Bitchenstein
Ross has a wonderful two-part rant against the evils of the pop art movement accompanied by this great photo of him flipping off Roy Lichtenstein :
That’s my assertive left hand, deftly explaining
to Roy Lichtenstein just what I think of his “work”. RL just happens to
be in my top 10 of most hated artists - he was nothing more than a
shallow elitist hack who robbed comics imagery, without respect or
consideration for the artistic value comics inherently posess.(Seriously, do you realize just how annoying it is when some rich
twit with too much money and a trendy art collection find out that you
like/read/do comics, and they grab you sweatingly, shaking with
excitement as they inform you that “You must LOOOVE Lichtenstein!”. Um,
no art-tramp. And I hate Warhol too. Ugh, shudder, repeat.)Instead of his ouevre, museums ought to feature Jack Kirby and Mike
Allred. Meanwhile, as you can see I’m fighting the good fight, in my
own immature way.
. . .
Lichtenstein and his cast of imitators didn’t swap issues of
Spider-Man, The Spirit, or Fritz the Cat. They didn’t consider the work
of geniuses like Charles Schultz or Al Capp worthy of consideration,
nor did they bother learning about the rich and diverse history of the
medium from which they pirated so callously. And yet, they claimed to
be transforming such disrespected art into fine culture?No rapper or rock band would ever claim that their cover version, or
sample was somehow an elevation of a previously dull and uninspired
work, to the level of fine art. Eric B. and Rakim never claimed that I
Got Soul was somehow an improvement on the original James Brown. The
Sounds of Science, from Paul’s Boutique, isn’t ever held up as proof
that Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club band, from whence that song
samples, is a crushing bore given respect only because the Dust
brothers chose to spin it once or twice. In fact, the artists in
question would hold up their choice to cover or sample as proof of
their deep love or awe for the sampled or covered artist.Not so in the so called Fine Arts world. As with the classical
world’s reaction to pop music in the 20th century, fine artists can’t
stand the idea that there are people in the world, posessing of
incredible talent and imagination, who choose not to flatter the
passions and tastes of isolated and effete bores who still care about
‘Finer things’.
Not only does the unattributed appropriation1 completely disrespect the work of classic comics artists, but the result is often a sterilized version of the original :
?I
detest the arrogant notion that commercial work just happens to exist
and is therefore devoid of creativity or intellectual process,? says [Watchmen artist
Dave]Gibbons. ?There are huge demands made on one?s creativity. The
kind of straight-from-the-subconscious work which can result is often
fascinating and deeply involving. I?d draw a parallel with the work of
Charles Dickens, whose work was produced under relentless commercial
pressure.?Many of the ?art? copies of commercial work lack even the basic
craftsmanship of the original,? continues Gibbons. At this point
Glenn?s spiritual forebear comes into view. ?Roy Lichtenstein?s copies
of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending
tracings of quite sophisticated images . . . the original artists have
translated reality into clear, effective compositions using economical
and spirited linework.?
Hover your mouse over this Lichtenstein painting for a good example of what Gibbons is talking about :
The whole shtick behind Roy Lichtenstein?s work is the irony of placing
“low-brow” children’s illustration in a gallery setting as if to say
“Aren’t I clever? I’m hanging crap in an art gallery2.”
To push this point even further, though, his copies of the original art
are deliberately simplified to remove subtle details (like the original
airplane’s rivets), the colors are flat and devoid of shading, the
shadows are misplaced, and the linework is uniform and bland. If you’re
going to go this far to alter the original, why bother lifting lifting
somebody else’s work at all?
The reason, of course, is because creating comics art is hard work.
When Russ Heath created the original, he undoubtedly worked with little
more than a script that said “the airplane explodes”. What did the
airplane look like? How intense was the explosion? What’s the best way
to frame the shot of the explosion? All of these questions had to be
considered before he even picked up his pencil. And that’s just one frame. The original version of Lichtenstein’s masterpiece was one of 6-8 pictures on a single comics page3. A page that Russ Heath probably earned $25-$50 to create.
Because of their reputation as a low-brow artform, the creators of
comic books have always made shit for money. Some of the medium’s most
revered illustrators often struggled to keep their heads above the
poverty level. Even now, with comic book movies making hundreds of
millions of dollars, most “successful” comic book artists are forced to
do commercial work on the side or rely on a day job that has nothing to
do with the industry. All of this low pay and lower respect is because
these talented men and women love the comics medium.
This is who hacks like Roy Lichtenstein are mocking when they steal
the work of others. To Lichtenstein, Russ Heath wasn’t a fellow artist
to whom he was paying tribute, he was just some unnamed amateur that
made that kiddie shit picked up on the way to the studio.
1 : Or as I like to call it, “stealing”.
2 : Then again, it’s not really hard to find crap
in most galleries. If you’ve got a good nose, you can usually smell the
shit-stained religious imagery from the parking lot.
3 : I haven’t even mentioned the amount of work that
goes into creating the pages of the comic as a whole. Aside from the
details within the frames themselves, each panel has to work as part of
a sequence in order to establish the proper pacing for the story and
set the overall tone.
Getting away from the fact that Warhol is ten shades of awesome and
that Lichtenstein represents just one narrow little slice of pop art
(so that I think you’re silly for hating all pop art), do you
really think Lichtenstein was out to belittle the artists whose work he
put on display? Did you read any interviews with Lichtenstein where he
condemns his source material as trash? It sounds like you’re projecting
motives on the guy.
Sure, I think that part of his shtick was to elevate “common,”
mass-produced culture to the level of high art, and if you focus only
on that, then yeah, his choice of comic art as source material lumps
comic art into the same vein as commercials and soup labels, i.e.
low-brow or no-brow work (though if I recall from Scott McCloud’s
Understanding Comics, many important cartoonists felt the same way, and
enjoyed comics more for their being outside of high art’s politics and
rules). And I can see why as a comics fan you could be offended by that.
