Theft:

[Bartc]

New documentary asking that question about Lichtenstein.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/comics/2023/04/05/roy-lichtenstein-documentary/

 

[Terri]

Good.

Complete article behind a paywall, but I'm glad that this is getting more light shone on it.

 

[Bartc]

Apologies, that I don't know when these things will or won't appear.

 

[Marc]

I can see it, but some of these news sites have a view limit. Visit the same place six times in a year and suddenly one can't get in anymore.

 

[Marc]

I was surprised when I found out that Lichtenstein had swiped most of his stuff. I wouldn't have thought it would take too much effort to come up with your own compositions.

 

[Rich53]

Ha ha ha! At first I thought it was about the tiny European country, Lichtenstein! [ROFL]

--Rich

 

[Bongo]

Aritizia, a large Canadian-based retailer, is being sued by Zawitz -an accomplished sculpturist- for unauthorized "copies" of his Tangles sculpture.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/aritzia-lawsuit-pink-sculpture-window-display-spring-2023-1.6794799

Zawitz makes the point that had they come to him first, they could have worked something out mutually beneficial.

 

[Bongo]

Aritizia, a large Canadian-based retailer, is being sued by Zawitz -an accomplished sculpturist- for unauthorized "copies" of his Tangles sculpture.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/aritzia-lawsuit-pink-sculpture-window-display-spring-2023-1.6794799

Zawitz makes the point that had they come to him first, they could have worked something out mutually beneficial.

I was reminded of a case here locally where Chihuly sued a former student for making glass flowers. Can you really copyright something so ubiquitous as a flower? Can't make a glass rose because Chihuly did it before you?

So at first I was thinking the Zawitz claim was similar to Chilhuly's. But not so sure now.

 

[Bartc]

I was reminded of a case here locally where Chihuly sued a former student for making glass flowers. Can you really copyright something so ubiquitous as a flower? Can't make a glass rose because Chihuly did it before you?

So at first I was thinking the Zawitz claim was similar to Chilhuly's. But not so sure now.

It's not so easy to draw the line, and courts are poorly designed to do it. Lichtenstein was an easy call. Chihuly would be tougher. So is the store ripoff when you get right down to it. But AI generated from stolen images and conjured up with any command to directly imitate a particular artist's style should be an easy call, in my humble opinion.

 

[Bongo]

cannot copyright style. Most of the comic artists didn't know Lichtenstein used their work until they were contacted by the documentarian. Comic book artist steal or as they say "swipe" from each other constantly - maybe that's one reason the Publishers never sued - they didn't want to open up that can of worms.
check out these "swipes"

Comic Art Swipes or Homages | CBCS Comics | Page 1

forum.cbcscomics.com

Those could be considered stealing, comics taken and used in another comic. What Lichtenstein did is more accurately called "appropriation". He took one thing and then used it for a different purpose.

Where I have trouble is stuff like this:

So, you can never create an image of a girl with her hands crossed, elbows leaning on a table. I would say it was "inspired', not appropriated. Definitely similarities to this random frame among hundreds of frames from an obscure comic book - but if this one is stealing, then what about the ones of a guy opening a door or sitting in a chair? If this image was famous, or if the pose, or setting was unusual etc. then a case might be made - in my opinion.--otherwise --

 

[stlukesguild]

There are more than a few Lichtensteins that are problematic.

At the time Lichtenstein painted these they were not going for a fortune and he might likely have negotiated for a reasonable price for using the images. Artists have appropriated images and ideas across the centuries... but Lichtenstein seems to have crossed the line over into blatant theft IMO.

 

[Bartc]

cannot copyright style. Most of the comic artists didn't know Lichtenstein used their work until they were contacted by the documentarian. Comic book artist steal or as they say "swipe" from each other constantly - maybe that's one reason the Publishers never sued - they didn't want to open up that can of worms.
check out these "swipes"

Comic Art Swipes or Homages | CBCS Comics | Page 1

forum.cbcscomics.com

Those could be considered stealing, comics taken and used in another comic. What Lichtenstein did is more accurately called "appropriation". He took one thing and then used it for a different purpose.

