visual art than
>myself. (Not that I always agree with them, but it should be remembered
>that Lichtenstein was working in a particular artistic context.) I don't
>think Lichtenstein "swiped" any more than Anna Deveare-Smith "swiped" the
>content of her monologue plays.
I expect better from you, Tom.
IOW--because the "experts" say it's OK to steal someone else's work,
then it's OK? Context changes crimes into non-crimes? The guy who robs
your apartment because he needs the money for food hasn't
committed a crime, but the guy who does it because he needs the
money for drugs has? The guy who kills for revenge is less a killer
than the guy who kills for kicks?
Mike Chary
B. P. Uecker <uec...@cris.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary wrote:
>
>>>But canvas makers or frame artisans (or pigment manufacturers, if you
>>>want to take it that far) do not create any content, just material. I
>>
>>THe Mona Lisa would look rather different on different wood, I should think.
>
>material, like pastel, oils, canvas, etc., etc. Of course choice of
And, in this case, like a picture of Superman. Curt Swan did his in the
context of a comics book. Not as a static image of its own.
>medium will have an effect, no one is claiming otherwise. You are being
>argumentative.
Oh, is that what it's called?
You've done nothing except assert, without support, that my position
regarding Swan's image (that it was, when taken out of context merely
material) was wrong. I did support my position. If you want to maintain
that Swan's image was somehow appropriate to Warhol's piece *because* it
was Swan's image. Or that Warhol somehow took a major piece of Swan's
ultimate project for his own work (like Vanilla Ice stealing "Pressure")
then fine. All you've done so far is gainsay me. That's your right too,
but don't complain that I am being argumentative because I disagree with
your assertions.
>>>cannot equate Curt Swan's drawing of Superman with mere raw materials,
>>>and don't see how you can.
>>
>>Well, it's not that it is *Curt Swan's* drawing of Superman, it's that it
>>is Curt Swan's drawing of *Superman*. Superman was used not because of
>>the artist, though that particular image might have been picked for the
>>art value, but rather because Superman is *famous*. Any picture would do,
>>I should think. Warhol just happened to pick that one. Sort of the
>>difference between two different brands of paint.
>
>Then why didn't Warhol make his own image (presumably this would give
>him more leeway to express what he wanted to express)? Just happened to
Because part of the deal with the piece is taking a pop culture image and
using that. Realize that Warhol drawing a picture himself isn't pop art.
It's Warhol drawing Superman. Curt Swan or Wayne Boring or Joe Shuster
are the popular culture mechanisms for Superman. Let's face it, I like
Curt Swan's art, but he was a great *comics* artist. He was also great at
static images, but a panel from one of his comics is probably not what he
considered a completed piece.
>pick that one! More likely he saw in that particular image just what he
>wanted, and incorporated it into his own work. I think under those
>circumstances, he is ethically bound to acknowledge Curt Swan's
>contribution.
Perhaps, the ethics of artists have often been bandied around. (If I were
truly being argumentative, I'd go after you here, btw.) My point is
merely that regardless of the image used, the artistic impact of the
piece is credited to Warhol.
Personally, I think Warhol was fooling people, and I don't want Curt
Swan's name associated with that piece of crap in any way, but *that* is
neither here nor there.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>SEL...@ukcc.uky.edu (John P. Selegue) writes:
>>A rheotorical question (labelled so that no one feels obligated to answer
>>it like the one about Disney) -- how about Oldenberg?
>>Do you think that Sunbeam (etc.) should have sued him for the image of the
>>electric mixer and many other household objects he used?
My pal Hernan Espinoza said:
> Sunbeam makes appliances, Disney makes art.
^^^
You misspelled "entertainment" here. Hope this helps. {smile}
Seriously, many of the Industrial Design majors in my classes (I'm in art
school now) would disagree =strongly= with this distinction. IMHO, some
of them are better "artists" than some of the Fine Arts majors.
Cheers, Todd
--
Duke: "I blame society. Society made me what I am".
Otto: "That's bullshit. Youre a white suburban punk, just like me."
- Repo Man
Justin Erickson-Savage
In article <3436fa8d...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence
Watt-Evans) wrote:
> On 5 Oct 1997 01:24:59 GMT, patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>
> >No--which is my point. If Lichtenstein had done his work by swiping
> >images from daVinci, he'd be declared a plagiarist by the academic
> >world. Because he swiped images from a comics artist, the academic
> >world saw no plagiarism.
>
> Ever see Marcel Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q."?
