How To Steal From An Artist | Roy Lichtenstein
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
- Through Roy Lichtenstein, Vincent Van Gogh, Marcantonio Raimondi, Edouard Manet, Claude Monet, Picasso, Jasper Johns, Asger Jorn, Hannah Hoch, Richard Prince and Elaine Sturtevant, let's learn about copying, borrowing, taking inspiration from, or stealing in the world of art.
0:00 Introduction & Painting
2:47 Roy Lichtenstein
4:47 Marcantonio Raimondi & Engraving
6:50 Edouard Manet & Le Déjeuner
9:17 Jasper Johns & Flags
12:23 Asger Jorn & Détournement
16:24 Hannah Hoch & Dada
17:08 Marcel Duchamp & Fountain
22:14 Richard Prince & Cowboys
25:04 Elaine Sturtevant & Theft
28:28 Did Roy Lichtenstein Steal?
30:31 Stealing From Whomst?
33:38 Conclusion
Support us on Patreon: / thecanvas
#arthistory #art
Seems that in most of your examples, the artists being cribbed from were long dead and/or anonymous. That wasn't the case with Lichtenstein; most were contemporaries of Lichtenstein and still working artists at the time. While it's true that most comics back then lacked creator credits, Lichtenstein could've kept a list of his sources and been transparent about them, yet he wasn't. It's grossly unfair that this man got rich on, quite frankly, shoddy reproductions of art created by significantly more talented illustrators who weren't paid enough and often struggled to make ends meet.
Honestly he shouldnt have even made this video. This guy constantly allows his personal opinion to drive the videos narrative. Making this video only adds to Lichtensteins undeserved fame
@@bestplayeralive Funny thing is, I also identify as an anticapitalist/anarchist. I still think Lichtenstein was a rotten plagiarist.
Aside from some of the artists, like basquiat or harring, most of pop art from that era was based on theft and really only used the argument of being anticapitalist while also making bank on stealing the works of others
If the artists he got his images from had gone the “fine art” route, would they have had as much success? And does the addition of the dots matter at all? Given that those dots weren’t a part of the original illustrations, but the printing process, it seems to me to be a stylistic choice that does in fact transform the source material. I’ll give it a search, but I wonder what the artists who he “stole” from had to say about the matter. And doesn’t the fact that you claim the originals to be better imply that they are in fact different?
@@mendedarrows9394 Are you insane? Who are you replying to?
I agree that inspiration and even imitation is a crucial part of art, but I think Lichtenstein’s problem comes down to capitalism. Whether or not it’s fair from an artistic standpoint kind of pales in comparison to the unfairness of how he made millions of dollars while the artists he was taking from were struggling to pay their bills.
It doesn’t help that the art market looked on Lichtenstein as “elevating” the work of the comic book artists, which inherently denigrates and disrespects the art of comic book artists, who deserve just as much respect as fine artists.
What does this have to do with capitalism?
I know the conversation you're trying to have, but I still am deeply within my belief that Lichtenstein and people like him are thieves for one reason. They and the people around them refuse to respect the art they're stealing. Often artists like Lichtenstein and people in the art world feel like they're 'elevating' or making something 'better'. They see the artist they're copying from as lesser.
People often try to defend Lichtenstein by saying his art somehow 'improved' on the comic panels, they try to make it seem like changing a few things means it's something completely different and wholly their's. When in reality art is a community, it's dozens of people making works and copying from one another. And there is an unspoken rule that you are respecting the artist you are copying from.
If you're going to turn your backs on the people you copy, especially artists who are taken less seriously and are taken advantage of like comic book artists you are no longer ethical in your theft.
In a true and just world, copying would be a non-issue with artists. However, we live in a world where money is law, and if you're going to make bank off the backs of people who break their backs for pennies then you are nothing more than a parasite wearing the skin of an artist.
You articulated this so well! I can't believe you don't have more likes for this
As a comics creator, I have always found Roy and the Fine Art Class' view that comics were just found cultural junk to be used as one would a landscape incredibly offensive. It is only this art classism that made Roy's specific approach to pop allowable.
Richard Prince is simply a thief, his trophy room being a gallery, that's all.
I have an answer to the question of whether an "artist" whose art is entirely appropriation and placing that which they appropriated into a new context is an artist or a thief.
