Pic related is a 1963 comic pinup that sold for $95 million.

Lichtenstein was a hack.

Yeah, Roy Lichenstein is a hack.

Can this post be about fine artists who have heavy inspiration from animation and comics? Is James Jean the only person to make the move from comic/cartoon arts to the world of fine arts?

>The top 100 most valuable comics of all time in mint condition (including action comics #1) would be worth a fraction of what these individual comic prints sell for.

But anyone on /co/ should know this just based on the fact that you said

>sold for $95 million

Since the articles about Action 1 and Detective 27 selling for like $3mil each are fairly recent

>2 IPs, i.e. mine and OP
>2 posts
Anyway, butthurt thread?

>>77364985
there are as many unique posters as there are posts you fucking retard

Lichtenstein was a real asshole, and what's worse is everyone I've talked to about it thinks he made them all from scratch.

He's kinda like Bob Kane.

>>77364982
Didn't that near perfect copy of Action #1 sell for 7 million a couple years ago?

>fine artists love comics
>comicfags hate fine arts
Plebs gonna pleb.

>>77365005
So who is the Stan Lee of fine arts? Did RL have disciples?

File: Drowning_Girl.jpg (278KB, 877x628px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 877x628px

Here is arguably his most famous art.

He copied a page from Secret Hearts #83 from DC comics.

He changed the caption and this picture is now also worth tens of millions.

>>77365020
>Lichtenstein
>fine arts
Hah.

>>77365020
>fine artists love comics
>by borderline plagiarizing comics

Nah man.

File: A lesson.jpg (36KB, 567x603px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 567x603px

>>77364951
>>77365038
I think there's a lesson for all of us.

>>77365055
What are fine arts then? Capes? Hur hur.

>>77365010
I think that's a combined total maybe. They both sold a few times in the past few years and kept resetting the record for most valuable comic but the last one sold wasn't more than $4mil.

File: pv2_61 copy-1.jpg (198KB, 280x606px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 280x606px

>>77364951
Of course a plebian funnybook reader such as yourself wouldn't understand the favor that high art bestows upon your lowly pulps.

>>77365117
Et tu, Watterson?

>>77365020
>implying "fine art" isn't a meaningless buzzword
The difference between high art and low art is some jackass saying there is

>>77365310
Ya tell 'em, Billy Clem! Dem Neejerkers are fagits all!

File: Look_Mickey.jpg (129KB, 774x300px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 774x300px

Apparently adding captions where none existed before made his artwork even more iconic.

>"The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content. However, my work is entirely transformed in that my purpose and perception are entirely different. I think my paintings are critically transformed, but it would be difficult to prove it by any rational line of argument."

>>77365310
Yeah exactly, the only thing that determines how 'high' art is is how much money some rich asshole is willing to pay for it to stroke his ego.

Who wants to start a kickstarter that is just blown up images of Greg Land o-faces and a paragraph of "high art gibe mone plz" repeated five times for a million dollars?

>>77365491
Nah, already done. And they'd sue for copyright infringement.

>>77365533
Just do it in a country where the original isn't copyrighted

>>77365568
They'd still accuse of us of being unoriginal.

>>77365076
What are fine arts? Well definitely not some asshole stealing from goddamn romance comics.

>>77365602
>implying he didn't help make comics socially relevant again
Ungrateful little people.

File: Whamm.jpg (302KB, 1507x608px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1507x608px

This is his most famous art. He actually took two different panels and combined and brought everything in a stunning new direction. This is his "Mona Lisa".

If his nurse picture sold for $95 million yesterday it is likely his "Whamm!" would sell for north of $110 million if taken to auction.

>>77364979
Ashley Wood has exhibitions now IIRC. Jamie Hewlett obviously.

>>77365638
So these are traitors now, I guess?

>>77364951
Lichenstein is like a classic Land. He just traces shit and gets paid LOADSAMONEY.

>>77365651
Nah, he had to actually do the job; there were no computers in those days.

>>77365621
Something something normies get out etc.

>>77365681
There were projectors.

File: o-WILLEM-DE-KOONING-900[1].jpg (149KB, 900x602px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 900x602px

Everyone knows modern "fine art" is a joke though. Something for rich people to spend their gobs of surplus money on. Look at this bullshit. It sold for 32.1 million and it looks like a painter's clean up rag put up on canvas. You don't need an ounce of skill, training or hard work to make this.