>
> In case you haven't, it's a cheap print of the Mona Lisa with a
> mustache drawn on it. The title is a pun -- "Elle a chaud au cu"
> means "She's got a hot ass."
This is a bad argument for one obvious reason. The Mona Lisa is a famous
art piece by a famous person in whats recognized as fine art by the
academic community. Comics have no such standing in most (not all,
nowadays)schools or museums. Warhol used Curt Swans Superman. Curt Swan
may be recognizable to some people but to most people they just see
superman, even in educated circles. This places Curt Swan in the
unenviable position of shop worker, not artist. Just like the guy who made
those shirts at wal-mart. Whether you want to argue about Lichtenstein or
Warhol is irrelevant, both performed the same act in regards to the
material they borrowed from.
> It wasn't seen as plagiarism; it was seen as forcing the viewer to see
> a familiar image in a new way. Lichtenstein's entire career was just
> rehashing Duchamp's idea.
Look at it upside down if it'll make you feel better. As far as DuChamp
goes, the Mona Lisa thing was cheap. This is what I despise of most "pop"
artists and their like. You have to wonder about an art world that
applaudes these things... I think my favorite is the guy who canned his
own shit and sold it. Boy, quality...
> (Incidentally, I minored in art history at Princeton. Majored in
> religion, with civil religion one of my specialties. (The other was
> Mahayana Buddhism.) The two current debates here are right smack in
> the middle of my areas of expertise, but I've mostly been minding my
> own business and staying out of them. Your line about stealing from
> Da Vinci, though, was more than I could resist, because I can say
> absolutely and irrefutably that you're wrong, because amajor
> twentieth-century artist actually did it.)
I spent four years majoring in humanities and world religions, minoring in
history, then I went to art school...
Tom Spurgeon
In article <19971005012...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> In article <tom-031097...@c00-camilla.blarg.net>, t...@tcj.com (Tom
> Spurgeon) writes:
>
> >> Horse hockey. If the source of the work is readily identifiable by anyone
> >> with a knowledge of comics, then he plagiarized. I've seen the paintings
> >> and the sources side-by-side; in a copyright case between two artists
> >> of equal "social value" they'd be considered actionable.
> >
> >Is the "social value" of the artists involved really something that's been
> >used as legal precedent in cases of this type?
>
> No--which is my point.
Your point is that this sort of copyright case could be actionable if the
artists were of equal social value despite there being no precedent for
legal action based on "social value"?
> If Lichtenstein had done his work by swiping
> images from daVinci, he'd be declared a plagiarist by the academic
> world. Because he swiped images from a comics artist, the academic
> world saw no plagiarism.
First of all, I doubt it; the art world is loopier than any of us not
directly involved can imagine. There have been shows featuring photographs
of other people's art, or of filmed television sets.
Second of all, if Lichtenstein had used imagery from da Vinci, he would
have been creating art of a completely different sort. The art he created
couldn't be applied to da Vinci because it depends on how the world
viewed/views comics art.
Third of all, Lichtenstein certainly could have used imagery from da Vinci
in a similar approach, with different artistic aims, and few people would
have thought it was "swiping." I doubt few people believe that
Lichtenstein's art primarily resides in the same place as the artist who
created the images he used -- certainly every single piece I've ever read
on Lichtenstein other than in this thread realizes that. The primary
problem with many of the critics is that they believe this
reontextualization confers upon the art some properties it already had,
not that they believe he's creating that art in a like fashion.
Is it a good thing that the world views comics art in this fashion? No.
But it's a true thing. It sounds to me like you're sore at the art world's
reception of Lichtenstein and comics art rather than have any sort of
significant engagement with the deceased artist's art. That's a completely
different discussion, in which I would hold that this sort of legitimation
is a highly dubious distinction not really worth seeking, and that comics
itself rarely engages in any sort of art-respectful manner. When it comes
to treating comics artists poorly, Roy Lichtenstein was an amateur.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
P.S. -- There was a play that ran in Chicago around '93-'94, using
straight text from Leonardo's notes -- no complaints that this was
plaigirism.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 5 Oct 1997 12:58:19 GMT, t...@tcj.com (Tom Spurgeon) wrote:
>P.S. -- There was a play that ran in Chicago around '93-'94, using
>straight text from Leonardo's notes -- no complaints that this was
>plaigirism.
But who was the text credited to?
Da Vinci's work is in the public domain, of course.