Let's be honest and say not an artist. Let's though be charitable and not say thief. Then what?
Taking an object and creating a new context to consider said object without altering said object has a word, especially if this context is a gallery or museum.
It's CURATION. Which is an honorable profession, as any museum will tell you.
Still, this is an interesting video, evinced by the fact I cannot decide whether to Like or Dislike it.
There's this obsession for art being _fine art_ and should not settle for less and I agree to some extend, Roy was more or less bringing something to the table and is worth learning about him but like all the art movements and periods it should be seen in the context of it's time, not something for the present. Unfortunately if you're making an 100% impressionist painting like the father's before us nowdays it will be considered an illustration, not art. Same applies here.
@@yamataichul The thing is, he wasn't even dignifying comics. He wasn;'t drawing attention to them as comics, as an art. He was at best treating them as the dead skin cells of culture. He treated them as found trash, which is a FINE artist's snobbery, and this is why I say his type of pop would make no sense without aesthetic classism.
He didn’t steal, he still majorly transformed them both in terms of content and method of creation
The example of the Marlboro cowboy photograph stands out to me in particular. Prince could have said “I think this is a really good photo. I want to help that artist get credit because they took this really remarkable picture and it should be seen as more than an advertisement.” He could have gone to the photographer and asked to collaborate. But he didn’t. He took the picture, seemingly with no input from the real artist, and got a lot of credit and money for it. “It drew attention to the artistic merit of the photo beyond its function as an advertisement” or “it drew attention to the fact that the original artist wasn’t credited” doesn’t convince me, because Prince got rich and famous in the process. If he cared about the original photographer, we would be talking about that photographer and not Richard Prince.
Totally agree.
We can't know the intent of the creator of the urinal. My grandfather designed furnishing fabrics, and you could easily dismiss his art as 'just curtains'. Alternatively you could say those were his commercially successful pieces; his more traditional canvases are only known within his family. The form of his commercial success doesn't stop him being an artist. His fabric designs, some of which are still on sale today, are his art.
When this video states "we don't really care about the person who designed the urinal" or "The American Flag, who cares about is author anyway?" is some classist sexist trash. Betsy Ross made it, a seamstress and upholsterer, whose craft was just as valid as the designs of a fine artist. Likewise the industrial designer who made the urinal is just as valid a sculptor as the slabs of porcelain sitting in a gallery space. The devaluation of women's work, and working class crafts is a massive problem in the art world.
Asger Jorn’s “The disquieting duck” was actually vandalized itself last year by another artist, who wrote his name on the canvas. He claimed that he had now taken the artwork from Jorn and made it his own, like Jorn took it from the original artist. The artwork was in a museum, which means it was technically vandalism, but it could be argued, that if we use the same logic as Jorn, artistically speaking, the artwork now belonged to the new artist
I feel that this is a sort of "how many grains of sand make a heap?" Kind of situation.
You can't just slap your name on to a famous poem and claim it as your own, but if you use a passage (or even the whole thing) and use it inside a poem of your own, it is yours.
Same with painting. The duck is what makes it Jorn's, not the signature
Horn might very well agree, they seemed to have a good sense of humor about art.. I’d love to know what happened to the artist/vandal and see some of their other work.
@@mendedarrows9394 the artist’s name is Ibi-Pippi (not a “real” danish name) and I forgot she identifies as a woman.
She was actually sentenced to a year and a half in jail for vandalism and has to pay 1.9 million danish kroner in compensation. She says she was aware of the consequences, both legally and economically, when she did it, and doesn’t regret anything but does think it was a bit much. She did it to spark a conversation about authorship in art. I guess she accomplished it, at least in Denmark.
@@rasmuskierkegaardhansen9357 wow, thanks for the rundown. The conversation has indeed been sparked. I hope they don’t actually have to sit in prison for a year and a half.
@@mendedarrows9394 Already serving, I’m afraid
At 22:00, he says the urinal was not a piece of art before - it was not made to be art. This is incorrect, however : that urinal had to be designed; a designer spent time to make sure to structure was sound, the curves aligned nicely, and that it fit design principles of objects, such as fading into the background and not even needing to be noticed. The urinal was already made as art - any modern designed object is, no matter what - and that is truly amazing
My biggest issue is the disdain for comic book as an art. Most of the other examples are from famous and prolific artist who won't get eclipsed by the reproductions or even more, the reference to them is deliberate and expected while here there's a hiding. Is not the Mona Lisa or the American Flag, but a real work by comic book artist that were very much alive and not getting recognition for their work.
