Did the Supremes crimp art?

[Bartc]

This article and many similar claim that the Warhol decision will crimp future art.

I disagree. To my thinking it really can boil down to commercializing issues.

Nobody says you can't copy, just that you have to be careful what you sell as yours if you did substantially copy. I know this is highly complex and many artists can't find the fine line either, but Warhol's supposed "genius" doesn't change the fact that he made minor changes to someone else's copyrighted creation and sold it for big bucks. I believe had he just painted it and exhibited it and refused to sell it, especially had he noted the source material, nobody would have cared. It was the sale that triggered the issues. Your opinion is as good as mine in this minefield!

Art News article about Warhol decision

 

[Artyczar]

I think the ruling was fair and right. I don't know about it crimping future art. I think these things need to be taken up on an individual basis, depending on what it is. I'm just glad she won because the foundation overused the license beyond what they were supposed to and screwed her out of a lot of money and crediting her art. Too bad it had to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, but then again, it's probably a good thing for future artists to be aware of now, if that answers your question.

 

[Enyaw]

... he was just an amature .. he couldn't steal like a professional ...

 

[Artyczar]

Is it bashing Warhol time? I thought this was about the specific case with Goldsmith, and I actually thought it was with the Foundation, not Warhol himself. Who made the decision to exploit the license?

 

[Enyaw]

Not bashing at all. It was done in humor...I thought that's what the icons did was denote humor. My apologies. I'll go away now. He was far from amature.

 

[Bartc]

No amateur, but a master marketer. Following right in the footsteps of guys like Dali. Make yourself and your lifestyle the "brand", then whatever art you produce you can sell like hotcakes. (Please don't malign Wayne Thiebaud's cakes, while we're at it....)

 

[Artyczar]

Not bashing at all. It was done in humor...I thought that's what the icons did was denote humor. My apologies. I'll go away now. He was far from amature.

Sorry, I overreacted Wayne. I wasn't trying to target you anyway, or anyone. I'm not a "fan" of Warhol. But he did change modern art. Can't really ignore that. Sorry if I offended you.

Also, I don't see why others can have strong opinions but it's different when I make mention of anything that resembles one.

 

[Artyczar]

No amateur, but a master marketer. Following right in the footsteps of guys like Dali. Make yourself and your lifestyle the "brand", then whatever art you produce you can sell like hotcakes. (Please don't malign Wayne Thiebaud's cakes, while we're at it....)

Is that how you see it? So were these two not really artists in your opinion then? Just marketers because of their lifestyles?

And what about your original post? And my question about who exploited the Goldsmith license? Anyone know?

Maybe I should "go away." I have too many questions and not enough humorous emojis.

 

[Bongo]

Putting the case aside - something to remember about Warhol and Lichtenstein was that they made their bones in the sixties. At the time their work was transformative. Taking a publicity still photo of an actor, blowing it up, colorizing it turning it into a silkscreen - was bold, fresh, original, mesmerizing, mind-blowing.

Looking back with 21st-century hindsight, and with thousands (hundreds of thousands) of copycats of their work - it can seem stale, unimaginative, unethical and clearly a copyright violation.

 

[Bartc]

Is that how you see it? So were these two not really artists in your opinion then? Just marketers because of their lifestyles?

And what about your original post? And my question about who exploited the Goldsmith license? Anyone know?

Maybe I should "go away." I have too many questions and not enough humorous emojis.

No, no, no, Ayin. Nothing wrong with your posts. Please continue.

I believe both Dali and Warhol to be real artists and famous ones at that. And they did lead or at least were some of the leaders in new ways of expression in their respective eras. I don't care for Dali one bit! But that doesn't mean he wasn't skilled at what he chose to do.

Warhol I'm mixed about. In his era I was not impressed with him. Later on I came to appreciate his attempts. But would I consider it great art? Absolutely NOT! Just some of his work to me is "interesting". Sure, he beats Kinkade in my book, and he's a notch above Marimeko in decorative style. Lichtenstein was just a thieving copyist, not a great comic book artist. This was not an era of art I appreciate, with apologies to any of you who revere them.