But at the same time, I think that his canvases intentionally
celebrate the beauty of these images, not their ugliness. You have to
admit, when you remove a panel from a comic and blow it up to five
yards wide, you look at it in a different way, with a focus being on
the thick lines, dotted shading, the expression of the characters in
the panel (if any), and the single composition rather than the
composition of a whole page (other artists were doing similar work with
blown-up newspaper photos, focusing on the beauty of the printing
process there). That’s aesthetic appreciation, not condemnation. It’s
appreciation for the printing process as well as the artists’ work, and
I call bullshit with you on the fact that no credit was given to the
original artists, but aside from politics, I think some of his work
does look good, and causes me to appreciate comics more rather than less.
I think the folks you may truly hate are art critics for ignoring
comics as a valid artistic medium. But the fact that gallery art is
bought and sold among the very rich, while comic artists can rarely
make ends meet doing it, isn’t Lichtenstein’s fault.
Anyway, I much prefer other eras of art to pop-art, so I’m not
saying it’s the best shit in the world, particularly not Lichtenstein.
But I feel your criticism here is a bit one-sided and simplistic.
posted by: dAnimal at May 12, 2005 05:07 PM
oops! I guess some or most of these thoughts are taken from Ross.
Please mentally address all my Ross issues with Ross and not with Greg.
posted by: dAnimal at May 12, 2005 05:54 PM
You have to admit, when you remove a panel from a comic and
blow it up to five yards wide, you look at it in a different
way….That’s aesthetic appreciation, not condemnation.
I
love the look of zoomed in halftones, but I don’t see any of this
appreciation in Lichtenstein’s work. If you’re really interested
artwork like you’ve described, I suggest you look at the photography
and design work of Chip Kidd.
But at the same time, I think that his canvases intentionally celebrate the beauty of these images, not their ugliness.
I
think you’re in the minority there. For the most part, articles I’ve
seen about Lichtenstein describe the original art with pejorative terms
like “mechanical” and “impersonal”.
I call bullshit with you on the fact that no credit was given to the original artists
Where is this credit given? It’s certainly not on the website of the Lichtenstein Foundation. In fact, Russ Heath’s name doesn’t appear on the website at all. Of the 299,000 Google search results for “Roy Lichtenstein”, only 41 of them contain mentions of “Russ Heath”. If Lichtenstein was truly interested in celebrating the original artists, wouldn’t they at least merit a footnote somewhere?
posted by: greg at May 12, 2005 06:02 PM
Instead of his ouevre, museums ought to feature Jack Kirby and Mike Allred.
They do now, and part of the reason is because of artists like Lichtenstein.
I don’t see his art as belittling of their source materials at all.
Let’s say you put a bug under a microscope and blew up one if its
cells to create a wall-length portrait. The result would be fascinating
art that would make you look at the bug in a different way. To me,
that’s what Lichtenstein does.
posted by: Kyle at May 12, 2005 06:11 PM
I’d like to add a link to this PBS discussion of Lichtenstein that credits him with spurring the discussion of comics as art.
posted by: Kyle at May 12, 2005 06:24 PM
Sorry, my sentence structure was bad… by “I call bullshit with
you” I was trying to say that I, too, call bullshit on the fact that no
credit was given to the original artists, i.e. I agree with you that
Lichtenstein did not do this but should have. In fact, I’d like to see
museums take a proactive stance and display some of the original works
next to his so people can compare.
Still, I think one of art’s purposes is to make us see old things in
new ways, and his canvases definitely do that. In fact, I think the
simplification of the images from their originals is to help us hone in
on those parts of the comics panels that Lichtenstein finds
interesting, not to belittle the original art as cheap, but rather so
as not to take focus off the lines and all those dots.
Some of his canvases aren’t even lifted from comics, but rather are
drawings that almost could have been. Maybe at least those you can
admit are somewhat interesting and less ethically troublesome.
posted by: dAnimal at May 12, 2005 06:27 PM
From the PBS discussion linked above (emphasis added) :
He took images that had no esthetic content.
You could open a romance magazine if you were a teenage girl or a war
comic if you were a teenage boy, or flip through the ads in the back of
a New York tabloid and see images that your eye would just skip over.
He took these images, copied them, at first rather crudely, but then
with fabulous elegance, and made these images deserving of being scanned or attention paid to them equal to the art in museums.
In other words, he took crap and elevated it. I disagree.
dAnimal said :
Some of his canvases aren’t even
lifted from comics, but rather are drawings that almost could have
been. Maybe at least those you can admit are somewhat interesting and
less ethically troublesome.
It’s hard to know which ones
those are since he never credited the originals. For all we know, his
originals are ripoffs for which nobody’s been able to find the source
material. For someone who’s made a career of plagiarizing the work of
other artists, I think the burden of proof is on him to make clear
which of his works are originals and which are based on existing art.
posted by: greg at May 12, 2005 06:37 PM
Lichetenstein famously never gave credit. All credit you’re hearing
about is posthumous, put together by people who want to give his work
additional context. He did no such thing when he was alive and could
have. Furthermore, he considered, by his own words, the art he robbed
to be”artificial”. That doesn’t sound like respect to me, so fuck him.
The people who claim he spurred this exchange are ignoring the
existence of Wil Eisner, Alan Moore, R Crumb, and the other actual
comic artists and writers who fought tooth and nail to get comics
accepted.
I covered this aspecyt a little more in my own post on my site. I’m
not against art forms borrowing from each other. And I recognize that
this sort of thing can spur interest in what’s been borrowed from.