"I'm not even American, thankfully." Based.
He just jealous of such freedom…
So stunning…so brave….so cutting edge
He’s only from Canada… which is literally weaker, whiter, more boring America with the entire population hugging up against the border with America.
Nothing is more adorable than meek Canadians pretending as though they aren't absolutely obsessed with America.
How very Canadian of him, they’ll never get over the fact that they are America’s number one consumer and the large yet sparsely populated hat that sits on the head of America.
this topic kind of reminds me of how some people don't like musicians using samples. they claim they're not coming up with their own ideas or that they're stealing from the other musician they're sampling, but really the process of finding good samples and integrating them in your own music is an art form in itself. one example is The Avalanches, an electronic group that pioneered the genre plunderphonics, which primarily using samples to create new songs. on their debut album, Since I Left You, The Avalanches used over 3,500 samples to create the album and transformed them into a whole new work of art. so even though none of the sounds used on the album are technically "new," the process of finding them, stitching them together, mixing them, and producing them completely changed their context and made (in my opinion) a 10/10 album. i suggest listening to it if you haven't already, its a great experience:)
one of my favourite musiscians used to make his music just from samples Amon Tobin, he lost his edge a bit in recent years tho
Using samples in your music is quite different from what Roy Lichtenstein did. Roy is more akin to, say, attempting a cover performance that is 98% the same as the original then claiming you wrote the song.
Sampling is like cooking a multi ethnic meal without using a recipe book. What Lichtenstein did was get a store bought pie, reheated it, added whip cream and told everybody he worked hard on it.
I VERY much appreciate this unique, surprising, educative and EXCELLENT 'THE CANVAS' VIDEO!! - And I felt like adding this: I was a musician for 40 years (rock guitar songs), before I became a painter, all of a sudden. And in my concerts I'd play around 30 songs, most of them my own; but I always threw in three, four songs of others songwriters. Known as 'cover versions' in the music world. - And now, in my art exhibitions, I do the same! Among, let's say, thirty of my own paintings, I'll always have two, three paintings of other artists, that I tried to paint in my own way. So now I'm doing 'cover versions of paintings', I was thinking. :)
my problem with Roy Lichtenstein and his work is not about copying ideas or compositions. there's value to the points made when his paintings are studied in a vacuum. it's that his work is undermined by the profit he makes from these recreations. he's stealing an artist's work and effort, sharing a message about the value of fine art, then making a profit from it. in my eyes, that makes his work and his purpose illegitimate.
I don’t really know why, but the algorithm hasn’t been showing me your videos for a while and kinda forgot about your channel. I’m happy I recently came across it again, because as always your videos are top tier!
As someone who has spend the first ~10 years of my art career refusing to draw from reference because I felt it would influence my art negatively, making it less interesting, it’s really been really refreshing to just ‘steal’ stuff.
There is such a richness in art and art history, that trying to avoid stealing is basically impossible in my opinion. Most of my favorite pieces I’ve made recently are deeply inspired by a wide range of artist and works.
Now everytime I see a new work, it inspires me in a totally different way; seeing what speaks to me and thinking about how I could use it to further my own artistic journey.
Once again, lovely video! Keep it up! :)
My college art professor defined art as " A rearrangement of nature" and she instructed us to not get caught about "copying" other artists because all artists are copying something or someone. Its the nature of art.
And music is a rearrangement of noise, but don't try to sell someone else's song.
i love watching ur videos, and im sure this new style will be just as, if not more binge-worthy. thanks for another banger
“Great artists steal from each other.” -Quentin Tarantino.
"fuck that shit" - Miles Davis
*Pablo Picasso
“Fuck you. Pay me.” -Prince
@@looselytelling that entire generation of british bands essentially stole blues music and became millionaires.
@@baileyayyy5085 blue in green?
great video!!!, love it, i heared it while i was drawing, and i couldn´t believe when the video finished. great video, great topic, and great execution.
