3 ms·
The transformative nature of Roy's work was more obvious at the time, mainly because at the time comic books were bottom of the barrel products with nearly zero
by bsenftner 4y ago
The transformative nature of Roy's work was more obvious at the time, mainly because at the time comic books were bottom of the barrel products with nearly zero cultural respect. Roy presenting them as "cultural art" was flabbergasting for many, outrageous and highly controversial. It was barely a step behind pornography from many a person's view at the time - as is how repressed culture was at the time, before the "sexual revolution".
- derbOac 4y agoI think the issue is that he wasn't just painting large scale canvases of comic book style art, he was literally reproducing existing comic book art. I usually side heavily on the side of free speech in intellectual property issues, but it seems like this crosses some line to me. It's not about the value of the form of Roy's presentation, it's about the credit and compensation to the artists he was copying.
- ghaff 4y agoWhile I think there's merit to some of the arguments people are making in favor of essentially fair use, it's hard not to look back at his career and not think "He sure didn't go out of his way to credit his sources."
- RuggedPineapple 4y agoAn aspect of fair use is that it doesn't interfere with the actual market for the thing. A movie analysis, even one that heavily uses the work its analyzing to illustrate its points, is not usable as a substitute for watching the film if one wants to get the experience of the work. In this case one is taking art for sale, and using it as art for sale. Its possible some can view high prestige art and low prestige art as separate markets but I don't really. In my mind its more akin to taking a novel and abridging it to a novella. Same fundamental market.
- nemo44x 4y agoBut that’s the point if it. He took something that existed in the world and was considered low trash and turned it into something that was considered high art. If he just made a generic comic book styled thing he’d have something but by taking existing, bottom of the barrel culture and transforming it, he made something entirely new. This is common in art. Picasso for instance would turn prostitutes into beautiful art. Or even something as banal as a news clipping.
- goosedragons 4y agoI have a strong suspicion if someone took his art, made light changes and slapped it on a T-shirt they'd probably get sued by his estate. It's arguably just as "new" but I doubt few would argue it's not plagiarism.
- krisoft 4y agoHeck, if you would take the art he ripped of and put it on a t-shirt, wouldn't be surprised if his estate would sue you for that too.
- nemo44x 4y agoWell the Andy Warhol Supreme Court case should have a decision soon. The argument I find compelling in support of Warhol is that his painting is fair use and that it “meaningfully transformed” the source material (photo of Prince). It is an appropriation, not a copy. In your example I’d say that Lichtenstein meaningfully transformed the source material and is fair use of a drawing in a book of drawings. But making t-shirts of either the source or the painting would not meaningfully transform it nor would it be fair use and therefore a copyright violation.
- derbOac 4y agoSo Picasso painted those prostitutes, he didn't paint paintings of prostitutes. It would be one thing — and probably more intellectually interesting — if he had credited the original art more openly. For example by including the artist and work in his title ("Untitled, after Private Secretary, Eisman"). But it seems like in many or most cases he didn't even acknowledge that he was copying the work. I'm not sure what kind of statement he was making by the way he did things. Whatever he intended it's turning into something else.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoThe artists he was copying mostly didn’t own the copyright to their work. The comic book companies they worked for did.
- pigsty 4y agoI’m really not sure if he should be given all the credit. Comics thrived in other countries, so even if American comics were seen as right behind porn, it was only a matter of time until they eventually made their way into mainstream popularity in the US. Which, as far as I know, comics were already popular—they were just a kids’ thing. Same as how video games were just kids’ things for a solid 2-3 decades until kids who grew up on games became adults and the industry started pivoting towards their adult tastes. Kind of like how kids who grew up on 1940s and 50s comics and their mainstream media influence started to grow a couple decades after they grew up. Batman was a pretty popular TV show roughly 25 years after being a notably popular comic book. Then 25 years after that, we started getting popular movies and more mature cartoons based on the series.
- ghaff 4y ago>Which, as far as I know, comics were already popular—they were just a kids’ thing That was certainly true in the early to mid-60s in the US. (And in the UK.)
- stametseater 4y agoLooks like the people who objected were in the right after all.