Sampling usually revives the careers of the artists sampled.
Lichtenstein’s theft did no such thing, and his patrons don’t give a
damn about comics, not really.
Fact is, we’re having the conversation about comics as art thanks to
the hard work of real comics artists to have their art respected. Not
because a fake ass perpetrator got rich stealing from them.
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
posted by: Ross A Lincoln at May 12, 2005 06:41 PM
And ditto what Greg said. It’s a bullshit position to claim that the
dearly created art he stole was inferior to his bland, emtionless
copies. One more reason why i despise the fine arts world.
posted by: Ross A Lincoln at May 12, 2005 06:43 PM
I think we can all agree that Lichtenstein should not have borrowed
from artists without crediting them and making sure they got paid for
his appropriation. I also think we all agree that reviewers who would
say comics have “no esthetic content” are full of shit.
Nonetheless, I think what Lichtenstein was doing is taking comic
art, putting it in a museum and saying “this is good–in fact, this is
a lot better than the abstract paint drippy stuff you were showing four
years ago.” If his reviewers are shocked by that and want to say he’s
displaying shlock as art, I think that’s their mistake, not
Lichtenstein’s.
I hate to be on his side in this argument, because yes, I’d much
rather read Tintin than go see an Lichtenstein exhibit. But I do think
his canvases are homages, and in my mind, aesthetically and
intellectually interesting ones at that.
In the same way, I know that early Elvis was basically a white guy
getting famous off the work of truly inspired black artists, doing
covers (sometimes rather inferior ones) of his betters who never got
the credit. And sometimes his name even got on the songwriting credits
when he didn’t write any portion of the songs. But that doesn’t mean I
can’t appreciate Elvis on his own terms–great voice, new arrangement,
youthful swagger. And the fact that Elvis gave those songs their own
spin doesn’t mean he was belittling the originals.
I mean, I can’t believe you guys don’t find anything interesting
about his work. At the very least, you gotta love his use of those
dots.
To make a comparison with an artist we do all like, I know that Tom
Neely is a true comics lover and creater, and Lichtenstein is not, but
in some ways, Tom’s use of isolating one or two distinct components of
a comic (removing the arms from cartoon characters and displaying them
as a knotted heap in the middle of the floor, or giving a fight cloud
[the cloud of dust with arms and legs sticking out of it that has come
to symbolize a fight in cartoons] center stage in a landscape) reminds
me a lot of Lichtenstein’s isolating those parts of the frame that
interest him and zooming in on those. In Tom’s case, he’s isolating
portions of the language of comics and early animation (sorry Tom if
I’m misreading your work), and in Lichtenstein’s case, he’s more
interested with comics’ texture and the printing process. But either
way, I find that both artists force us to contemplate comics in a new
way, though exposing in sharp detail what might previously have been
ignored. Just because Lichtenstein chose to lift real panels rather
than create new ones doesn’t change that experience.
-dAn
P.S. I TOOOTALLY am not saying that Tom’s work is in any way
influenced by Lichtenstein or pop art. He’s doing his own thing, and I
like it a lot more than I like Lichtenstein.
P.P.S. I also like Ross and Greg. In fact, I want to have sex with them. This discussion about art though is purely platonic.
posted by: dAnimal at May 12, 2005 07:14 PM
Well, i think one major difference is that Tom likes old school
animation so much, he draws his own material. His work is influenced by
it. Furthermore, those isolations you’re referring to are isolations of
his own work.
Finally, I can’t help but repeat myself. RL himself referred to the
art he stole thusly: “as artificial as possible.” That’s not the
language of someone paying homage, that’s the language of dismissal.
And Dan, I told you, I need a man who’s going to pay for dinner more
than once a year. jeez. You start brining home the bacon, I’ll think
about getting back together.
posted by: Ross A Lincoln at May 12, 2005 07:21 PM
I found some great quotes from Lichenstein about his opinion of the comics he repainted. These quotes are from this page of a radio interview with Andy Warhol and Claes Oldenberg from 1964:
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.
The art critics are the ones to blame for classifying comics as
“low-brow art.” But it sounds like Roy actually appreciated them, even
if he did a poor job at citing his sources.
posted by: Andy Baio at May 12, 2005 11:04 PM
You guys need to take a chill pill. Esp, you Greg. It’s okay to slam
somebody for a lark. But when you’re serious, you just seem like an
ass, like you. I’m sick of Litch too. But that took a while. I got sick
of you in 5 minutes. Why don’t you make something instead of bitching
about some 40 year-old works. Were you even there? I didn’t think so.
Spank!
posted by: artEAST at May 13, 2005 01:40 AM
Hey artEAST - This is inspired by a post I did. Why don’t you come
over to my site and lob some insults my way? I love them, and frankly,
I could use the traffic.
Wait, “Litch”? Really? I would have called him Steiney, or L-Dawg, but that’s just me.
Meanwhile, I assume you have a time machine, since being somehwere is, apaprently, the only way we’re allowed to actually form an opinion on something.
But seriously, Ihave you read this post? We’re not “sick” of
Lickmydicktenstein, this isn’t because we’re bored or whatever ennui BS
you’re assuming. We’re actually opposed to what RL did because we Love
the art in comics themsewlves, and not cheap copies of geniune comics
art.
But seriously, I admit freely I’m a bit obsessed. I’ve been around a
lot of Fine Arts wankoffs like you lately, and they’re wearing me thin.
SPANK!