I am so glad there are people calling bullshit on this.
It's kinda funny that you have a nice wooden easel but no palette
7:30 My appreciation for Olympia first came from reading Of Human Bondage which details how the left arm on Olympia was added after its initial sketch. I really enjoyed this topic, btw.
In the age of AI, this is an important discussion but ultimately one which will matter only to artists. I fear that anybody's work is fodder for the image generators out there and I don't know how we will stop them.
Thank you for these Shawn!
This was a great discussion - and rather timely given the recent (US) Supreme Court decision that the Andy Warhol foundation's license of "Orange Prince" to Conde Nast violated the original photographer, Lynn Goldsmith's copyright of the photograph that Warhol appropriated for his work. It's actually a pretty good decision that takes many of these issues into account.
I really enjoy your work, please keep making your art 🎨 !
Superb. With the very recent US Supreme Court decision on the Warhol /Prince works, this is a perfect presentation. The "theft" is obviously not solely based upon the potential monetary gain, or the notoriety, the reputation, the idea or design. If no money changes hands, then how does one describe the "harm", which would be the legal basis for any compensation or order to cease. Is copying unethical, immoral, unprofessional? Perhaps a "skill" rather than "art"... laziness and lack of imagination where there is no transformative, new perspective. Something very important to consider. Thank you for once again offering such a great work.
This is perfect, cause I'm working on a project about Lichtenstein at the moment
This is a great analysis. We hope to see more of these.
though i disagreed on many of your points, it was a very thought provoking video. well done.
I love that art is really philosophy at the end of the day
Hold on folks, we're talking over half a century ago. Cartoonists and illustrators worked for magazines and animators, any rights went to those entities. The publisher of the comic books might be able to sue Lichtenstein but the artist was just a grunt who got paid a fee. Remember too, that comic book publishers in those days were a low budget operation, not the Marvel that exists today.
Stealing photos from print media began with the German Dadaists, was revived by Joseph Beuys Fluxus movement, carried on by the Neo-Dadaists Rauschenberg and Johns. The Pop artists Warhol and James Rosenquist used photos from magazines and newspapers and the Post-Minimalist Richard Prince and others took appropriation to the extreme. In fact, in the late 60's, teachers like John Baldessari and magazines like Artforum made Post-Minimalism the new Salon, the new Academia, and it has never been challenged. "The End of Dada?" seems to never come.
Also be aware that different countries and cultures have far different attitudes. Yue Minjun in China has made a career both in China and the West by using images from European Art. See his "The Execution" which uses Manet who in turn used Goya. In China it is common for street artists to copy well known artists work to make living. When asked about this practice by The New York Times in 2012 Mr. Yue replied "What you see on the street is a second incarnation of my work. To copy in China is a normal practice, so I have no objection."
Morn, what a dude.. that telegram was splendid… enjoyable wander through pilfering … Thankyou
Fascinating thanks for this !
I was going to compliment your point at the end about the prominence of the artist being relevent in how we perceive artistic theft, but now I'm unsure if it's yours or not since I haven't read the book you said you took most of the ideas for this video from. For my own curiosity, could you tell me if that is out of your own mind? :)
PS: The transition into the self-plug at the end was so smooth, I was so impressed, I might actually have to make a patrion account :D
Totally gonna trace over this video for my own video. Yoink!
Somewhat surprised there are no comments about ai based art.
I wonder if time has given us a different perspective on lichtenstein's art. As comics have become more respected then they were in the 60s i think we feel worse about him reproducing these images. We know there’s an artist behind these images, one who is less respected in the feild of art as they are a comics illustrator, yet even though lichtenstein points us to ask if comics can be considered art by blowing these peices up and placing them in galleries unlike warhol's Campbell's soup cans we feel like an artist's name is being erased through this transformation. If something is being put into the world to be simply functional or a form of marketing we feel it's in our rights to take from them and change it. I think lichtenstein's paintings and those cropped photoss of the malboro cowboys make me more uncomfortable because i sense an illustrator and a photographer are having their artistic marit stolen from them rather then the designer for a urinal or the Campbell's soup can. It sucks to have the primary function of your creation i.e illustration or photography that convey a feeling- to be taken by someone else and celebrated yet given no attribution. If someone celebrated the sound that the comic books or photographs made when thrown against a wall, i don't think people would feel as strongly about giving attribution to the pieces of art shown on the pages. Likely because it doesn't feel like you're stealing from the artistic decision they made.