Ironically, in that same Pop Art era, Wayne Thiebaud got his big breaks. I loved his work then, and the more I watched him develop, the more I have adored his work since. Yes, he did paint lunch counter art, but if you look closely you'll see that it informed his other shape, color and shadow studies in landscape, etc. Just because the subject was mundane doesn't mean the result was mediocre.

And so it is that I have come to appreciate some of Warhol's works, but far from all. Copyright issue notwithstanding here. Warhol knew he was copying the photo and taking off from there.

Aside from what any of us appreciates for whatever reason, the business of art, especially the business fueled by celebrity, is a tradition that goes back at least to the Renaissance. Some of the purveyors are really great artists in my book, but many are just branding geniuses, and that's where I fit Dali, Warhol and folks like Leroy Nieman, etc. But your taste is just as good as mine....

 

[Bartc]

Would you confuse this painting with a Van Gogh? Oh, go ahead, and sue me! You'll make my day.

Is my painting a copy of Van Gogh's? No, but it does pay homage and use a similar theme and composition. BTW, I could have painted in the birds that were actually flying above the field and you would have really seen the thematic resemblance. But I don't want Vincent's heirs suing me.

And just for the record, of course I was cognizant in choosing this scene of the similarity of subject and composition with VG's last known painting of the wheat field with crows. In fact, I deliberately chose to look a tad left of where I was sitting, because a little to the right and the 3 path composition would have been a bit too much like Vince's. And this is an open space district field that is full of birds of prey, which were flying over it when I painted. His was of a saturated yellow cultivated wheat field in France; mine is of a summer burnt orange wild meadow in California. Not the same at all, but very pleased that the effect is similar.

 

[Artyczar]

Thanks Bart. I will not sue you, don't worry. Plus, I can't. I do not have the power.

I see the connection to The Crows, one of my favorites. I don't remember pathways in The Crows however, but I'd have to bring it up to compare it. Maybe the crows distract from it. Besides, Vincent painted this in his hand, and you painted it in yours. There's no mistaking the difference, ever. It's a great piece, though, Bart. Very well done! Maybe this is my favorite of yours.

Van Gogh is one of my bigger influences by far. I have always been in love with his textures and how he can create emotions that way.

Dali? I really dislike his work. And, as I said, I'm not a big fan of Warhol either, but I certainly appreciate both of them. Without both of them, I probably wouldn't make the work I do, and I have to acknowledge that fact. It's just a part of history that glues everything together, like a long dialogue or a game of Telephone. By the time it gets to you, it turns into something else entirely, but we all contribute to the conversation. Some more than others. Just like, without Vincent, there'd also be no us. That's just how I see it, whether we decide to make the things we want that rebel against the trend or with it. We are still aware of it. Maybe not all of us are aware of every trend, but any art we see may be influenced in some way by the trends of history.

Wayne Thiebaud (who I don't know enough about but highly respect) was influenced by the trends of his time and the artists who came before. In the Pop era, I particularly liked Jasper Johns out of most of those artists. I didn't know who he was until my early twenties when someone told me that, what I was making at the time, looked like his work. Maybe I was subconsciously influenced by something else I had seen that was Johns-influenced. Who knows, but I had never seen his work before then. Yet, I was painting targets and things like that. It was a little uncanny. In any case, I looked him up after that and loved him ever since.

Believe it or not, Motherwell was considered a kind of post-Surrealist. I really liked him too. This had to do with Automatic Drawing and other concepts he was practicing while he was hanging out with the surrealists of his day. I like a lot of those concepts (in general), but I really wasn't a fan of Dali. I do like Ernst and a few others, though. It just depends on which pieces.

 

[Bartc]

Wayne Thiebaud (who I don't know enough about but highly respect) was influenced by the trends of his time and the artists who came before. In the Pop era

To my eye, Wayne Thiebaud was one of the clearest modern inheritors of the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists. I say that from looking at the underlying techniques of color and perspective he used. (But clearly NOT a copyist.) In fact, he's about as Van Gogh as a late 20th century artist can be. Most folks are not familiar with all his different subjects and genres, just the ubiquitous lunch counter type stuff. You have to see his portraiture and his landscapes/cityscapes to fully appreciate his range of genius. My buddy, with not the slightest artistic ability nor taste, had the great fortune to have him as a course instructor in college; damn, I wish it had been me!