Sorry for that last bit, I couldn’t resist.
posted by: Ross at May 13, 2005 02:57 AM
Andy, I didn’t know that. I’ll go and look around a bit more. It
doesn’t change my opinion of his work, (I really don’t like it at all,
never have) or of the fact that he rarely gave credit, but it might put
his work in context for me. Thanks.
posted by: ross at May 13, 2005 02:58 AM
1) It’s easy to be so bitchy from the comfort of 2005, when comic
art is appreciated to the degree that it is. Could you for one second
think back to the early 60’s when RL was actually making and showing
his work, a time when the public was seriously debating the evil
influence comics were having on children? Comics were about as low as
you could go, especially from the perspective of the fine art world
Lich was working in. Did the art world of the day care what a bunch of
losers on the Lower East Side thought? No, they did not. The fact that
that has changed at all is due to comic art’s own persistence, but also
to changes that came about in part because of pop art’s top-down (so to
speak) influence on critical thinking.
2) Also, at that time, the prevailing notion of “great” art was
abstract expressionism, the supremacy of the brushstroke, the gesture.
It’s something that even applies to the rivets, depth and the
explosions in the panel above. RL rejected that; it was the flattened,
four-color printing process that he was referencing– the object of a
comic book, not just the drawing of it. The process of making an image
with Benday dots, of translating a photo into newsprint, or an inked
panel into thousands of printed mags. He was exploring HOW
images–art–are made, and challenging a very narrow, doctrinaire
interpretation of what was acceptable. Good to see we’ve come a long
way since then. heh.
3) One more note about your pity party, RL appropriated from many
other sources, not just comics. He redid classic paitings in Benday
dots. He did a whole series of works that replicated furniture ads, for
example. In a sense, the fact that the images he used were pre-existing
was the whole point; it was a way to challenge the romantic notion of
an artist’s heroic originality, but it was also to affect, to infect,
his fine art audience’s way of seeing the (rest of) the world; after
seeing RL’s work they couldn’t look at a funny page or a can of soup or
an Ethan Allen ad without thinking of him. A power trip? Sure, but what
artist doesn’t want to change the world?
Meanwhile, somewhere on the web, there’s a cluster of furniture ad
photographers who are probably even more bitter and self-righteously
pissed at Lichtenstein’s appropriations and influence, but who don’t
even have the comfort of working in a medium whose own value has been
(belatedly) recognized to the degree comic art’s has. You should look
them up; you’d have a lot to talk about.
posted by: greg.org at May 13, 2005 04:45 AM
Lichtenstein is a broken Xerox machine at best…his work is boring and irrelevant.
posted by: hibiscusroto at May 13, 2005 05:16 AM
Duchamp started and finished the cultish ideal that is decadent
modern art. In such an unbalanced world where so many have nothing
America invents a meaningless fiscal centric and pedantic art form that
does nothing but declare its own cariosity.
posted by: chichi Nonos at May 13, 2005 05:17 AM
Pop art is polarizing. It walks right on the edge of chasm of
extreme mediocrity — some people think it is irreconcileably fallen
into the trap of being the art it is describing, and others think it’s
highly elevated and throughly intellectual. The difference couldn’t
really be greater.
Lichtenstein’s works show something totally outside what the mainstream
considers art. Much in the same way that found poetry can yank out a
segment of something totally different from traditional poetry, or in a
way that Jeff Koons
takes tacky objects from the household and blows them up to be several
stories high. Or in the way the movie Moulin Rouge takes and makes use
of pop culture references to make a whole new type of a show.
Pop art is wholly depends on representation. To those who really like
the subject being represented it’s really easy to see the artist as
either missing the point of the original work. To those who really hate
the subject, the artist appears to just make a particularly egregious
example of the very thing they hate. For example, I think that about
half of the stuff that Koons make is utter crap. I imagine some people
hate the other half and love the half I hate.
Pop artists find the beautiful or notable in works not considered art,
and elevate it. They say the equivalent of “look, anything can be
considered art”.
They also implicitely raise a question, “what is art?”. To the
traditional artist, art is purposeful. Art is full of history of being
art. But the pop artist says “screw history, and look in your cupboard,
look at your newspaper”. I’d argue that the cubists of the early 20th
century did much the same — in effect saying “screw tradition: I will
draw a black square on a white background, and it looks damn
interesting”.
Art has become disruptive to tradition. It places value on innovation
of source, method, style etc. And as a result, some people that are
familiar with the source already will not see the innovation and simply
see pretentiousness. Well, then, that’s ok. Art isn’t meant to please
everyone, just like not everyone likes country music (even if it’s
really good country music). Not everyone was thrilled with Moulin Rouge
– they wanted more originality. Not everyone is thrilled when they see
found poetry. I just outright hate some work Koons made.
All one has to accept is the increased pluralism of the world of art,
and learn to love the Litch. Or at least understand what his work mean
to others, even when you think it’s utter crap.
posted by: Ilya Haykinson at May 13, 2005 07:03 AM
I need to second greg.org’s comments. Lichtenstein is certainly best
known for his comic paintings, but they are by no means all he ever
did. You might start to appreciate his more famous work if you
understand all he did, in context. Look at his paintings of his studio
environment, for instance.
What he brought to the table more than anything else was a concern with
scale. An accurate reproduction of one of Lichtenstein’s works that is
not the same size is impossible. This idea, at least, is something
original to Lichtenstein.
ps: This instant preview nonsense is retarded. And html doesn’t get much easier than it already is.
posted by: jhn at May 13, 2005 07:48 AM
It seems to me that Lichtenstein was just better at getting his work
into the “art” market. He did this by successfully using some of the
elements of comics that give them the potential to be so
emotionally/intellectually engaging, and repackaging them to fit into
the burgeoning Pop movement. His compositions seem to inherently homage
the works he borrows/steals from, either by simply recreating an
original composition, or using similar tropes.
It’s probably worth noting at this point that many (though by no
means all) of comic art’s compositional elements were borrowed from
cinema and photography, which were themselves launched from
“traditional” artistic techniques and realized via the new
technologies. The whole thing sort of comes full circle.