Any idea, expressed or not, is art.
Great Video again
Great content!
love that you used your palm as a paint palette and didnt even mention it lmao
Pleasure as always.
What is your opinion of the vandalism done to the 'The Disquieting Duckling' by Jorn?
Ibi Pippi, the artist that vandalised the picture (who most likely will be imprisoned 1 and a half years for it), said, that while he will accept the fine and jail time, he now is the 'artist' of the work. A modification of a modification. So that while the physical representation of the work is still legally owned by Museum Jorn in Silkeborg, Denmark, he argues that he owns the artistic credit.
I think the debate is quite interesting, and i would love your opinion on the matter.
😍👍Great!!!
On the topic of Duchamp and his fountain, there are a lot of speculations about the maker of this concept being Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. Duchamp bought it and put it on display on his own name, quite literally stealing the credits and giving none to her...
Bro really said the creator of the American Flag didn’t really matter, as if one of the most important patriots (and an iconic woman in all regards) Elizabeth “Betsy” Ross simply didn’t exist 💀💀💀💀
Oh also I’m a huge fan, I just wanted to put a BIT more light on an amazing woman in history who (in my opinion) has often been overshadowed
I forget the details, but one time my friend went to an art show or something and there was a quote displayed saying something like "stealing is the best form of art" with the person's name credited who said it, so of course she crossed out the person's name and wrote her own. she was like come on they had to have seen that coming.
Anyone knows the bgm used in this video? I wana steal it to listen when studying 😅
Thanks
Absolutely BRILLIANT. I'm flooooooooooooored. Can't wait to see all the other videos.
I saw two or three early flags at the Smithsonian on a school trip .
The Francis Hopkinson design I guess was chosen .
as a designer, i’m pretty confident in saying that no one cares about the designer.
Jerry Grandenetti and Russ Heath. Those were the artists Lichtenstein stole from for "Whaam"! "Drowning Girl" was Tony Abruzzo. Lichtenstein basically made his entire career on their work and an opaque projector.
I take a lot of influence for certain frames and panels from Roy, ironically I make comic books so it’s come full circle lol
"All artists are borrowers. Great artists are great borrowers." Kenneth Clark
People study and remember the names of killers more often than their victims. There's simply less intrigue about it. Victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time and there's not much left to figure out because their motives are intuitive to most people - they were just doing what they do. Killers on the other hand generate questions and conversations by the truckload just from their existence in the equation. What was their motive? What could have stopped them? What would convince them to never kill again? Some may even dare to ask if God intended for them to kill. So, what is it? Just another killer, just another thief, or just another victim?
The value I see in those who copy is seeing what they were interested in, the art they consumed, how they digested it, and what details they paid special attention to. If Consumptionism isn't a word already then I'm coining it. No other kind of art makes me feel this way.
Your video went through my machine and here's what came out.
Can you do a explanation video about the painting "A meat stall with the holy giving alms" by Pieter Aertsan
Another very recent example for theft of an artist work and profiting (hugely) on behalf their art is Georgy Kurasov case.
I should have copy more, so I could have many references to use
Saying that using other artists ideas is stealing (barring claiming the original work as YOURS - that is obviously stealing), is like saying you are stealing your parent’s dna in the making of you.