Where I have trouble is stuff like this:
View attachment 29868

So, you can never create an image of a girl with her hands crossed, elbows leaning on a table. I would say it was "inspired', not appropriated. Definitely similarities to this random frame among hundreds of frames from an obscure comic book - but if this one is stealing, then what about the ones of a guy opening a door or sitting in a chair? If this image was famous, or if the pose, or setting was unusual etc. then a case might be made - in my opinion.--otherwise --

From my perspective this isn't simply about another woman crossing her arms. Look at the face, not just the pose, and it appears to me to be blatant copying. Your Mileage May Vary.

 

[Bongo]

-
Luke --
I agree about Lichtenstein crossing the line. Not so sure about being able to negotiate for a fair price. There is the "hot penny" syndrome. Once you take an interest in something, the "value" suddenly goes threw the roof. At least that's been my experience when trying to buy film rights for books.

Bartc -
I agree about the face being copied. Since he changed everything else, why did he copy the face? -- When Warhol was asked why he copied others' work his answer was _ "because it's easier'

 

[stlukesguild]

Much of this debate centers upon the notion of differentiating so-called "fine art" from "lesser" art forms such as illustrations, comics, etc... The idea of Lichtenstein's work is largely that the context has been changed from the lowly comic to high serious art (not unlike Duchamp's use of the urinal).

It has always seemed to me that Art is Art. Some is Good. Some is Bad. Some is Great... and most is Mediocre. This is true no matter the use or intentions of the artist. We can argue that a hell of a lot of the greatest art from across the centuries was primarily created as illustration or decoration or other "lesser" purposes, while a hell of a lot of the crap shown in galleries that is deemed as "fine art" is actually quite bad.

The question of Lichtenstein's "originality" has recently popped up on an online art site I follow. It was pointed out that there was a legal case centered on Lichtenstein that was indisputably ironic: a certain band used an image copied (painted) from a comic book panel for their CD cover. The Lichtenstein estate then tried to sue them because Roy had previously swiped the same image. The case was eventually dismissed because it was proved that the painting used in the CD cover was swiped from the same source and (unlike Lichtenstein) they credited the original artist of the comic image.

In a related controversy, this popped up in the same thread:

When Brian Holland had his work swiped by "fine artist" Erro, he wrote him a letter including this: "What this is is a kind of colonialism. You, Erró, have found a place for yourself in the land of the Fine Art Elite, in "Gallery-land", and you have gone out and discovered a dark continent inhabited by pygmies – barely more than savages really – people with a colourful but primitive culture. Like the Victorian explorers you find what they do ghastly but somehow alluring so you steal from them, give them nothing in return and dismiss them. You display bits of their infantile and garish nonsense in what you call a "synthesis" on a gallery wall in the civilised world, something which has nothing whatsoever to do with giving a full and accurate "report" on the stuff you steal or the people you steal it from. It's more to do with the titillation of your peers. You'd like them to be shocked by the vulgarity of the artefacts you're bringing back from whatever nasty place you've been to but appreciate them (and you, of course) in that post-modern kind of way. One reviewer of your work said "I don't know where Erró finds all that stuff". Luckily for you she and other inhabitants of the galleries don't know the names of the people you steal from and you're not in a hurry to list them. You're exploiting people like me, not because you're a "witness to our time" but because you want to turn the base metal of comics into art gold – and you'd like to have a lucrative career in Gallery-land." I'd imagine Lichtenstein had a similar viewpoint.

 

[stlukesguild]

 

[brianvds]

Much of this debate centers upon the notion of differentiating so-called "fine art" from "lesser" art forms such as illustrations, comics, etc... The idea of Lichtenstein's work is largely that the context has been changed from the lowly comic to high serious art (not unlike Duchamp's use of the urinal).

It has always seemed to me that Art is Art. Some is Good. Some is Bad. Some is Great... and most is Mediocre. This is true no matter the use or intentions of the artist. We can argue that a hell of a lot of the greatest art from across the centuries was primarily created as illustration or decoration or other "lesser" purposes, while a hell of a lot of the crap shown in galleries that is deemed as "fine art" is actually quite bad.

The question of Lichtenstein's "originality" has recently popped up on an online art site I follow. It was pointed out that there was a legal case centered on Lichtenstein that was indisputably ironic: a certain band used an image copied (painted) from a comic book panel for their CD cover. The Lichtenstein estate then tried to sue them because Roy had previously swiped the same image. The case was eventually dismissed because it was proved that the painting used in the CD cover was swiped from the same source and (unlike Lichtenstein) they credited the original artist of the comic image.