>>77365724
I like that. Wouldn't pay millions, though.

>>77365724
For stuff like that it's owning a big name that was part of a movement, more about owning a piece of history. It's like when people pay millions to have the first issue of Superman, it's not for the story.

File: VID-20150322-WA0036.png (197KB, 642x438px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 642x438px

>>77365724
>the Big Two make millions with terribly written, terribly drawn comics
>/co/ applauds
>a fine artist does the same
>/co/ rages
Come on, /co/. Be better than this.

hello, reddit

>>77365766
>/co/
>applauding comics

Even then, those fucking new squirrel girl comics take more effort than most J.Pollock or W.Kooning works.

Shit, dude, it even looks like late-end Picasso.

>>77365724
What the fuck is that supposed to be.

>>77365846
High Art

>But goddamn. Hearing dumbasses talk about this comic was like having all my nose hairs plucked out one after another. Comic book people and their multi-decade war with Roy Lichtenstein’s art is the dopiest, most exhausting bullshit that… It’s never going to stop! Lichtenstein’s become a Dick Tracy grotesque villain to comic book dopes, whose intellectual incuriosity and constant unfounded sense of victimization both intersect in a perfect marriage where Lichtenstein is concerned. There’s Fredric Wertham, then there’s Lichtenstein, then there’s some high school gym teacher that wasn’t nice enough to you weaklings. It is never going to stop. It’s exhausting. You’re exhausting.

>Here’s what Larry Marder had to say in a two-page letter to the Comics Buyer Guide in 1989, when comic people were bitching and moaning about Lichtenstein — a letter Marder reprinted in 2011 because people were still bitching and moaning about Lichtenstein twenty-two years later: “Over the years, I’ve met and had conversations with many famous gallery artists (but not Lichtenstein). Quite a few knew and appreciated the art of comic books. But I’ve never yet had a conversation with a comic book artist who had anything less than a sneer for almost all modern artists. It’s a pity.”

>>77365884
>It’s not Roy Lichtenstein’s fault that comic art was anonymous industrial product; comics itself wouldn’t print the fucking names of the people who made them in the books for decades.

>Is Roy Lichtenstein a “thief”? Well, to believe that you have to ignore that DC Comics had stolen all the rights to Russ Heath’s life work for themselves before Lichtenstein had ever shown up. DC Comics were the only people who could’ve made a legal issue of Lichtenstein’s appropriations because DC Comics is the true and exclusive “author” of those comics in any Court in this country– not Russ Heath. Is that right? No, it’s not– it sucks; it sucks; but that’s not Roy Lichtenstein’s fault either. P.S. when there was litigation to question whether that’s how we want society to work, how many comic creators did you see side with the creators of Superman? Long list…? Shya’right.

>And hey, incidentally, how much did DC Comics share what it made off Russ Heath’s art with him? How much does it do that now? DC, through its sponsorship of the Hero Initiative, I guess helped chip in to buy a bottle of $2 Buck Chuck for the guy, and I’m supposed to be grossed out by Lichtentsein and think about what heroes DC are…?

>>77365901
>And incidentally, the painting that Heath is complaining of, Whaam!…? Per Wikipedia at least, it’s based on an Irv Novick panel, with elements taken not only from Heath but also from a Jerry Grandenetti panel potentially…? Which is just weird. It’s “weird” that the people who should be educating the audience as to that point so that the audience can contextualize what Heath is saying failed to even so much as look at the Wikipedia for Whaam! But that weirdness isn’t Lichtenstein’s fault either– none of Lichtenstein’s paintings are called “hey, comics journalists, don’t bother to do any more than the bare minimum every single time” (though, if any were, he’d probably have stolen the art from Nick Cardy, so… the whole vicious cycle would’ve just started back up again).

>There is a difference between looking at a panel of a comic in a comic book, and standing before paintings the size of a Lichtenstein. There is a difference between getting a flood of noise and someone stopping and saying “No, stop and have a visual experience with just this one moment, with just this one image, divorced of any commercial context.” There is a difference between preferring one experience to another, which is entirely valid, and claiming that the latter experience is fraudulent, which is the nonsense of fanboys.