I am just wandering since when copying had become a theft? While throughout most art history it was not only encouraged, it was obligatory! The question is : for what reason would you copy something? You might copy for the reason to study the artwork. Why this particular artwork? Because it is resonating something to you or on the contrary - you find it too stupid and you want to emphasise it? If it is the second, is it not pretty much what actors do all the time? They copy the entire image of someone to get into their role. Well, is it not exactly what copying is about? To reimagine, recreate. Copying Van Gogh to find out what it takes to be him, let say. Or anybody else. What takes to be that person? Money rulles? When didn't it? Now, suddenly copying is allowed to some, but not to others. And it is for the reason not only of studying it , but recreating it too, get into the role. About songs. The songs of the past, very old songs, did not only change by being copyed endlessly, they were developed that way to what we hear today. And will not the creators of that song be happy to witness that even children today love their song and sing it? They will ask money for the performanse, so what? Copying is also assosiated with covering who you really are. Behind the back of another artist/ creator. It has as usual 2 sides. The urinal is a totaly crazy story. Why urinal and not a tv or a radio? Or a car? It is very straight forward " you piss on it, I give it a status of an artwork, museum item." Why should I be forced to look at this junk and admire it? " Because it will make you think possibly what is to like and what not. You like a vase? Well this one is ceramic too. Diference? But what I might dislike is to take something out of it original consept and represent it as diferent. This has also sinister side. Still, the viewers should be there to judge to what extend they appreciate or dislike something. I am openly not a fan of the urinal. Sorry if I offend someone. Is it art? In the most primitive sense - yes. It is made by humans for humans. Take a ready made object and represent it as own art is a bit dishonest to say the least. Still, sinse art is there for us to wander and ask questions, I do not totaly dissmiss it. I missed this: "Is it art because you sayed so?" I love that line. Who is in charge to say what is art? If we stop copying art will not be this the end of art. Someone sayed not too long ago " Painting is dead". Why not saying " Art is dead" with even more success.
If, after Prince's use of Sam Abell's image, Abell had cropped his photograph just like Prince did, and then sell prints, would he have been stealing from Prince?
Taking inspiration from someone else is not stealing. Copying someone else's work wholesale and claiming it as your own is.
what if i made a character that some coped but changed the pose and it is in a different art style .
can design be stolen ?
@@samankucher5117 That's not what happened. It's more like they drew the same pose in the same exact style.
@@stealthiestboydifferent words, different meanings, and entirely different interpretations and I don’t think anyone would argue that
Even Bob Ross steal from Bill Alexander, not only the Paintings,the Idea of Teaching and the Words he speak. He just change his Voice. Thank You for thinking about stealing in Art.
I dont have anything to say really but man i really like the panel Wham was based off of
30:53 Betty Ross crying 😅
Love the interpretation. I'm a huge fan of Austin Kleon's Steal Like An Artist. Haven't read the book you mentioned. This video is awesome
As a person who often samples other's records in my music, I think the point is that its ambiguous. Is it morally wrong to steal? that's situational and subjective, there's no real line even if society might give the illusion that there is. At the end of the day, nothing physically stops me from stealing other ppls music and sampling it into my own. That's just the way art is ig (It's subjective)
vulcareh2528:
*If you're sampling, you're just a talentless thief. Create your own original music or find something else to do.*
at the end of the day, you're just a talentless rapper
Lichtenstein didn't borrow. He copied.
Appropriation is good unless it isn't original in execution. In contemporary times, Knörr’s Young Cowboy copies a still from Your Attention Please working with a different medium. Hot take, Knörr's responding with a solution to Blue questioning of his sexuality by offering herself figuratively.
PLEAASEE please do a video on nick blinko’s art. He made very dark art and he was a schizophrenic singer of an anarcho punk band
read the explanation on wickipedia of art that actually means building up of done from earliers...
9:27 in case anyone needs to know, there are 59 stars on that flag 😂
Could you make a video about the painting: Der Namenlose
Its a german paiting from ww1
This artist is a secret in my opinion maybe its a good video idea.
When Lictenstein was working comics were not regarded as art.
👍
Three authors will discuss the points made in this video: Walter Benjamin, Adorno & Horkheimer.
Benjamim will state that art that can be reproduced loses its "aura", its uniqueness in the world, for it can be replicated ad infinitum. The original negatives of a film can be replicated as many times we want, just like a photograph for a cigarette ad and original pages to be reproduced in an industrial print for cheap comics that would mostly be discarded by its targeted audience.
Adorno & Horkheimer will bring forth the idea that the difference between art and any ordinary object is that the object has a reason of being, a utility, and it is bound by its use. A pen is a pen, until it has no ink, than it becomes plastic to be discarted. Art, however, has no utility, so is not bound by its usage, it lives on its very own existence and any meaning it can have is subjective.
So, the urinol is a urinol because it is made for that use, to piss on. When Duchamp takes away its utility and put it in a different context, it becomes art.
The same with Lichtenstein can be said.
