deconstructing art

Boston News published a comment on the looping issue of Lichtenstein's use of foreign artwork, mostly comic artwork from DC Comics. It is called Lichtenstein, creator or copycat?:

Art teacher David Barsalou has an interesting avocation. He has found and catalog ed almost every comic book panel later blown up and sold for megabucks by 1960s Op Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far, Barsalou has about 140. You will see a sample on this page, or go to his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

Color me naive, but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s. ``He tried to make it seem as though he was making major compositional changes in his work, but he wasn't," says Barsalou, who teaches at the High School of Commerce in Springfield. ``The critics are of one mind that he made major changes, but if you look at the work , he copied them almost verbatim. Only a few were original."

"Barsalou is boring to us," comments Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation. He contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a mere copyist: "Roy's work was a wonderment of the graphic formulae and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. Barsalou's thesis notwithstanding, the panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy."

There is no exact copy. Eddie Campbell also writes a handsome post where he expains, among other things, the value of the actual process in the art production:

Showing them side by side like this is useful for an understanding of the iconographic connections, but it does miss the essence of the exercise, that is that Lichtenstein took a tiny picture, smaller than the palm of the hand, printed in four color inks on newsprint and blew it up to the conventional size at which 'art' is made and exhibited and finished it in paint on canvas. In theory it was like painting a view of a building, or a vase. He worked through a long series of the same kind of thing before applying the particular treatments he had devised, such as the mechanical dots, to other kinds of images, ultimately including abstract images as in the brushstroke series. I find his whole project quite astonishing and invigorating. It was good for art. Hell, it was even good for the comic book medium, setting a precedent for it to be taken seriously.

Cambell's post is stuffed with interesting sideviews, including a suggestion from his comment system, Historically, copying the Masters was considered to be a part of the painter’s training, not the final product . . .

iremember

Lichtenstein directly lifted the images from the comic books for some of his most well known images. Other artists were ripped off and the works were called his own. Just because he enlarged them and took them out of their original context has no bearing on the fact that he Plagiarized the work. I happen to be an artist, and if he had done that to me, he would have found his sorry no talent ass in court. Today he couldn't get away with it because of the internet.

sex

gay porno
alprazolam
ritalin
lorazepam
bontril
rivotril
tramadol
adipex
ambien
diazepam
phentermine
tenuate
ultram
klonopin
carisoprodol
cheap alprazolam
generic bontril
buy rivotril

Comments

Add Comment

Fill out the form below to add your own comments.

Your Name:

Email:

URL:

Remember me:

Insert Special:
-- [blockquote]xxx[/blockquote][strong]xxx[/strong][b]xxx[/b][em]xxx[/em][i]xxx[/i]

Comment:


Anti-Spam: Enter