Acclaimed Artist" Actually Just Stole Video Game Images

[OldJake666]

He copied from existing panels. If he made his own I would have no problem with it whatsoever.

This is Lichtenstein's:



And this is the original:



Obviously there are differences but that's the kind of thing that would have the art community pouncing all over him today.

Here's another one:

Lichtenstein's:



Original:



This is what the MOMA has to say about it:

Lichtenstein based many of his early paintings on imagery he found in comic books. The source for this work is Run for Love! published by DC Comics in 1962, the cover of which the artist significantly altered to arrive at the finished composition. In the original illustration, the drowning girl’s boyfriend appears in the background, clinging to a capsized boat. Lichtenstein cropped the image dramatically, showing the girl alone and encircled by a threatening wave. He changed the caption from “I don’t care if I have a cramp!” to “I don’t care!” and the boyfriend’s name from Mal to Brad. In addition to appropriating comic books’ melodramatic content, Lichtenstein manually simulated the Benday dots used in the mechanical reproduction of images.

Oh he cropped it and he changed the name, well that's not plagiarism then! *rolls eyes*

And I couldn't find anywhere that said that he paid or asked the original artists to use their work. He was never sued by the way. How he got away with that is way beyond me.

[JeffX99]

It's just a different kind of schtick..."pop art"...used to be popular. It was all about apropriating common or "low brow" schtuff, modifying it to one degree or another and hanging it on gallery and museum walls (I'm sure you know what that was all about). Lichtenstein was more of an experimental printmaker guy and people were interested in that aspect as well. But yeah, entirely different kind of thing.

[Ray Dillon]

That just seems insane! Went to so much work for something so stupid and pathetic and just crazy!

[manlybrian]

If he had only flipped the images, he would have gotten away with it!

[Maledict]

If he had only flipped the images, he would have gotten away with it!

...If it weren't for those meddling kids!!

Also, whilst we're on the subject of Modern "Art" - is it just me, or does what Rothko made constitute a war crime?

[bcarman]

...If it weren't for those meddling kids!!

Also, whilst we're on the subject of Modern "Art" - is it just me, or does what Rothko made constitute a war crime?

What?

[Elwell]

I was under the impression that Roy Lichtenstein credited and paid the artists he used.

No. (Credited only in the most general way, paid, no.)

Question: Did he copy panels from existing comics, or make up his own?

Copied, with minor modifications. Although the direct comic panel paintings were only the first few years of his career, and for the rest of it he applied the primary color/benday pattern vocabulary to different subject matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

Most of his best-known artworks are relatively close, but not exact, copies of comic book panels, a subject he largely abandoned in 1965. (He would occasionally incorporate comics into his work in different ways in later decades.) These panels were originally drawn by such comics artists as Jack Kirby and DC Comics artists Russ Heath, Tony Abruzzo, Irv Novick, and Jerry Grandenetti, who rarely received any credit. Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation, contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a copyist, saying: "Roy's work was a wonderment of the graphic formulae and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. The panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy." However, some have been critical of Lichtenstein's use of comic-book imagery and art pieces, especially insofar as that use has been seen as endorsement of a patronizing view of comic by the art mainstream; noted comics author Art Spiegelman commented that "Lichtenstein did no more or less for comics than Andy Warhol did for soup."

[Shorinji_Knight]

It looks to me that this guy looked around at everyone he knew and thought:

They're so stupid they'll be throwing their money at me! -- He was right. What did he have to lose. I doubt anyone has ever heard of him until now. He probably figured that as long as he keep a low profile no one would ever catch him. The mistake he made was having a show. He could have continued for years if he just setup tables at local romanian artfairs.

[Tommydervan]

I'm starting to suspect the sheer depth of human stupidity can actually rival that of how deep below the Earth and abyss Tartatus is.

I think your on to something here....

[OldJake666]

...If it weren't for those meddling kids!!

Also, whilst we're on the subject of Modern "Art" - is it just me, or does what Rothko made constitute a war crime?

Rothko's art needs to be experienced in person and up close. Seeing a reproduction doesn't do justice to his works in even the most distant way. I just finished writing an essay about one of Rothko's pieces if you want to read it. It might or might not give you a different perspective on his artwork.

[Arshes Nei]

Or is he from Latveria?
Doctor Doom? Is that you?

Where's my money foo?!



http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsall...1336120546.jpg
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/0...ain-in-comics/

Sorry I was waiting for someone to bring him up to totally hijack that moment XD

[Shorinji_Knight]

@Arshes_Nei Those were the good ol'days

[artmessiah]

Where's my money foo?!



http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsall...1336120546.jpg
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/0...ain-in-comics/

Sorry I was waiting for someone to bring him up to totally hijack that moment XD

"Suddenly I'd like to leave yo island Mr. Han Man" - sorry couldn't resist .

[Raoul Duke]

Rothko's art needs to be experienced in person and up close. Seeing a reproduction doesn't do justice to his works in even the most distant way. I just finished writing an essay about one of Rothko's pieces if you want to read it. It might or might not give you a different perspective on his artwork.

I went to SFMOMA and payed close attention to Rothko's work and tried to keep an open mind, but I still found myself underwhelmed. It was the visual equivilant of this song.

[OldJake666]

I went to SFMOMA and payed close attention to Rothko's work and tried to keep an open mind, but I still found myself underwhelmed. It was the visual equivilant of this song.

To each their own. I happen to be a big fan. I'd say his art is closer to a song like this:

[Velocity Kendall]

i like rothko a lot too.
the colours sound a bit like this to me.