His context is of a pop artist, an artist that works in the vein of taking what seemingly has no author beyond the companies that reproduce it ad infinitum, be it a can of soup, a magazine photo or a comic panel. Context is key here. Comic book creators were seen like any other industrial worker. Like an architect, a designer, even people at advertisement. Their works bound by their utility.
Shouldn't the people who designed the soup can also be worthy of the same anger?
My point is that the discussion around Lichtenstein is very anachronistic. Nowadays, comics are more well regarded as an art form, even having galleries dedicated to its grand masters, but not those days. The can of soup and comic books were comparable.
Maybe someday we will know the hardship and tragedies of designers for food companies and start regarding the as great artists, but again, it will be anachronistic.
In the end, the real problem is that Lichtenstein, the person, made millions with his paintings, while artists like Jack Kirby were trying to make ends meet everyday. But notice: Kirby was seen as a simple cog in the industry by the very people he worked to.
The problem is not Lichtenstein, but the perception of pop culture and pop art as lesser. I don't think Lichtenstein improved or turned comics into better art, to me is a different media, a different beast, and at the end his art will go beyond himself, serving as thesis of a time where comic book artists were treated like cattle, put out for us to engage with it, discuss it and be the antithesis to create a new meaning, maybe one that makes life for sploitted artists like Kirby better.
16:55 An E-pock ? E-pock de hockey?
Jorn not morn spellcheck is irritating but I’m dyslexic haha
15:00 i am starting to think these guys were a bunch of rich people trolling .
Ehhh, that cowboy photo. the primary myth is that of the "American Cowboy. It supports our sense of "exceptionalism" in the promotion of rugged individualism. Our imperial adventures all across the globe reinforce the continuing criminal enterprise of neoliberal policy. Also, obscure and very talented comic book artist (Irv Novick) did not get his 20%.
You're wrong. Lichtenstein transformed a LOT. What he added was incompetence. The guy just could not draw. Look at the way he handled hair! That guy was so untalented he couldn't even COPY well! I once wrote a piece comparing Lichtenstein's paintings to the originals, and in every single instance, Roy MURDERED a competent illustration. Incidentally, the murder victim was usually Irv Novick, who had been Lichtenstein's commanding officer in the war. Roy couldn't draw. He couldn't paint. He FRAGGED!
Man, I love the French language, but calling Lichtenstein "Lishtenshtein" goes too far.
14:44 us that the Slenderman?😮
Hit up famous forgeries next~
Nice vid. Can you make a breakdown of art evolution with examples, I have no idea.
shame the vid got so few views
Some of the cases presented are a bit shaky weight.
If nothing permanently stays the same you can’t expect it to. If the argument is by adjusting it by size or some other tiny modification and you’re trying trying to make money off what people believe to be creative. it’s a scam. This is mostly about intentions and where the egos at. Most people don’t know Lichtenstein stole Bc the original art and artists aren’t popularly recognized. When people would come to his shows they would most likely never in a million years know that it was a copy paste. And he made straight up bank from copying these things. Bc also, if ppl knew his art wasn’t original, he wouldn’t get nearly as much attention. And what statement would he be making by making such small modifications? Wtf is copying if not that?
I wish I didn’t see you paint 😅
3:00 i always see that "pop artists " are just a bunch of ripoffs Warhol and this guy just copy .
and they don't just copy to learn they just copy to copy .
why do you have a flannel on your head?
A thirty minute video that could easily be simplified and answered with the application of 'Fair Use', even if it's not about the legal justification. The problem was not about diminishing the craft of those before him, but elevating himself to a commercial (and historical for that matter) success that wasn't deserved.
Manet and those before him had all works that were distinguishable and unique despite borrowed elements. Flags are public domain, and even then Johns able to add his own elements that made it his own work. The duck painting is just parody, which itself is also protected. Furthermore, the ethics of parody was controversial more towards the humorous offensive connotation one would take vs literal copying. Hannah's Collage does not centralize one individual's copyrighted work as the main idea, but uses the conglomerate of everyone else's to convey. Fountain was intended as parody/satire. Cowboys likely skirts through loopholes and the lack of actual visual art sampling laws to make it legally wrong, but nonetheless is no better than Lichtenstein. Sturtevant got away with it cause the original creators essentially gave her permission after she was caught replicating, also no better.