I would definitely agree with Greg, however, that Lichtenstein’s
works pale in comparison to the originals, in that they are not nearly
as inspired in their stylization of “reality”. Comic artists
endeavore(d) to push the limited printing processes available to them
to their limits, and achieve a balance between stylization and reality
that created a sort of hyperreality. Comic art is great, partly because
it creates a much more exciting visual world, and in its more
refined forms, can use stylization to imbue the narrative with nearly
any overtone or emotion. Lichtenstein’s work takes stylization to
ridiculous extremes at times, and something is lost in the
translation– but what is gained (as with much of Pop) is VOLUME. His
images serve to shout as loudly as possible to that “people are making
art like this!” As Bruce Lee once said:
It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don’t concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all the heavenly glory.
p.s. I think the AutoPreview and EasyHTML are neat, and even a little useful.
posted by: Sergio at May 13, 2005 09:30 AM
This instant preview nonsense is retarded.
No
it’s not. It forces people to preview their comments and saves my
bandwidth from the cost of having to re-serve the page just so users
can check their comments for HTML errors.
And html doesn’t get much easier than it already is.
True,
but not everyone is as brilliant as you are I are. It’s a nice little
addition to the site that helps make the comments section more readable
for everyone.
posted by: greg at May 13, 2005 09:32 AM
That’s a fantastic interview, Andy. All of the references to the
original art seem a bit vague and slightly off the subject of our
discussion. Your quote, for example, while it does point to an
appreciation of the original works by Lichtenstein, is actually part of
a conversation about satire vs. parody and whether either label applies
to pop art as a whole.
Here’s an additional quote from later in the same interview that’s a slightly more relevant :
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.
Three things worth noting here :
What the hell is up with Lichtenstein’s response? Is he being cynical, remorseful, or what??
Glaser’s gripe about being robbed of the private pleasure of enjoying
comics reeks of the “My favorite band sucks now that they’re played on
the radio” phenomena that we all (hopefully) grew out of when we left
high school.
Warhol’s point is a
good one. Even the comic book publishers didn’t give a shit about the
artform. This goes along with what some of the other commenters have
said about keeping in mind how comics were viewed then.
I
disagree, however, that comics are much more appreciated now. Sure, it
wouldn’t be shocking to see the works of Dan Clowes or Chris Ware
hanging in a gallery somewhere, but would that gallery lend its walls
to the works of current artists like Mike Allred, Tim Sale, or Kyle
Baker (not to mention classic artists like Curt Swan, Carmine
Infantino, or Dick Sprang)? Many “serious” comic lovers still look down
on the superhero genre as a bastard art form and I’d doubt any of those
artists would get the respect they deserve from the Comics Journal
crowd.
To go back to the interview Andy quoted, this is by far my favorite
exchange. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion, but it made me
laugh.
GLASER : How did you get involved with Pop imagery, Andy?
WARHOL : I’m too high right now. Ask somebody else something else.
posted by: greg at May 13, 2005 10:39 AM
This was discussed over at Drawn! a while back. There are a lot of comments about this subject there.
To sum up my view on the matter: I’d agree with Ross’
anti-Lichtenstein argument IF Lichtenstein was creating work in 2005.
Since he was creating work in the 50s and 60s I have to look at it in
that context. He was part of the beginning of something new. Have you
heard of DJ Dangermouse’s “Gray Album”? Ever see the movie “Kill Bill”?
Lichtenstein and Pop Art are what started this new art form of
recreating the past to create something new.
What I find way more interesting is how are the courts going to
react to this kind of art? Would Lichtenstein even be able to create
his work today with current copyright laws? Is the creation of new art
being hindered by these laws? It seems so.
posted by: MrBlank at May 13, 2005 10:44 AM
There is a difference between art and craftsmanship. Just making
things that are a lot of work doesn’t make someone an artist. I’m not
saying that comicbook artists aren’t artists. But what does matter is
what someone does accomplish with his work. Lichtenstein, if you like
the way it looks or not, did accomplish something. He also made you
think about this subject and even have discussions about it.
I would be honoured if my pictures where used in such a way, even if it produces a form of art I disliked.
P.S. if you don’t like instant previews (I do like ‘m) just scroll up
untill you don’t see the textbox or scroll down untill you see just the
textbox. problem solved, old-fashion style
posted by: Oli4000 at May 13, 2005 10:57 AM
Have you heard of DJ Dangermouse’s “Gray Album”?
Yeah, but I doubt you’re gonna like what I had to say about it. That is unless you agree that it’s “gimicky” and “overrated”.
posted by: greg at May 13, 2005 11:13 AM
L’s work is fantastically complex, and those who’ve placed it in a
historical context are the poster’s I find myself agreeing with most.
He was working in the shadow of the abstract impressionists, and
borrowed their sense of scale, rejected the “heroic creativity of the
artists, raised commercial art subjects to the so called high art
level, incorporated previously unused (in art) techniques borrowed from
mass printing methods, and more.
The fact that his work hung in galleries had recently shown incredibly
personal charged works by DeKooning, Pollack,etc., is important because
of the radical contrast. Cool Art (Pop art, Minimalism and such)
completely derailed the narrative of a progression in art, and some
critics (Danto) see it as ending Modernism. Heady stuff for some zoomed
in comics.
Anyway, I own a Clowes original (read: Am I cool or what?) that I
bought in a gallery in LA. I think he represents the highest
development thus far in the comics medium.