>>77365924
>Would it have been a more moral world if Lichstenstein had shared generously with Heath and Novick and others he took from during the extremely-brief period of time where Lichtenstein was doing comic-based paintings (which p.s. not even remotely his whole career… if only someone had invented a google where you could google basic information necessary to reach an informed opinion)? Yes. Absolutely. That would have been the more moral choice and I wish he had made it. Could Lichtenstein have questioned the manufactured image without appropriating specific instances of comic art? Maybe; maybe not; I think that something essential would have been lost if he had used his own images, but I can understand the argument. Is Russ Heath’s expression of his frustrations a legitimate way for him to feel? Absolutely. Again, Russ Heath is a great artist who deserved better, and certainly has everybody’s respect and admiration; that he ended up in a rough spot is fucking terrible and far too common. Could and should Lichtenstein have done a better job promoting the artists he took from? Okay. I don’t think that’s really his job, actually, but that’d have been nice of him, too, if we’re making up our Dream Boyfriend.

Itt:People mad their mangaka career didn't pan out

>>77365936
>Is Lichtenstein a plagiarist? Sure, yeah– I also heard Quentin Tarantino ripped off a Hong Kong movie one time, and that the Beastie Boys didn’t make all the noises on Paul’s Boutique themselves, if you want to go get angry about that too, heroes. But sure, is this the best of all possible worlds? It is not. Do Lichtenstein’s recreations suffer in comparison to the original work? I think so– I think there are things about the comics source drawing that Lichtenstein’s work loses in their recreations, to their detriment, though I do think I feel why he made those choices when I’ve look at his paintings. I’m not saying that there aren’t valid criticisms of the guy to be made, with a reasonable temperament– though I don’t think any of those criticisms remotely rise to the level of “interesting“.

But if we’re going to have hear about this asshole for the next 22 years, can you just at least try to have a better conversation about it than this last round? Pop Art artists weren’t just pirates with a xerox machine. Art museums aren’t in a conspiracy against comics. And the Hero Initiative is a band-aid on a gushing wound that wasn’t the fault of Roy Lichtenstein.

>>77365864
DUDE WEED LMAO

>>77365949
>Tarantino
The Lichtenstein of film. But /co/ doesn't care.

>>77365884
>>77365901
>>77365924
>>77365936
>>77365949
How come plagiarism is okay when it's art? It's like that guy that stole the photos from the SuicideGirls Instagram and sold it at an art show for a hundred grand.

>>77366114
It's OK because there's someone else to blame. That's how it is with American critics - they're never the assholes, just the victims making the worst out of a bad situation. Expecting them to have better standards than the people who fucked up in the first place is like slapping them in the face. So they enable scumbags, as a statement against being criticized by the lowly, ignorant hoi polloi.

>>77365884
>>77365924
>>77365936
>>77365949
>Multiple paragraphs to say "Nerd! I bet you're like this and this and this, I don't need to make any case, I don't like you!"
>That grade-A projecting bit with the gym teacher
>"You're exhausting", which is not only generalizing decades of people into one group, but also one step off from "I'm literally shaking right now."
>If you don't like this, you must be defending DC!
>I admit it would be responsible for Lichstenstein to give some type of recompense to the artists he used, or at least mention them, but that's not his job! Also, disregard when I mentioned that it's entirely not his fault earlier!
>It was just a few times! And it's okay if Quentin "foot inspector" Tarantino does it!

How about the people who aren't into comics at all and still see that some faggot did the equivalent of a Chinese bootleg Chip & Dale wallet?

>>77366231
You talk like an angry failed creator. Why?

Whenever I see Lichtenstein mentioned I always think it's Liechtenstein for a second and wonder why Switzerland's little brother is producing pop art.

>>77365217
He did pretty much call himself low art

>>77366257
I suppose everyone sounds like that to an apologist.
Personally, I think claiming victimhood from a position where I'd actually have the advantage is repulsive. But I'm not American, so I don't need to race to the bottom of the barrel for the moral high ground.

>>77366301
That's why he left comics and began painting.

>>77366304
>hurr Americunts!
Froggy pls

>>77365038
he barely changed the caption.