In a related controversy, this popped up in the same thread:

When Brian Holland had his work swiped by "fine artist" Erro, he wrote him a letter including this: "What this is is a kind of colonialism. You, Erró, have found a place for yourself in the land of the Fine Art Elite, in "Gallery-land", and you have gone out and discovered a dark continent inhabited by pygmies – barely more than savages really – people with a colourful but primitive culture. Like the Victorian explorers you find what they do ghastly but somehow alluring so you steal from them, give them nothing in return and dismiss them. You display bits of their infantile and garish nonsense in what you call a "synthesis" on a gallery wall in the civilised world, something which has nothing whatsoever to do with giving a full and accurate "report" on the stuff you steal or the people you steal it from. It's more to do with the titillation of your peers. You'd like them to be shocked by the vulgarity of the artefacts you're bringing back from whatever nasty place you've been to but appreciate them (and you, of course) in that post-modern kind of way. One reviewer of your work said "I don't know where Erró finds all that stuff". Luckily for you she and other inhabitants of the galleries don't know the names of the people you steal from and you're not in a hurry to list them. You're exploiting people like me, not because you're a "witness to our time" but because you want to turn the base metal of comics into art gold – and you'd like to have a lucrative career in Gallery-land." I'd imagine Lichtenstein had a similar viewpoint.

View attachment 29889

When I first ran into Lichtenstein's work I thought he did parodies of comic book art, and thought it rather clever. Then I found out that, er, he actually just did large reproductions of comic book art.

If these folks (dare I call them cultural appropriationists?) could draw half as well as the comic book artists they steal from, they could have done great parodies of and commentaries on popular art. Instead they just do bland recycles.

Now I don't want to get into an endless debate about which of "fine art" and "mere illustration" is best, but I find it noteworthy that lots of "mere illustrators" have no trouble doing genuine parodies and pastiches of "fine art," whereas somehow, lots of today's "fine artists" do not have the technical wherewithal to do the same with "mere illustration."

I'll bet good money Pollock could not have pulled off the above painting.

 

[Bartc]

Much of this debate centers upon the notion of differentiating so-called "fine art" from "lesser" art forms such as illustrations, comics, etc... The idea of Lichtenstein's work is largely that the context has been changed from the lowly comic to high serious art (not unlike Duchamp's use of the urinal).

It has always seemed to me that Art is Art. Some is Good. Some is Bad. Some is Great... and most is Mediocre. This is true no matter the use or intentions of the artist. We can argue that a hell of a lot of the greatest art from across the centuries was primarily created as illustration or decoration or other "lesser" purposes, while a hell of a lot of the crap shown in galleries that is deemed as "fine art" is actually quite bad.

While I agree with the second paragraph, I don't with the first. The argument here isn't about "fine" vs. "lesser" art. It's about stealing someone else's work so blatantly and selling it as your own. (BTW, not into the urinal thing, but absolutely adore Picasso's "Bull" made of bike seat and handlebar.)

Teaching/learning painting has always relied heavily on copying masterworks. Many art masters used a workshop of apprentices to copy their own works. In some cultures copying is considered high homage. But when you're selling something as your own without attribution, in today's commercial/legal sense it's just theft. Parody relies on copying to some degree and copyright law (as I read it) allows for parody when it's obvious enough that it isn't direct competition. Lichtenstein was just stealing, in my humble opinion.

As usual, the legal world and social mores are behind the technological advances, so AI copying isn't yet sorted out. Wonder when it will be? Certainly unlikely that individual artists have the means to tackle it to the Supreme Court or Congress, but you can bet it will happen when corporations feel the heat from loss of their Intellectual Property (IP).

 

[Marc]

It's been claimed that he took the replaced plane type ( A P51 Mustang? which doesn't shoot rockets BTW)) from another issue of the same comic All-American Men of War, in this case issue 90 by Jerry Grandenetti. Then montaged it in.

 

[Artyczar]

Jeez, that Norman Rockwell piece is brilliant.

 

[Bartc]

Jeez, that Norman Rockwell piece is brilliant.

Totally agree!