--
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997, $24.95
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 8/5/97
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sun, 05 Oct 1997 01:33:06 -0500,
justin_eric...@students.mcad.edu (Justin Erickson-Savage)
wrote:
>In article <3436fa8d...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence
>Watt-Evans) wrote:
>
>> On 5 Oct 1997 01:24:59 GMT, patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
>>
>> >No--which is my point. If Lichtenstein had done his work by swiping
>> >images from daVinci, he'd be declared a plagiarist by the academic
>> >world. Because he swiped images from a comics artist, the academic
>> >world saw no plagiarism.
>>
>> Ever see Marcel Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q."?
>>
>> In case you haven't, it's a cheap print of the Mona Lisa with a
>> mustache drawn on it. The title is a pun -- "Elle a chaud au cu"
>> means "She's got a hot ass."
>
>This is a bad argument for one obvious reason.
Excuse me, but you've completely missed my point. Read what Pat said:
"If Lichtenstein had done his work by swiping images from daVinci,
he'd be declared a plagiarist by the academic world."
Duchamp did EXACTLY WHAT PAT DESCRIBES, and was not declared a
plagiarist.
That's my entire point. I'm not arguing anything; I'm just pointing
out that Pat said something demonstrably false.
Justin Erickson-Savage
In article <34379eec...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net
(Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
> Duchamp did EXACTLY WHAT PAT DESCRIBES, and was not declared a
> plagiarist.
>
> That's my entire point. I'm not arguing anything; I'm just pointing
> out that Pat said something demonstrably false.
My point is that context always matters....
Hernan Espinoza
ver...@bigfoot.com (Todd VerBeek, gwm) writes:
>My pal Hernan Espinoza said:
>> Sunbeam makes appliances, Disney makes art.
> ^^^
>You misspelled "entertainment" here. Hope this helps. {smile}
Some would say appliances are entertainment. 8-)
>Seriously, many of the Industrial Design majors in my classes (I'm in art
>school now) would disagree =strongly= with this distinction. IMHO, some
>of them are better "artists" than some of the Fine Arts majors.
Ah, good point. Just for the record, I consider even the most
funtional engineering design to be art on some level. I was not really
(at least, unintentionally) belittling their artistic value, but it is their
practical value in which Sunbeam has a business interest. Disney's
business interest is in the art itself and its perceived entertainment
value.
Thanks for pointing that out.
-Hernan, scientist for art's sake
Tom Spurgeon
In article <19971005012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
patdo...@aol.com (PatDOneill) wrote:
> In article <tom-031097...@c00-camilla.blarg.net>, t...@tcj.com (Tom
> Spurgeon) writes:
>
> >Lichtenstein's approach to art seems to me highly valid, and is supported
> >by a great number of better thinkers on aesthetics and visual art than
> >myself. (Not that I always agree with them, but it should be remembered
> >that Lichtenstein was working in a particular artistic context.) I don't
> >think Lichtenstein "swiped" any more than Anna Deveare-Smith "swiped" the
> >content of her monologue plays.
>
> I expect better from you, Tom.
Why thank you, Pat.
> IOW--because the "experts" say it's OK to steal someone else's work,
> then it's OK? Context changes crimes into non-crimes? The guy who robs
> your apartment because he needs the money for food hasn't
> committed a crime, but the guy who does it because he needs the
> money for drugs has? The guy who kills for revenge is less a killer
> than the guy who kills for kicks?
No.
I'm not arguing that context always changes crimes into non-crimes; I
don't believe they're crimes, period -- note the Anna Deveare-Smith
example -- and am merely asking that people take into account the context
Lichtenstein was working in for a better understanding of what it was he
was doing. It's a question of artistic validity, not "crimes" (or "evil"),
and therefore context is key to that understanding. Alex Ross and Kurt
Busiek adopting Kirby panels for a particular artistic effect in Marvels
is different than someone swiping Kirby to make a deadline, precisely
because of the context.
I'm not even saying the "experts" should be automatically be trusted. I
just think that the number of essays and well-reasoned arguments regarding
Lichtenstein's approach need to be engaged with more sophistication than
"Horse hockey!"
For me, Lichtenstein's work was clearly re-contextualization of found art.
I don't think this is significant art, but I think it's a valid approach
-- I've enjoyed theater and poetry which has used the same approach. I
think one of the failings of Lichtenstein's work is that his
re-contextualizations are often unimaginative and obvious. And I agree
with comics observors that the sentiment by art critics that these
panels/images lack any artistic validity whatsoever before their
recontextualization to be dunderheaded, and have said as much.