>>77365949

So, what, some pretentious twat dances around the issue that this guy plagerized work and points fingers saying b-b-but they did it too! and suddenly people are supposed to feel bad/wrong for being critical or not buying into it? "It's not interesting" is not a valid criticism of a point. In fact it's only a criticism that could come out of the art world.

You took so much time to copy and paste something that in the end said literally nothing to engage the criticisms of the artist except that they're "boring" and offers up the art world equivalent of 'ONLY 90S KIDS WOUKD UNDERSTAND LIKE AND SHARE IF YOU AGREE"

>>77366286
And am I supposed to let him slide because he's "one of them"? He still uses the term "comic book dopes" and such, so why would I care about that?

File: 001-010.jpg (30KB, 462x265px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 462x265px

>>77366379
>>77366348
>namecalling for lack of a better argument

>It's not that bad because other people did bad things too

That argument doesn't work for shitposting and it doesn't work for comic art plagiarism.

>>77366320
Well brekekekex koax koax to you, too.
But I'll admit, I overstepped my boundaries. If there's anything about art cliques, it's that it's a cosmopolitan trend, and one as old as time. People will go along with anything as long as they can feel savvy about it. I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to engineer a double-blind, "#PissForEquality"-style social movement as a performance piece at this point.

>/co/ discovers pop-art

>>77366421
>not reading posts

see the latter half of >>77366254.
>>77366348 also makes a point, if spitefully worded.

but I must ask, why did this post disappear? >>77366286

File: Hipster couple.jpg (75KB, 686x474px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 686x474px

>>77366477
Mainstream scum, all of them.

>>77366497
Roy Lichtenstein threads are a regular occurrence on /co/

>>77366497
>/co/ reposts a Lichtenstein thread with the same comments re-configured in multiple ways

fixed that for you

>>77366498
>but I must ask, why did this post disappear? >>77366286
I posted it but then deleted it since I thought it wasn't that relevant.

>>77366573
Ah, alright. I was worried you might have been banned for dubious reasons.

>>77365069
I think there's a lot of people here who've never had an art lesson in their lives and would take even the suggestion that their knee-jerk assessment of art could be in some way flawed as the greatest personal insult possible.

But then they are agreeing with OP, and OP as we know is a faggot.

>>77366558
>>/co/ reposts a Lichtenstein thread

Not a repost. The nurse painting in OP only sold yesterday and it was for an alarming $95 million.

In 2012 his most expensive painting was only $42 million (on par with Warhol's iconic double Elvis).

>>77365884
>“Over the years, I’ve met and had conversations with many famous gallery artists (but not Lichtenstein). Quite a few knew and appreciated the art of comic books. But I’ve never yet had a conversation with a comic book artist who had anything less than a sneer for almost all modern artists. It’s a pity.”
That's a laugh. They barely even register that there are people behind the comics who draw them. If they did they would care that Liechtenstein made a career out of shitting on and mocking other people's other people's work without permission and without even crediting the original creators.

Did his popularizing of the art style at least do anything for the medium? Can he be likened to Steve Jobs whose intellectual theft made smartphones what they are today?

>>77370044
Yes, he made people see comics are an art too.

File: Detail-of-Blue-Nude-012.jpg (131KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 620x372px

>>77364951

I would say RL scans sux

Look at all those dots....

File: e2d.jpg (304KB, 400x622px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 400x622px

Hi, Im Roy Lichtenstein .

Here is my latest masterpiece. Now give me 12 million for it

>>77365724
>>77365846
Kotetsu Jeeg kicking ass in front of Mt Fuji.

>>77365884
Really? Is the "you were bullied, lol" bit necessary?

>>77365936
"Manufactured" just means "made by hand". What the fuck even is "questioning manufactured images"?

>>77365949
Nigga Tarantino's whole career is made up of more or less clever homages to B movies or exploitation genres. I love the guy and he does it great but he's not exactly originality incarnate.

>>77364951
>B-b-but IT WAS MAKING A STATEMENT!

Romanticism was the height of art. It's been rolling downhill ever since.

File: 1402384594591.jpg (119KB, 1231x336px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1231x336px

>>77365397
Modern art is basically a giant money laundering scheme.

>>77365884
>>77365901
>>77365924
>>77365936
>>77365949
>written by Abhay Khosla

Whole lot of pretension for a guy who can't even poo in a loo.