Here's the VG you're looking for, and it's no surprise that his work has been the most influential in my style:

And here's my actual field to show the judge that I wasn't copying... Laughing Out Loud!

 

[Artyczar]

To my eye, Wayne Thiebaud was one of the clearest modern inheritors of the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists. I say that from looking at the underlying techniques of color and perspective he used. (But clearly NOT a copyist.) In fact, he's about as Van Gogh as a late 20th century artist can be. Most folks are not familiar with all his different subjects and genres, just the ubiquitous lunch counter type stuff. You have to see his portraiture and his landscapes/cityscapes to fully appreciate his range of genius. My buddy, with not the slightest artistic ability nor taste, had the great fortune to have him as a course instructor in college; damn, I wish it had been me!

Here's the VG you're looking for, and it's no surprise that his work has been the most influential in my style: View attachment 30700
And here's my actual field to show the judge that I wasn't copying... Laughing Out Loud!
View attachment 30701

Of course you weren't copying! I knew that.

I've seen this work up close in person, and it takes your breath away. It really does. Thanks for posting it, as it's inspiring me quite a lot. I need that right now, too.

I know there's a lot more to Thiebaud than the pop stuff. That's why I said I don't know enough about him, but I'm aware of it because of the many artists I admire telling me about him and showing me pieces here and there that have surprised me. I hope you didn't think I inferred he was a copyist. ??? I am just saying that we are all influenced by the artists who come before us. All of us.

 

[Bartc]

No misunderstandings at all, Ayin. No worries.

I just need to be able to convince a judge, just in case my stuff ever gets any attention.

 

[Bartc]

Hey, who was that famous forger, whose trial after WWII was a real kicker? He got off free from charges of both forgery and collaboration by proving that he was just hoodwinking the Nazis. And he laughed all the way to the bank.

 

[Artyczar]

I don't know if I remember that one.

 

[Bartc]

I don't know if I remember that one.

https://www.npr.org/2008/07/12/92483237/how-mediocre-dutch-artist-cast-the-forgers-spell

 

[Artyczar]

Wow, I learn something new every day. Thanks!

 

[stlukesguild]

Bartc- Ironically, in that same Pop Art era, Wayne Thiebaud got his big breaks. I loved his work then, and the more I watched him develop, the more I have adored his work since. Yes, he did paint lunch counter art, but if you look closely you'll see that it informed his other shape, color and shadow studies in landscape, etc. Just because the subject was mundane doesn't mean the result was mediocre.

And so it is that I have come to appreciate some of Warhol's works, but far from all. Copyright issue notwithstanding here. Warhol knew he was copying the photo and taking off from there.

Years ago I had little use for Warhol. With the passing years, I have come to appreciate his work more. As a whole, I think that Pop Art has remained far more relevant and influential than many other Late Modernist "styles" including Abstract Expressionism. I certainly appreciate Warhol's soup cans as a 20th-century riff on still life painting...

... and surely his paintings/prints of celebrities such as Marilyn, Liz Taylor... or even himself are a clever variation on icons and portrait paintings by the old masters of Kings, Queens, Popes, etc.... Of course he knowingly used photographs of his subjects but that was part of what the works were about... subjects that were known not first hand but through the mass media: photographs, film, posters, etc...

In purely formal terms, I am quite inspired by Warhol's use of saturated color (along with that of Rosenquist, Wesselmann, and a few others...

This is especially true for someone who grew up with comic books, color TV, LP covers, and rock music posters.

I agree that the mundane subject (and who determines what is "mundane"?) does not denote that the resulting work of art inspired by such need be "mundane". After all, what subjects haven't been seen and painted endless times? The Nude? Landscapes? Still Life? Portraits? One of my favorite painters of the last century was Giorgio Morandi who painted the most mundane... even banal subjects over and over: still life paintings of empty bottles... but the resulting paintings are exquisite... even poetic... especially when seen in real life.