3 ms·
At the time, comic books were not really considered art. Comic book illustrations were generally work-for-hire and the artists not credited even in the in origi
by goto11 4y ago
At the time, comic books were not really considered art. Comic book illustrations were generally work-for-hire and the artists not credited even in the in original comic books (even today this is a sore point).
Lichtenstein was considered at the level of Duchamp who took various everyday objects (most famously an urinal) and exhibited it as art, thereby turning it into art through context. Nobody at the time protested that he was plagiarizing the actual creators of the urinal.
In my opinion Duchamp did make art, or at least a significant artistic statement which changed the perception of art forever. But Lichtenstein is really just an also-ran. And given the comic community long have been very conscious about the artistic merit of the genre, Lichtenstein's ("look what I found") just seem rather silly.
But given the comic industry's continuing reluctance to credit (never mind paying) the original comic creators, I don't think Lichtenstein is a significant sinner in comparison.
- robocat 4y ago> Duchamp who took various everyday objects (most famously an urinal) Appropriately: appropriated without appropriate attribution from Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, apparently: a 1917 letter Duchamp wrote to his sister, Susanne, translated: “One of my female friends who had adopted the masculine pseudonym Richard Mutt sent in a porcelain urinal as a sculpture.” R Mutt was identified as an artist living in Philadelphia, which is where she was living at the time. Duchamp said he had purchased the urinal from JL Mott Ironworks Company, adapting Mutt from Mott, but the company did not manufacture the model in the photograph the handwriting on the urinal matches the handwriting Von Freytag-Loringhoven used for her poems.