I don’t see Lichtenstein as part of, or a branch, or really related to
the history of the comic at all. How he paved the way for comic artists
to be viewed in galleries was not by appropriating comic imagery, but
rather by contributing to the ending the idea of art as a rarified and
somehow magical endeavor.
posted by: Mark at May 13, 2005 11:44 AM
man… i don’t even know where to start with this…
You guys need to take a chill pill. Esp, you Greg. It’s
okay to slam somebody for a lark. But when you’re serious, you just
seem like an ass, like you. I’m sick of Litch too. But that took a
while. I got sick of you in 5 minutes. Why don’t you make something
instead of bitching about some 40 year-old works. Were you even there?
I didn’t think so. Spank!
god… this is so indicative of the lack of intellect that has
plagued the artworld in the post-Warhol era. who is this artEast
person? why are you so stupid? did you go to art school or something?
For the most part, the artworld is stupid and completely fucked up and
pretty much completely obsolete. Thank you Warhol for destroying it.
There is a difference between art and craftsmanship. Just
making things that are a lot of work doesn’t make someone an artist.
I’m not saying that comicbook artists aren’t artists. But what does
matter is what someone does accomplish with his work. Lichtenstein, if
you like the way it looks or not, did accomplish something.
oh, fuck off.
By that logic, Paris Hilton must be your favorite new artist. And
Van Gogh should have never been considered a great artist because he
never accomplished anything with his work while living. Your stupid
view of the artworld is the reason why the artworld is so fucking
retarded.
The ONLY thing that SHOULD matter IS the work itself. Not who did
it. Not who bought it. Not who wrote about it. Not where it hung…
none of that should matter. A work of art should be judeged on it’s own
merits. If you think that work is ONLY important when it has received
recognition, then you are a sad little sheep without your own opinions.
Yeah “Litch” accomplished something. Russ Heath accomplished
something too, it just hasn’t been appreciated yet because no one in
the high-falutin’ art world has decided to tell you to appreciate it
yet.
On a related note- I watched Paris Hilton’s “The Simple Life” last
night… Warhol would probably love what our culture has become today.
…thanks for the shout-out dan.
posted by: tomN! at May 13, 2005 12:00 PM
Greg, since you liked “A Night At The Hip-Hopera” better than the “Gray Album,” I’ll use that in my example instead.
:P
posted by: MrBlank at May 13, 2005 12:00 PM
“The ONLY thing that SHOULD matter IS the work itself. Not who did
it. Not who bought it. Not who wrote about it. Not where it hung…
none of that should matter.”
Sorry, TomN!, The context in which art is created directly reflects
its value and purpose. It does matter who did it and why. It matters
who pays attention to it and what gallery hangs it. Art is not created
in a vacume.
posted by: MrBlank at May 13, 2005 12:09 PM
Sorry, TomN!, The context in which art is created directly
reflects its value and purpose. It does matter who did it and why. It
matters who pays attention to it and what gallery hangs it. Art is not
created in a vacume.
I realize that that’s the way it works… but speaking as an artist,
the only thing that SHOULD matter is the work itself. Emphasis on the
word “SHOULD.” But i realize that that’s not how the world works
because, unfortunately, the world is made up, mostly, of sheep who
can’t appreciate anything unless a critic or a gallery tells them to.
posted by: tomN! at May 13, 2005 12:17 PM
to further elaborate… you are correct in that “who” and “why”
effect the purpose of the art… but not in the way that you are
explaining it. knowing something about the artist, and the artist’s
intentions can put a work into context and give it meaning and purpose.
but unfortunately, that’s not how it works in the artworld. the “who”
has become more like brand-recognition. the “why” has become something
artificially projected onto the artwork by critics and gallerists.
if the Clowes artwork you own had been created by Joe Blow in
Muskogee, OK, would it have less value? In my opinion of how things
should work- the answer is “NO” a good piece of artwork stands on it’s
own. From your viewpoint it would be worthless if it didn’t have the
name-recognition of Dan Clowes.
To put it in another context- do you buy a jar of peanut butter
because you recognize the brand or for it’s nutritional content? Most
people will go to the store and buy the jar of peanut butter that
they’ve heard of (like Jiff or Skippy), regardless of it’s nutritional
content, when the generic brand may be just as good, if not better for
them. But the generic brand doesn’t have the marketing machine behind
it that Jiff does, so people automatically think that Jiff is better
than the brand they’ve never heard of.
posted by: tomN! at May 13, 2005 12:37 PM
tomN. I disagree with you about art standing on its own, especially
when art (as Lichtenstein and Warhol’s) is explicitly referencing its
history and context and methods of production.
Context may be less important in other movements, and you may be more attracted to those type of arts, that’s your perogative.
Also, I bought the Clowes becaues I knew the panel from an
EightBall comic I had bought years before when it came out. I felt like
I was owning history, an artifact, as well as a piece of art. So I
wouldn’t buy it if it was from Joe Blow, because it wouldn’t have been
part of my life.
So even discrete example of my purchase, the context of my having
known the artist’s work, and understanding his place in the history of
the 80’s/90’s renaissance of underground comics, was important to me.
So you’re right, if I hadn’t known the context, and had just seen the
work, I wouldn’t have bought it. However, I don’t see anything wrong
with that.
posted by: Mark at May 13, 2005 01:21 PM
TomN!, you aren’t on the same page as me. I buy the peanut butter
that tastes the best to me. It’s my opinion and it can’t be wrong. :)
Sure, established artists get attention first. They are already in
the spotlight, but how does that make their art less important?
Established artists have to just as hard as the non established ones,
because art critics get bored. Established artists have to always
reinvent themselves to stay on top. Since you are talking about comics:
What has Daniel Clowes done since “Ghost World?” I don’t know, but
Derek Kirk Kim got my attention recently and the critics love him. A
new talent? OMG! How? He has no brand!