But I don't think it necessarily invalidates the approach, as emphasizing
the beauty in an object not generally considered beautiful -- the
mutterings of a Korean grocer, or the stark beauty of some official
document -- is one of the most valid results of that general approach.
Lichtenstein's art helped me to consider the craft and aesthetic beauty in
these things -- I would attribute the beauty to the artists, and the
revelation, in part, to Lichtenstein.
If these arguments are merely that these artists should have been paid the
same way that artists being sampled by hip-hop musicians are paid, well,
sure -- but in that area comics has a huge plank to remove from its eye
before going after that particular dust mote.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
IHCOYC XPICTOC
Tom Spurgeon (t...@tcj.com) wrote:
: Second of all, if Lichtenstein had used imagery from da Vinci, he would
: have been creating art of a completely different sort. The art he created
: couldn't be applied to da Vinci because it depends on how the world
: viewed/views comics art.
FWIW, Lichtenstein's catalogue -also- includes some "painterly"
landscapes, still lifes, and most famously, some Abstract Expressionist
brushstrokes, that he rendered as if they were pencilled, inked, and
coloured art to be published in a four-colour comic book.
At least with the comics, the artists -now- get credit, at least, in the
books about Lichtenstein. No one knows if any of this other stuff was
similarly swiped, AFAIK.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus gustavus(at)iglou.com
+ Vibrabimus volvemurque usque ad reditum boum. +
+ NOLI Sancta sunt flumina arcana lacrimarum subter vias. ABDUCI +
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:02:16 GMT, gust...@iglou.com (IHCOYC XPICTOC)
wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
>
>: Ever see Marcel Duchamp's "L.H.O.O.Q."?
>
>: In case you haven't, it's a cheap print of the Mona Lisa with a
>: mustache drawn on it. The title is a pun -- "Elle a chaud au cu"
>: means "She's got a hot ass." ^^
>
>I think you mean to say, -queue-.
Um, no, I've seen it "cu." Not the same word, so far as I know. It's
also part of the pun in "Oh, Calcutta!" (O, quel cu t'a!)
Maybe it's an alternate spelling. I don't know enough French to know.
>: It wasn't seen as plagiarism; it was seen as forcing the viewer to see
>: a familiar image in a new way. Lichtenstein's entire career was just
>: rehashing Duchamp's idea.
>
>But don't you think that the attitude of ironic detachment to such images,
>and the resultant faddism (like the fad for -flatness- that also played a
>part in some of Lichtenstein's images) that Duchamp and Lichtenstein both
>furthered, has reached intolerable and toxic levels today?
Well, no, and even if I did I don't see how it has anything to do with
what I was talking about.
Carl Fink
On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:02:16 GMT, IHCOYC XPICTOC <gust...@iglou.com> wrote:
> . . . until comic books start telling stories of characters we can
>admire and care about, and stop trying to be arch or sophisticated, we can
>probably count on declining readership.
What on Earth makes you think that the two propositions above are
mutually exclusive?
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>
"I don't mind being called a greedy, satanic terrorist." -Scott Adams
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:02:16 GMT, IHCOYC XPICTOC <gust...@iglou.com> wrote:
: > . . . until comic books start telling stories of characters we can
: >admire and care about, and stop trying to be arch or sophisticated, we can
: >probably count on declining readership.
: What on Earth makes you think that the two propositions above are
: mutually exclusive?
Because he was arguing in the context of declining readership. I think he
has a good point. Making characters "arch and sophisticated" rather than
of more universal appeal tends to limit readership.
- Elayne
--
"The kiss originated when the first male reptile licked the first female
reptile, implying in a subtle, complimentary way that she was as succulent
as the small reptile he had for dinner the night before."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
IHCOYC XPICTOC
Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: > . . . until comic books start telling stories of characters we can
: >admire and care about, and stop trying to be arch or sophisticated, we can
: >probably count on declining readership.
: What on Earth makes you think that the two propositions above are
: mutually exclusive?
Archness --- and "sophistication," at least in the sense I am using it ---
if there's a better word I'm sure someone will tell me --- imply a mindset
of ironic detachment from the material, a sense that I the author, and you
the reader, or at least the subset of readers the creator considers to be
his peers, are much too smart and worldly to take all of these improbable
tales at their face value. Understood in this way, I think it's pretty
obvious that such an attitude undermines any ability to create stories
about characters we can admire and care about.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 6 Oct 1997 12:58:56 GMT, t...@tcj.com (Tom Spurgeon) wrote:
>Subject: Re: NEWS: Roy Lichtenstein dies
>From: lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans)
>Date: 1997/10/05
>Message-Id: <34389fae...@news.clark.net>
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
>[More Headers]
>
>On 5 Oct 1997 12:58:19 GMT, t...@tcj.com (Tom Spurgeon) wrote:
>
>>>P.S. -- There was a play that ran in Chicago around '93-'94, using
>>>straight text from Leonardo's notes -- no complaints that this was
>>>plaigirism.