You can't justify those who aren't smart and talented enough to make their own original work to convey their intended message as good art just because they got away with it.
There is a long history of writing designers, artisans, and workers out of history. Why shouldn't the designer of "The Fountain" be known? I'd be fascinated to know their name and story. Why shouldn't Sam Abell get acknowledgement for his depiction of the (fake) cowboy used by Prince? Why shouldn't Prince give a nod to a fellow artist. Why can't modern scholars research John Heartfield's works to depict where the images came from. This would not deminish his work. Or maybe art historians feel that these creators are not worthy of research?
On the other hand, I know there has been instances where non-indigenous artists have copied Australian First Nation dot art - and other cultural symbols. This type of cultural appropriation happens from many other peoples. This practice would be more akin to stealing.
🏦💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰
Seems like a lot of this conversation surrounding Lichtenstein revolves around the idea of the original creators being screwed over by the illustration industry than it does Lichtenstein. At that point, the conversation changes entirely from theft in art to fair compensation, which is really not anything Lichtenstein or the original creators had control over. That’s specifically why people criticize Roy, when the argument should be about the exploitation of artists when someone can turn around and take the same creative idea and actually garner the financial reward that should’ve been given to the original artists in the first place.
In simplistic terms, don’t hate the player, hate the game.
in a nutshell: its not stealing tho or maybe it is
Very... In retesting opening .. thesis..........🤔🤫🤔🤫
Tbh, I prefer your shorter format
roy lichtenstein did NOT transform comics into rarified art. His dealer or gallery did.
The flag has 59 stars
By reducing comic-book art to a single, static panel, Roy Lichtenstein removed the sequential narrative through which a comic-book artist tells a story in a series of panels.
He killed the story by eliminating time, making it impossible to depict the changes in fortune or fate befalling the characters over several pages in a comic book.
In this way he robbed comic books of their emotional content.
This totally disregards the reasons why people read comic books.- they keep turning the pages to see what happens.
His panels in no way offer a meaningful comment on comic-book culture.
Nobody is going to buy a comic book just to stare at a single panel.
And why would they care what happens in the next issue if there is no STORY?
The phoniest thing about Lichtenstein is that he shows no evidence of ever having READ a comic book, even as a child.
Pity a man whose soul seems as empty as his art.
I'd rather not even go into his complete lack of understanding of the collaborative nature of comic-book art in which writers, editors, pencillers, inkers, colorists and letterers join hands with fans in a spirit of mutual understanding (just as many collaborate to create a movie, a play, or a cathedral).
All you see in a Lichtenstein panel is the flatness of his blind ego.
Comic books and history / fine art are like comparing film to tv series, theatre to novels. Roy is not profound but not an idiot. _Fine art talk_ is not for anybody, is not simply illustration, is movements, ideas, flavors. I'm sorry but fine art and comic books only have drawing in common, you have to not associate the 2. I understand your pain because I've been hurt in adolescence for enjoying comics and I still do, but you have to focus on distancing the 2 as their own mediums
but isnt he celebrating the art of the comic panel by removing it from its context?
@@yamataichul this is a reductive view of comic books, I suggest to read Scot Macloud "understanding comics" or Will Eisners "the sequencial art" you are missing out, like graphic novels, persepolis, Maus, City of Glass, or stuff like transmetropolitan or the dark knight returns, they are art in sequence, they do have a different language and you have to analyze them differently then paintings or graphics, but still, they can have amazing depth in style and narrative, and one compliments the other
@@IcoOst is not if you're thinking I'm placing it in a different folder out of ignorance and sense of superiority. I advocate for fine art to be renamed even, but these two do not compute, is more similar with literature in my opinion but again, it is is own unique thing. Scott's book and Maus are great, I'll check out your other recommendations as well.
@@yamataichul t6aking one art form and transfering to a different art form does not destroy the former, ist just changeds the context and even the message in general, I don't see it as destruction, more as transcendence, you made it sound like as if comics were some sort of low brow mass produce garbage, maybe some is, but even there you can find greatness, like in grant morrisons new xmen or alan moores run on anything DC, Takehiko Inoue finished the story of vagabond not as a manga but as an art exhibition, that is what I call transcendence
Intelectual Property is a crime