[Raoul Duke]

I'll say the architecture on the last one is pretty impressive. It can make a series of plain black canvases look like a masterpiece.

[Velocity Kendall]

you realise the only person your extremely literal 'every picture must be of something, like a tree or a person' approach is cheating is you right?

[bcarman]

We can't have one discussion on here without someone hijacking it to a I don't like art I don't like or won't understand? The thing is it always turns into a polarizing thing. Those who like "a" and those who don't. Are you just looking for a pat on the back from all of those who don't like Rothko too? That is my conclusion with all of these threads that get derailed or start off as Modern art sucks. Hey everyone thank me cuz we hate the same art.

[kev ferrara]

Bill, can't we have one thread where we can bash Modern Art with impunity?

Defending Rothko and, say, Pollock - demanding that they be respected as Artists rather than Designers - diminishes real modern artists like Manet or Van Gogh. And in the process diminishes the 500 years of progress in aesthetic thought that proceeded the intellectual and spiritual collapse that attended the advent of meaningless-abstractions-as-art. I find this dismissal of the legacy of legitimate aesthetic philosophy a much worse affront than any given distinction drawn, whether based on intuition or analysis, between Designers and Artists.

Having said that, I am now going to draw a funny face using symbols from my keyboard which is so cute and innocent that it takes away any edge this post may have generated, in the process making it immune from criticism;

/˚
-------@ }
\˚

[bcarman]

It worked, the funny face worked.

Not really. The dismissal is not coming from me or anyone defending Rothko et al at any level. I have never quite bought into the idea that your line of aesthetic philosophy is the only legitimate line to art. This division of artists and designers is kevism.

demanding that they be respected as Artists rather than Designers

Plus I am not demanding anything other than anyone in SoCal this Saturday May 12 stop by Gallery Nucleus from 7-10 pm and say hi at my opening.

http://www.gallerynucleus.com/gallery/exhibition/342

Appreciating the contribution of one artist doesn't necessarily diminish the contribution of another. Rothko didn't change the face of the art world. He was not a great innovator or even a great artist, but every time I've sat in a room full of his work I have felt an overwhelming resonance. No other way to put it.

[Pavel Sokov]

The prints must of been so pixelly and shit.

Why did he even try this? Was he under the impression that he is the only person in Romania who has Internet?

[Dionesiist]

He's probably the only person over a certain age in Romania who KNEW games come with art.

[kev ferrara]

I have never quite bought into the idea that your line of aesthetic philosophy is the only legitimate line to art. This division of artists and designers is kevism.

While I agree that everyone in SoCal this Saturday May 12 stop by Gallery Nucleus from 7-10 pm and say hi at your opening, I must take issue with the idea that the distinction between art and design is my own. (This was a longstanding understanding. For example, Denman W. Ross' theory of pure design is not called a theory of pure art for a reason. Art was never understood to be synonymous with Design, ergo there is a definitional distinction to find if one cares to make an analysis.) Design as it applies to composing is not the same, and was never the same, as design applied to the problems of creating diagrams or decorations. (One can overlap these disciplines, for sure, but that doesn't make them synonymous.)

As well, aesthetic philosophy isn't arbitrary. And no amount of special pleading will change that. It wasn't called Kunstwissenschaft for nothing. The arguments didn't arise from some provincial cultural state. They amount to a unified theory of human perception and conception.

Having said all that, I'd like to point out that birds are funny little creatures.

And now a dog made out of code:

d___/
_L_L__..____

[Velocity Kendall]

Rothko didn't change the face of the art world. He was not a great innovator or even a great artist, but every time I've sat in a room full of his work I have felt an overwhelming resonance. No other way to put it.

Bingo. Hes going look at this red. Look at it. Look at this fucking red. Look. At it. You fucker. Its good isnt it?
And Im like, yes, it is.

[PxelSlayer]

And now a dog made out of code:

d___/
_L_L__..____

His left leg is out of perspective, so you might wanna go back and check it again. Also, recheck your proportions.

I too can contribute to this thread in similar fashion. Behold -


(.)(.)

I know, right?






But honestly, now, to get OT, we will never know why this man did it. I doubt the media will give him a chance to explain himself. And, even if it does, I don`t know how coherently he would be able to do it.
At one point in his mind it all made sense. It was justifiable. It felt right. And a mans mind is a weird, weird thing...

[bcarman]

kev, I am never going to argue with your sources or try and one up you when it comes to the study of aesthetics but I will argue that all that has been written and is being written can never dispute or disprove the experiences I've had with art.

Ultimately after a lot of study, looking, and doing (like you) I have also come to my own conclusions and I'm a pretty smart guy too. And my conclusions don't always agree with what the smart people have written about things.

I have been moved by a roomful of Rothkos. I have never been moved by a single Rothko or reproduction thereof but I have been by a roomful. I can't argue with that. Just as I can't argue with my first physical experience with art, three perfect Vermeer's, I can't argue with visceral feelings I've had with other work which I might not otherwise love. DeKooning, Rothko, Klee (whose work I can otherwise love) to name a few.

I'll not build a religion around those aberrations but I will acknowledge them. So even though I can't make a dog from my keyboard I can revel in my limited Rothko joy.

[Elwell]

And now a dog made out of code:

d___/
_L_L__..____

Either his face has fallen off or his feet are on backwards.

[Cider]

kev, I am never going to argue with your sources or try and one up you when it comes to the study of aesthetics but I will argue that all that has been written and is being written can never dispute or disprove the experiences I've had with art.

I'm trying to understand this: is it art because you had an emotional reponse to it? Is art defined by the producer or the consumer?

[Elwell]

For Kev, an ASCII Rothko:
—
☐