>
>>But who was the text credited to?
>
>>Da Vinci's work is in the public domain, of course.
>
>Lawrence, I was speaking specifically and solely to Pat's assertion that
>the status of the artist involved somehow changed the way the
>appropriation is perceived. I'm not making any claims that these two
>examples are equal in all of their aspects, and your points are beside my
>specific point.
Yeah, but I'm curious whether the work was credited to Da Vinci. It
makes a difference. (Duchamp's wasn't, by the way -- but it hardly
needed to be.)
If the play was called "Da Vinci's Notebooks," then it couldn't very
well be considered plagiarism. If Da Vinci's name appeared nowhere on
it, then you have a solid example. I'm not arguing with you; I'm just
curious which was the case.
Steve Lieber
Hernan Espinoza wrote:
> Ob Comics: Does anyone out there think comics are _not_ art?
I might be getting this entirely wrong, but I think I recall reading in
an article about the "High And Low" show from the early nineties that
Lichtenstein had briefly worked for Robert Kanniger at DC. I've read
about Kanniger's famous dressing down of an early attempt at a
cartoonists' union in which RK told the attendees that they weren't
artists, and didn't deserve the name.
Lieber
Tom Spurgeon
In article <343a151e...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence
Watt-Evans) wrote:
I imagine it was credited. Does anyone out there remember -- it was the
one David Schwimmer's company did. It wasn't a very good example -- that's
why it's in the P.S.
I still think it holds to Pat's example, though, because Pat wasn't
speaking of their anonymous nature but of their status as artists.
It's a very minor point, though.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
Subject: Re: NEWS: Roy Lichtenstein dies
From: lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans)
Date: 1997/10/05
Message-Id: <34389fae...@news.clark.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
[More Headers]
On 5 Oct 1997 12:58:19 GMT, t...@tcj.com (Tom Spurgeon) wrote:
>>P.S. -- There was a play that ran in Chicago around '93-'94, using
>>straight text from Leonardo's notes -- no complaints that this was
>>plaigirism.
>But who was the text credited to?
>Da Vinci's work is in the public domain, of course.
Lawrence, I was speaking specifically and solely to Pat's assertion that
the status of the artist involved somehow changed the way the
appropriation is perceived. I'm not making any claims that these two
examples are equal in all of their aspects, and your points are beside my
specific point.
It's a point you make more clearly with the Duchamp piece, but I lack that
art history background.
If you're interested in a general sense, what I think about the crediting
and public domain nature of the comics appropriations can easily be
inferred from other arguments in these posts.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Francis A Uy
>>for another purpose in another context is *HIS* insight, not Curt
>>Swan's. Should painters have to credit the canvas makers or the frame
>I cannot equate Curt Swan's drawing of Superman with mere raw materials,
It's a well accepted principle in other media. Think
about sampling in rap or techno. It's raw material,
like a guitar or a microphone.
The essence of a comic is sequence. Take a single image
by itself and you change the context entirely.
-F
.
Colonary in a Coal Mine
In <34384c99...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:02:16 GMT, gust...@iglou.com wrote:
>
> > lawr...@clark.net wrote:
> >
> >: In case you haven't, it's a cheap print of the Mona Lisa with a
> >: mustache drawn on it. The title is a pun -- "Elle a chaud au cu"
> >: means "She's got a hot ass." ^^
> >
> > I think you mean to say, -queue-.
>
> Um, no, I've seen it "cu." Not the same word, so far as I know. It's
> also part of the pun in "Oh, Calcutta!" (O, quel cu t'a!)
> Maybe it's an alternate spelling. I don't know enough French to know.
I do. The word is "cul" ("end") and the "l" is often swallowed.
"Queue" means "tail," which isn't used in French as it is in
American English. Americans have tails; the French do not.
I wonder whether a Francophone would have the same difficulties with
ABCDQTT....
-:-
With stones for bread, for fishes snakes;
For men synthetic leaders chilly,
The god Electronus now makes
Creations of Old God look silly.
