| Author |
|
Lars Johansson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 June 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6113
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 1:23pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Deleted since the same was expressed by JB above at about the same time and a million times better.
Edited by Lars Johansson on 18 December 2011 at 1:29pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Stuart Vandal
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 143
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 1:31pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Thing is Lars, while they could do the same thing with the Mona Lisa, at least then no one else in the "art community" would give them gallery space. "Oh, what a great copy of the Mona Lisa. Thanks, but I already own a camera and a photocopier, if copying someone else is the limit of your artistic vision then I believe Burger King is hiring." But no, it's comics, so you've got gallery owners reaffirming to the thieves that theft is acceptable.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Keith Thomas
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 April 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 3082
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 1:34pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Who buys this crap?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 1:55pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
It's kind of remarkable how poor Lichtenstein's reproductions often were.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Hawes
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 16432
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 2:03pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Exacty, Paulo! I was thinking of the same thing. Lichtenstein is like a lot of people who have some artistic ability, but swipe from superior artists (yes, "superior"), in that it is obvious he doesn't understand such things like facial structure and other anatomy, perspective, etc., as did the artists he was swiping from. He seems to have copied some of the linework without apparently understanding what those lines represented.
Edited by Matt Hawes on 18 December 2011 at 2:03pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132330
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 2:03pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
It's kind of remarkable how poor Lichtenstein's reproductions often were.•• Not a very good artist to begin with, Lichtenstein really stumbled into a gold mine with his plagiarized panels. Since most people think of comicbook art as utter crap -- they have never even heard of Neal Adams, or Jack Kirby, or Joe Kubert, or. . . well, you get it -- his crap copies were not judged on artistic merits.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Martinho Correia
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 June 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 2:41pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
The artist is working in a traditional painting format known as trompe l'oeil. There is a long history of quoting other artists works in such paintings.
In the 20th century we had Marcel Duchamp and the concept of the ready mades which allowed artists to present found objects and images as their own.
So, within contemporary art circles her work is very valid. It really just is another example of the "emperor not having clothes" silliness presented in these mainstream circles. At the very least it should have been titled it in a way that the original artists were credited. And while it is well painted, it is rather boring visually.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Raj Dhami
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 March 2008
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 2:49pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
- "Goodbye"..... Genius!!!! That s**t is downright offensive! (apologies for the expletive). I was in one of the art museums in NY and caught a Lichtenstein out of the corner of my eye...what the? how does that pathetic excuse for art make it to the "big time".... That said...about 10 years earlier, I saw a 12 ft by 8 ft recreation of the cover of x-men #136 in NY in a small art gallery and was blown away!!! I'll stop rambling now!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stuart Vandal
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 143
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Martinho, if she had, for example created a montage of panels that weren't previously together, or (as in your first posted example) she had taken multiple comics, or comics and novels and ..., or if (as in your second example) she had taken the comic panels and modified them in some meaningful way, actually added something to them of her own, then I'd be willing to consider her work an example of trompe l'oeil, albeit a rude example that didn't have the basic manners to acknowledge the original source. However, just dropping a single comic on the floor so it lands half open and then painting what it looks like - that's just lame plagiarism. And doing it multiple times across different pictures is unimaginative lame plagiarism. And not acknowleding the actual artists, the ones worthy of being called artists? That's ignorant, unimaginative lame plagiarism.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132330
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 3:16pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
The artist is working in a traditional painting format known as trompe l'oeil. There is a long history of quoting other artists works in such paintings.•• Trompe l'oeil means, literally, "deceive the eye", and such artistic "quotes" as are included in traditional pieces are not the ONLY elements of the piece -- as you can see from the very piece you posted! One of my instructors from Art College, John Hall, is pretty much a master of the trompe l'oeil school. When we all arrived on the first day of classes, we were taken to the gallery, where chairs had been set up for our introduction lecture. Hall's work happened to be on display. One piece was a painting of a plastic garbage bag that was SO realistic virtually everyone, including me, walked up to it and tried to lift it up to see what it was covering. My old chum Gary Gody is also a master of photo-realism, and his pieces often include old posters, books, boxes, etc, with images he dutifully duplicates -- but, again, they are NOT the center or the point of the piece. The pieces represented in these stolen images are well executed in terms of looking like 3D objects, but they do NOT look like comic books -- especially not of that vintage. And, anyway, don't we get in a lot of trouble when we start justifying things as "traditional"? A whole lot of bad history was generated by "tradition".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Martinho Correia
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 June 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 3:18pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I did not say I particularly liked it or that it was good, but it is still trompe l'oeil, albeit as you say Stuart, unimaginative. Still I think it probably has a huge appeal. Of course this is just a small piece of a much larger problem.At one time the high point of western art was this:
Today it is this:
To quote Pietro Annigoni: "I am convinced that the works of today's avant-garde are the poisoned fruit of a spiritual decadence, with all the consequences that arise from a tragic loss of love for life."
Edited by Martinho Correia on 18 December 2011 at 3:24pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Martinho Correia
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 June 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 203
|
| Posted: 18 December 2011 at 3:32pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
JB, by calling it traditional I was not justifying it but was rather stating where it fit in terms of what came before. I personally have no problem with tradition, myself trying to make paintings that are of today but still in line with the 700 year old tradition of western painting.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Topic Closed)
