Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Fade2Black

American pop artist Roy Lichtenstein (1923-1997) made millions by blatantly plagiarizing the works of others. He neither credited nor compensated the numerous artists whose works he copied. Visual artist David Barsalou has painstakingly compiled a comprehensive visual study detailing the extent of Lichtenstein's plagiarism.

Barsalou's truly eye-opening deconstruction can be viewed here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

John_Steed

"Lichtenstein did no more or less for comics than Andy Warhol did for soup"

Art Spiegelman

RickM

Yeah, I guess you could see his work as plagiarism or copying if you don't understand the first thing about art. Just as Warhol took the Campbell's can (a copyrighted product) and manipulated it and placed it in a different context, so too did Lichtenstein base his work on found images in order to create something entirely new. I went to a major Lichtenstein exhibit in Seattle about 15 years ago and saw how the canvases were constructed. Brilliant stuff. If people think he simply blew up images by Russ Heath and claimed he was the original draftsman, they obviously don't get the point.

Peter

Lichtenstein is no Greg Land.
http://jimsmashextended.blogspot.com/2008/07/greg-land-tracing-swiping-recycling.html?m=1

Torchsong

What RickM said

Fade2Black

Peter said:

Lichtenstein is no Greg Land.
http://jimsmashextended.blogspot.com/2008/07/greg-land-tracing-swiping-recycling.html?m=1

On some level, I agree with that assessment, but on the other hand I can't classify Lichtenstein's art as being homages to those artists whose works he profited from. An argument can be made that Lichtenstein's artistry lies in his presentation, but I'm not convinced that presenting the works of others in a newfangled format without proper crediting or permission is any different than what Greg Land does. I wouldn't put Lichtenstein's swipes in the same league as say Rob Granito, but the more I think about it, the more I've come to terms that what Greg is doing now isn't all that different than what Lichtenstein was doing back in the day.

req7777

Lichtenstein never denied or hid the raw material he was working with. I think his work gave a completely new spin to a simple comic book art .

Anyways, I made my own attempt to 'plagiarise' (or rather digitise) his work here: http://mattr.co.uk/lichtenstein-meets-3d-pixel-art-in-minecraft/

:-)

John_Steed

@req7777 : nice B-)

AlexanderBenjamin

Paolo Rivera makes his own photo reference, I feel like there are worse crimes than the art of Greg Land.

Fade2Black

req7777 said:

Lichtenstein never denied or hid the raw material he was working with. I think his work gave a completely new spin to a simple comic book art .

Anyways, I made my own attempt to 'plagiarise' (or rather digitise) his work here: http://mattr.co.uk/lichtenstein-meets-3d-pixel-art-in-minecraft/

:-)

Denial or admittance of an act doesn't change whether or not an act as been committed.
I suspect Lichtenstein wasn't sued because was because fellow artists acknowledged that by reproducing their work on such an embiggened scale in effect put his mark on the pieces. However, I also believe that if any of the artists his work was clearly modeled after had opted to sue, they would have had a very strong case. Lichtenstein may have actually benefited from living in the era that he did for I suspect that had Lichtenstein been born a few decades later, his reproductions would have been more likely to have been subjected to lawsuits.

Worth checking out is this 2012 Chicago Tribune article that presents artist Hilary Barta's take on Lichtenstein.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-11/entertainment/ct-ae-0513-roy-lichtenstein-20120511_1_roy-lichtenstein-comic-art-lichtenstein-show/2