R. A. Lafferty, _Not To Mention Camels_ (1976)
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
home: col...@monmouth.com
work: sich...@lucent.com
web: <http://www.monmouth.com/~colonel>
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 8 Oct 1997 12:59:06 -0400, col...@monmouth.com (Colonary in a Coal
Mine) wrote:
>In <34384c99...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997 01:02:16 GMT, gust...@iglou.com wrote:
>>
>> > lawr...@clark.net wrote:
>> >
>> >: In case you haven't, it's a cheap print of the Mona Lisa with a
>> >: mustache drawn on it. The title is a pun -- "Elle a chaud au cu"
>> >: means "She's got a hot ass." ^^
>> >
>> > I think you mean to say, -queue-.
>>
>> Um, no, I've seen it "cu." Not the same word, so far as I know. It's
>> also part of the pun in "Oh, Calcutta!" (O, quel cu t'a!)
>> Maybe it's an alternate spelling. I don't know enough French to know.
>
>I do. The word is "cul" ("end") and the "l" is often swallowed.
>"Queue" means "tail," which isn't used in French as it is in
>American English. Americans have tails; the French do not.
Oops. Okay. I knew it wasn't "queue." "Cul" looks correct.
Bard Sinister
Francis A Uy wrote:
I don't like Lichtenstein myself, and do get annoyed that he
'borrowed' images from comics without crediting them.
However, I have to admit that in some way he took the original
images and made them his. You see a lot of Lichtenstein-esque images
in ads or art now and then. Any you can tell, somehow, that they are
stealing the look from Lichtenstein, not the comics themselves.
On to the question in the subject: Carl Barks should win. But
when Lichtenstein gets a lot of media play on his death, and the 50th
anniversery of the creation of Barks most famous character doesn't even
get mentioned in his own comic book, I can't give him the title right
off.
Eric Gimlin
Tom Vincent
>B. P. Uecker <uec...@cris.com> wrote:
>>Mike Chary wrote:
>>>Curt Swan, again, drew a comic book. Warhol's choice to use that image
>>>for another purpose in another context is *HIS* insight, not Curt
>>>Swan's. Should painters have to credit the canvas makers or the frame
>
>>I cannot equate Curt Swan's drawing of Superman with mere raw materials,
>
>It's a well accepted principle in other media. Think
> about sampling in rap or techno. It's raw material,
> like a guitar or a microphone.
Now, I always thought of that as creative necrophilia.
---Tom Vincent
Her eyes brimmed with tears. "The Princess is dead, and now the Mother is
gone too. Who will care for all those people? Who will care for the infirm
and the unwanted? Who will do the good works now?" The simplicity of the
answer startled her. "Us", came the reply, "all of us."
Jess Nevins
Tom Vincent wrote:
>
> In article <61bfsi$f...@umbc10.umbc.edu>, fu...@umbc.edu (Francis A Uy) wrote:
>
> >B. P. Uecker <uec...@cris.com> wrote:
> >>Mike Chary wrote:
> >>>Curt Swan, again, drew a comic book. Warhol's choice to use that image
> >>>for another purpose in another context is *HIS* insight, not Curt
> >>>Swan's. Should painters have to credit the canvas makers or the frame
> >
> >>I cannot equate Curt Swan's drawing of Superman with mere raw materials,
> >
> >It's a well accepted principle in other media. Think
> > about sampling in rap or techno. It's raw material,
> > like a guitar or a microphone.
>
> Now, I always thought of that as creative necrophilia.
Was it necrophilia when TS Eliot did it? For that matter, some of
Shakespeare is heavily derivative of his sources. Is that necrophilia?
jess
William George Ferguson
tom...@SPAMBLOCKcapital.net (Tom Vincent) wrote:
> jjne...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >Was it necrophilia when TS Eliot did it? For that matter, some of
> >Shakespeare is heavily derivative of his sources. Is that necrophilia?
Shokespeare, as an example, the story of King Amleth of the Geats from
Saxo Grammiticus. Interestingly, at almost exactly the same time over in
Germany, Goethe was plager-oops sampling it as "Amleth".
Virtually all of Shakespeare's plays were reworkings of existing stories.
Is it objectionable when you sample your own? Specific examples would be
John Fogarty on Old Man Down the Road (go listen to Run Through the
Jungle), or Sting on Dire Straits' Money For Nothing ('don't stand so
close to me' 'I want my MTV').