You have my viewpoint wrong. I’m talking more abstract. Say Joe Blow
is Art Spiegelman before he was famous. He creates a comic about mice
that has a good story and the art is nice. That work wasn’t created in
a vacuum. His work was directly affected by the holocaust. The work
carries even more weight because his family survived the holocaust. If
some guy with no connection to the holocaust simply made up the story
it would have less of an impact to me. This is why the “who” matters.
Not the “who” as Art Spiegelman, the famous artist, but the “who” as
Art Spiegelman the holocaust survivor.
Sure a name can get you farther than someone else, but the famous
ones earned their status. I have to completely disagree with you about
critics and gallerists (is that a word?). I find it really hard to
believe that most of them are brainless sheep who don’t know what they
are talking about.
posted by: MrBlank at May 13, 2005 01:23 PM
“By that logic, Paris Hilton must be your favorite new artist. And
Van Gogh should have never been considered a great artist because he
never accomplished anything with his work while living. Your stupid
view of the artworld is the reason why the artworld is so fucking
retarded.”
great, I’m an artist now! there’s a lot more to my view of the
artworld then you could probably know. so let’s not jump to
conclusions.
Anyway, thank you for making my point for me, mr. TomN.
By the way, why is it we are talking about mr. Lichtenstein here? What
was so great about his work that we still remember? Or does it all have
anything to do with the effect his work had on, let’s see, people like
you?
Well, it’s quite artist like to be controversial, right ;-)
Go smoke some stuff, relax and maybe do something with your life, dude.
posted by: Oli4000 at May 13, 2005 02:17 PM
Sorry for this mess I left. Must have had something to do with the
‘easy HTML’ here… screwd up my comment. So it’s not an attempt to
spam or something.
posted by: Oli4000 at May 13, 2005 02:21 PM
So I wouldn’t buy it if it was from Joe Blow, because it wouldn’t have been part of my life.
that’s a valid reason, and i don’t begrudge you that. people come to
art for different reasons… my point is that the quality of the work
does not depend on the context of the recognition. or it shouldn’t.
Sure, established artists get attention first. They are
already in the spotlight, but how does that make their art less
important?
i never said it made the work less important. my point is that the
spotlight is not what gives importance to the work. the work had
meaning and importance before the spotlight landed on it.
What has Daniel Clowes done since “Ghost World?”
Caricature. David Boring. Eightball # 22 and # 23. He’s currentlly
working on a movie adaptation of his short story “Art School
Confidential” that will deal with many of the issues that are being
discussed on this thread.
but Derek Kirk Kim got my attention recently and the critics love him. A new talent? OMG! How? He has no brand!
Yes, Derek is really good. He’s a friend of mine. I was aware of his
work when he was just self-publishing it. It was good then, and it is
still good now.
You are confusing my point, or i didn’t explain it properly.
This is why the “who” matters. Not the “who” as Art
Spiegelman, the famous artist, but the “who” as Art Spiegelman the
holocaust survivor.
this is exactly my point. i just didn’t explain it well enough, when
i said ” knowing something about the artist, and the artist’s
intentions can put a work into context and give it meaning and purpose.”
I have to completely disagree with you about critics and gallerists (is that a word?).
have you dealt with gallerists ( no it’s not a word but it works)?
Many of them are idiots who know very little about the art they deal
with. They rely on the trends of the artworld and the advice of the
critics to tell them what should be shown. they are not much different
than the execs who sit in the offices of major-label record companies.
This doesn’t apply to all of them, but many of them.
Critics, while there are a few good ones, are largely a lot of bitter failed artists who are deemed entirely too much power.
My original point has been not to fault the artists (even though i
do’nt care for “Litch”) but to place more blame on the critics,
galleries, and artworld in general.
posted by: tomN! at May 13, 2005 02:23 PM
Go smoke some stuff, relax and maybe do something with your life, dude.
i gave up “smoking stuff” about 10 years ago when i decided to do something with my life. i suggest you take your own advice.
there’s a lot more to my view of the artworld then you could probably know.
please feel free to elaborate. i wasn’t jumping to conclusions, just commenting on what you said before.
posted by: tomN! at May 13, 2005 02:36 PM
are you a failed painter? because there is something else going on here.
posted by: O at May 13, 2005 03:26 PM
O, that was a bit mean. Please stick to the point.
TomN!, David Boring came after Ghost World?? Uh, never-mind!
I think we mostly agree on art and it’s context being important. I
think I still disagree on the part about gallery owners and critics. I
do know what you are saying. My girlfriend revels in the closing of
galleries around where we live. She’s so disgusted with the climate of
the community and the snobbishness. I get an earful! I have to remind
her that galleries are a business and they have to sell art to survive.
It’s hard for them to take chances. Critics on the other hand, they
have the opportunity to take risk and search out for the fresh and new.
When they don’t, then yes, they hurt the art community. The internet is
changing that. I wouldn’t have found out about Derek Kirk Kim if it
weren’t for a critic on the internet.
posted by: MrBlank at May 13, 2005 06:10 PM
Mr. Blank- Yeah, Ghost World was originally published in Eightball
#11-18. David Boring is in Eightball #19-21. Issues #22 and #23 are
stand-alone stories and definitely his best work yet. I think #22 is
the best thing Clowes has written.
O- I’m not a failed artist, yet. Still in the “struggling” phase,
but have enjoyed some moderate success. I’m a painter and a cartoonist,
so i’ve got my feet in both of the areas under discussion here. I’m one
of those people Greg is talking about when he says: “most “successful”
comic book artists are forced to do commercial work on the side or rely
on a day job that has nothing to do with the industry. All of this low
pay and lower respect is because these talented men and women love the
comics medium.”
As for galleries- I’ve been fortunate to have dealt with a few great
ones, but have also dealt with some really slimey awful ones as well…
and, as most artists could probably attest, the well-known galleries
are pretty much ruled by trends and/or nepotism.
