3 ms·
His versions also generally look worse than the original.
by ginko 4y ago
His versions also generally look worse than the original.
- bsenftner 4y agoA common misunderstanding of modern art is it's appearance has anything to do with the art. Modern art is a totem, a culture sign post, where the actual object of art is merely the milestone for the emergence of the idea. Before Roy's art comic books were actual trash, and he said "no they are not" and that is his cultural contribution. The value one sees in comic books and that medium today is largely thanks to Roy. But outside the formal art world this assessment is pretty much missing, which is part of the elitism of the art world.
- Narretz 4y agoThat's highly subjective. The distorted/incorrect perspective for example is a feature, not a shortcoming.
- quadcore 4y agoTrue. The ellipse of the jet engine is "well" drawn. This is to exagerate the comic-like look one could say. Almost early Disney looking.
- ginko 4y ago>The distorted/incorrect perspective for example is a feature, not a shortcoming. IMO it can only be considered a feature if Roy Lichtenstein ever demonstrated that he actually could draw correct perspective if he wanted to.
- itohohvf 4y agoThat's not how art works. If collectors and critics (and the public!) like Lichtenstein's distorted drawings, their opinion matters. It is totally irrelevant whether he went through a photorealistic phase. He could be said to be concerned with the picture plane, i.e. with the arrangement of shapes and colours on the canvas. The painting is broadly representational but the abstract qualities actually matter more in art. Art doesn't operate through skepticism, through doubting the artist's ability. It is about valuing what is in front of you, whatever it expresses or evokes. Nobody with any sense cares whether Lichtenstein could pass a Perspective Drawing Test.
- quonn 4y agoA half truth. Some people care and are much more likely to value technically simple works by an artist if he is known to be skilled.
- ginko 4y agoI do think intent matters. Take Picasso. He made classical paintings in his early career, then developed completely new styles over decades, very much demonstrating that whatever he did away with was done intentionally so. It's why Roy Lichtenstein isn't Picasso.