--
annoying signature --
Tom Vincent
In article <ferguson-091...@ferguson.qed.dist.maricopa.edu>,
ferg...@dist.maricopa.edu (William George Ferguson) wrote:
>tom...@SPAMBLOCKcapital.net (Tom Vincent) wrote:
>> jjne...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>> >Was it necrophilia when TS Eliot did it? For that matter, some of
>> >Shakespeare is heavily derivative of his sources. Is that necrophilia?
>> What, exactly, did they plagerize- opps! excuse me... "sample"?
>
>Shokespeare, as an example, the story of King Amleth of the Geats from
>Saxo Grammiticus. Interestingly, at almost exactly the same time over in
>Germany, Goethe was plager-oops sampling it as "Amleth".
>
>Virtually all of Shakespeare's plays were reworkings of existing stories.
I guess that probably makes him the world's most read and overrated
plagerist, then.
>
>Is it objectionable when you sample your own? Specific examples would be
>John Fogarty on Old Man Down the Road (go listen to Run Through the
>Jungle), or Sting on Dire Straits' Money For Nothing ('don't stand so
>close to me' 'I want my MTV').
I wouldn't think so- after all, using one's own work can hardly be
considered plagerism, wouldn't you think?
Your examples are interesting- I never picked up on them before. I have
picked up on John Lennon and Pete Townsend reusing their stuff, though.
Kevin J. Maroney
tom...@SPAMBLOCKcapital.net (Tom Vincent) wrote:
>>Is it objectionable when you sample your own? Specific examples would be
>>John Fogarty on Old Man Down the Road (go listen to Run Through the
>>Jungle)
>I wouldn't think so- after all, using one's own work can hardly be
>considered plagerism, wouldn't you think?
Well, in fact, Fogerty was sued for copyright violation by the
corporation which owns all of the CCR songs. The case was, eventually
and expensively, laughed out of court.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Tom Galloway
In article <343E78...@muscanet.com> W Lee or T Beatty <wl...@muscanet.com> writes:
>What the heck kind of word is "HO'OD" anyhow? Is this come odd Usenet
>or comics fandom term that I just don't know -- or are we incapable of
>spelling "Who'd"?
Odd Usenet term. A while back someone used to run regular posts of
the style "HO'OD WIN: Aunt May vs. Alfred" in a reasonably good-hearted
mocking of the "Who's stronger, Thor or the Hulk?" type of debate.
The "HO'OD" was deliberately misspelled to emulate "kewl" spelling
and to enhance the absurd nature of the match-ups. I mean, Alfred
worked with the French resistance and doesn't have a heart condition;
he'd be able to take out Aunt May in one panel tops. :-)
FAQkeepers make note.
tyg t...@netcom.com
W Lee or T Beatty
What the heck kind of word is "HO'OD" anyhow? Is this come odd Usenet
or comics fandom term that I just don't know -- or are we incapable of
spelling "Who'd"?
Terry Beatty
(The Batman and Robin Adventures)
zen and the art of damonance
B. P. Uecker wrote:
>
> Francis A Uy wrote:
>
> >B. P. Uecker <uec...@cris.com> wrote:
> >>Mike Chary wrote:
> >>>Curt Swan, again, drew a comic book. Warhol's choice to use that image
> >>>for another purpose in another context is *HIS* insight, not Curt
> >>>Swan's. Should painters have to credit the canvas makers or the frame
> >
> >>I cannot equate Curt Swan's drawing of Superman with mere raw materials,
> >
> >It's a well accepted principle in other media. Think
> > about sampling in rap or techno. It's raw material,
> > like a guitar or a microphone.
>
> has sparked controversies.
>
> To look at other people's art as raw material is a tad cannibilistic.
> Borrowing of this sort goes far beyond influence or tribute, and as such
> is derivative rather than creative.
yes and no.
alan moore begins lots of stories with quotes
from other people.
so did the writers of millenium.
[tv show, bp, so don't fret your plh over it.]
pm dawn is one rap group where they used samples well.
the *ideal* is to take a sample, image, quote, etc.
and use it to add resonance to your
own statement.
obviously most people are just gonna cheat at it instead.
--
'Do you believe in ghosts?' "No...they are unscientific...They
contain no matter, and have no energy, and therefore, according
to the laws of science, do not exist except in people's minds...
Of course, the laws of science contain no matter and energy and
therefore do not exist except in people's minds. It's best to be
completely scientific about the whole thing and refuse to believe
in either ghosts or the laws of science." Robert Pirsig.