Critics are a mixed lot. Most of them i think are too lazy and
bitter to do much good for the art world. Plus they’ve been given too
much power, and they know it.
I’m not bitter towards the artworld- it is what it is. I chose long
ago to take my own path and avoid the “high brow” art world. As Ben
Folds said- “we can be happy underground”.
posted by: tomN! at May 13, 2005 06:33 PM
Would that gallery lend its walls to the works of current
artists like Mike Allred, Tim Sale, or Kyle Baker (not to mention
classic artists like Curt Swan, Carmine Infantino, or Dick Sprang)?
Yes, I’d bet my lunch money on it. People are appreciating comic art
more and more — in part because of artists like Lichtenstein, but also
for the pretty simple reason that today’s tastemakers actually grew up
on comics and have a more generous view of them.
I went to an exhibition in Pasadena earlier this year that was
devoted to originals of pulp fiction covers (which were amazing, btw).
Same concept. Part of the reason that these covers were now recognized
as art was because the people in charge had grown up on them — but
part of it was also because of someone like Quentin Tarantino who, in
his homage and appropriation, got more people curious about the art
form.
posted by: Kyle at May 13, 2005 06:38 PM
What O said wasn’t a bit mean. It was, however, a bit stupid. I’ve
never before heard of dickless art-snob trolls, but I’m glad we’ve
identified a new species. Thanks O!
posted by: Ross A Lincoln at May 13, 2005 06:50 PM
Kyle- in some ways you are correct. There is more appreciation for
these other art forms with special exhibits popping up all over…
However, with the exception of a few cases (like Chris Ware in the
Whitney Biennial), most of these exhibits of comic art and
illustrations are “special” exhibits and kept seperate from other
artforms. It’s the same kind of segregated acceptance as the Oscars
seperating animation from other films by giving it it’s own category.
Yes, it is getting better, but full acceptance of illustration and
comics into the artworld is a long way off. Illustration (comic and
otherwise) is still deemed less “serious” even though it has more in
common with classical art than anything done in the 20th century “fine
arts” world.
Illustration and comics are still sitting at the kiddie table at
thanksgiving. Which is fine with me, because the kiddie table is always
more fun than the boring adult table.
posted by: tomN! at May 13, 2005 07:05 PM
what is the effect of the pictures themselves ? My impression is
that it is commentary on art - commentary that also has the appearance
of “art” itself. Instead of appearing in something like a periodical
like criticism often does, it appears on the wall of an art gallery.
Perhaps RL was a failed artist who became a critic.
posted by: Ross MacDonald at May 14, 2005 12:15 AM
I’ve always hated ol’ Roy for the same reasons. The guy hated comics and yet, ripping them off (poorly) made him famous.
posted by: Dean Trippe at May 14, 2005 01:40 AM
My impression is that it is commentary on art - commentary that also has the appearance of “art” itself.
that’s basically my problem with “Litch”, Pop Art and all of the
Conceptual art movements. It’s all pretentious ideas with bad
execution. I have no use for it. I’d rather see someone create
something new, than create snobbish commentary.
Damien Hirst has a new exhibit of paintings. He’s the worst example
of conceptual artist. His new exhibit consists of Oil Paintings that
are direct copies of newspaper and magazine photos (uncredited to the
original photographers). They are all painted by his staff of art
student painters. The only thing Damien Hirst does is select a photo
from a magazine, pay someone to paint it, and then he gives it a “deep”
name. Bullshit.
posted by: tomN! at May 14, 2005 11:52 AM
4 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And now you like comic books, too. If I wasn’t married and you were a woman and I liked men who are women, I would totally fall in love with you, given the right dowry.
Comment by Dr. Pants — May 16, 2005 @ 10:55 am
Put me in the camp of those who find his work boring and repetitive. He found a shtick, latching on to the work of those more talented then he was, and it makes him money so he sticks with it. He’s a brand. He branched out a little, copying other more talented artists — great masters — and putting in his cheesy, poorly observed version of benday dots. It’s dull to look at, and irritating when you see how much better his source material was and how little the real artists got for it. His lettering sucks too.
I was with some folks at MoMA to see some widescreen cartoons a while back, and there was one of his pieces. I suggested we go somewhere else, because I had a strange desire to add my own artistic genius to his vision. You know, make a witty, ironic comment on it! Like “artists” do!!
Don’t give him credit for any acceptance comic art has now. Artists have always explored the lowbrow world — just look at trompe l’oeil stuff from the 1800s, or chuckle at John Held Jr’s woodcut cartoons in The New Yorker, or even just look at better Pop artists.
Well, at least he’s less boring than Rothko. Maybe that’s why some people think he was clever. Context!
Comment by Kip W — May 17, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
tomN!, you’re not worth much more of my time than this. I call myself arteast because it makes the sound you would expect to hear when some self-important (you perhaps) fag with a beret walks in the room and says, “I am an art-teast!” The accent goes on the second syllable. It was a joke, one you missed, from the beginning. And yes I did go to art school. I also chose east because I am in Asia. So take your stupid American-NYC mentality, and your self-absorbed grandstanding, and learn how to write a truly vile and scathing remark about someone else whom you don’t know. arteast.
Comment by artEast — May 18, 2005 @ 9:53 am
i think your a nasty person for saying all of that! roy lichtenstein is a creative genius! even though his pictures are only from cartoons, they are interesting and alot of people love them including me. so shut up.. i think is just because your jelous! and infact i got an a* in my gcse just beacuse of roy lichtenstein! so hes not the paintings he hangs in an art gallery rnt crap because if they were they would be there in the first place would then!?
Comment by Milly — May 18, 2005 @ 11:09 am