David Smith
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, W Lee or T Beatty wrote:
> What the heck kind of word is "HO'OD" anyhow? Is this come odd Usenet
> or comics fandom term that I just don't know -- or are we incapable of
> spelling "Who'd"?
It means the same thing as "Who'd." However, it's only used as part
of the phrase "Ho'od Win?" Some sort of running gag.
David Francis Smith
"Aye"
W Lee or T Beatty
Sorry guys, I don't get the joke. "Kewl" doesn't work for me either. I
guess I must be officially an old man now...
Terry Beatty (posting from Geezerville)
Tom Vincent
>tom...@SPAMBLOCKcapital.net (Tom Vincent) wrote:
>
>>>Is it objectionable when you sample your own? Specific examples would be
>>>John Fogarty on Old Man Down the Road (go listen to Run Through the
>>>Jungle)
>
>>I wouldn't think so- after all, using one's own work can hardly be
>>considered plagerism, wouldn't you think?
>
>Well, in fact, Fogerty was sued for copyright violation by the
>corporation which owns all of the CCR songs. The case was, eventually
>and expensively, laughed out of court.
Sort of like Col. snaders being told ny KFC he couldn't use his own name
and likeness in his own restaurant chain, or Esquire suing Alberto Vargas
to keep him from using his own name, eh?
Another good reason to revisit the abortion we call copyright laws.
Tom Vincent
In article <345411c0....@news.concentric.net>, uec...@cris.com (B. P.
Uecker) wrote:
>zen and the art of damonance wrote:
>>the *ideal* is to take a sample, image, quote, etc.
>>and use it to add resonance to your
>>own statement.
>
>No, the ideal is to come up with your own creative material, rather than
>engage in the parasitism of other artists. If you think about it, the
>same general rules should govern this sort of thing as govern
>plagiarism.
hear, hear!
The Iconoclast
Tom Galloway <t...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<tygEHu...@netcom.com>...
> In article <343E78...@muscanet.com> W Lee or T Beatty
<wl...@muscanet.com> writes:
> >What the heck kind of word is "HO'OD" anyhow? Is this come odd Usenet
> >or comics fandom term that I just don't know -- or are we incapable of
> >spelling "Who'd"?
>
> Odd Usenet term. A while back someone used to run regular posts of
> the style "HO'OD WIN: Aunt May vs. Alfred" in a reasonably good-hearted
> mocking of the "Who's stronger, Thor or the Hulk?" type of debate.
> The "HO'OD" was deliberately misspelled to emulate "kewl" spelling
> and to enhance the absurd nature of the match-ups. I mean, Alfred
> worked with the French resistance and doesn't have a heart condition;
> he'd be able to take out Aunt May in one panel tops. :-)
>
> FAQkeepers make note.
I really don't think that "ho'od win between Alfred and Aunt May?"
is asked all _that_ often. :)
--
The Iconoclast icono...@pcola.gulf.net
zen and the art of damonance
B. P. Uecker wrote:
>
> zen and the art of damonance wrote:
>
> >from other people.
>
no, it's right here!!!!
see!!!
> >so did the writers of millenium.
> >[tv show, bp, so don't fret your plh over it.]
> >
> >pm dawn is one rap group where they used samples well.
>
> Many rap groups have used samples, I'm sure.
>
> >the *ideal* is to take a sample, image, quote, etc.
> >and use it to add resonance to your
> >own statement.
>
> No, the ideal is to come up with your own creative material, rather than
> engage in the parasitism of other artists. If you think about it, the
> same general rules should govern this sort of thing as govern
> plagiarism.
>
> If the sample is recognizeable as being from another work, and if it is
> contributing significantly to the merit of the work it has been
> incorporated into, then I think what you have is theft.
i wasn't making myself clear.
first, it's not theft if you have permission.
second, i don't give a whit about roy, i haven't seen much of
his work, and cannot decide between either
of the arguments presented here.
third, what i Was talking about:
the idea of a creator using another's work to add textual resonance
is not immoral or necessarily theft.
it may be, because most creators likely do use the work
to be lazy instead of add resonance.
alan moore used the legend of ozymandias in watchmen
specifically to add resonance to his character.
THIS is the sort of stuff i agree with.
But one should keep in mind that no one is arguing
> against the artist's right to comment (or satirize, or whatever) on this
> or any other subject matter--he can do that by simply drawinig his own
> representation, instead of wholly appropriating the work of another
> creator.
sure. i think samples are different, but only because
it is required the original author give permission...
and again, i prefer them only when they actually add
resonance to a piece.