Feb 2nd 2011 By: Brian Childs
Deconstructing Lichtenstein: Source Comics Revealed and Credited
Needless to say, Roy Lichtenstein has few fans in the comic book industry. Art Spieglman, author of Maus, summarized the industry's feelings in an interview with Publishers Weekly. "Lichtenstein did no more or less for comics than Andy Warhol did for soup."
David Barsalou has been working for 32 years to track down Lichenstein's source material and shine light on the original comic book artists. His work is exhaustive, with over 1200 fascinating images on Flickr showcasing not just the published comic book material but also Lichtenstein's original drawings. Many of the images are accompanied by essays on the project from newspapers and journals, as well as biographies of the original artists.
"I don't think the people who have been saying Lichtenstein is so great have even seen the source material," David Barsalou told ComicsAlliance. "It's not like there is that much difference to deny that they were just copied. We're talking about things that sold in the millions of dollars!"
After the jump, more from Deconstructing Lichtenstein, David Barsalou, The Kirby Museum, and William Overgard, one of the artists whose work was "covered" by Lichtenstein.
David Barsalou: I butted heads with the Roy Lichtenstein foundation on a few occasions. They don't want to acknowledge that the comic book artists are real artists. In one article written in the Boston Globe, Jack Cowart referred to the original comic book artists as drawers. Which is insulting, they're artists.
On KirbyMuseum.org, Harry Mendryk writes:
"Although it is frequently cited that Irv did superhero work for MLJ until 1946, in fact, like many artists, Irv spent some time in the military. During that time Irv befriended Roy Lichtenstein, getting him out of manual work and helping Roy get a job that used his artistic talents. Of course no good deed goes unpunished, after the war Lichenstein became a highly paid pop artist by painting greatly enlarged copies of comic book art originally drawn by a variety of comic artists, including Irv Novick."
From TIME MAGAZINE Letters Section MAY 17,1963 William Overgard writes:
Sir: As a cartoonist I was interested in Roy Lichtenstein's comments on comic strips in your article on Pop Art. Though he may not, as he says, copy them exactly. Lichtenstein in his painting currently being shown at the Guggenheim comes pretty close to the last panel of my Steve Roper Sunday page of August 6,1961. Very flattering...I think ?
William Overgard
David Barsalou: Every time I dig deeper, I find he was taking other people's ideas and making them his own. It wasn't until later on when this information came out little-by-little, and when the Internet hit, it was almost like detective work. I'm not saying I totally despise him, but I think if he was still alive he would have been easier to deal with. The foundation just wants to preserve his status in the art world.
In fact they tried to shut me down. They sent me a nasty letter about how I'm not supposed to use these images because they're copyrighted. How do they put this in print? Roy Lichtenstein took these images form copyrighted material 40 years ago!
David Barsalou: There are hardcore art world people who think he [Lichtenstein] was the greatest thing and that these guys weren't real artists. If these guys were so bad, why was Lichtenstein copying them? And he really got lazy, by 1963-64 he was taking the image, tracing it, sticking it in a projector and painting it. And when that painting sells for millions of dollars, it just really bothers me that nothing is given to the original artists. There's got to be some way to right this wrong. A lot of these guys are old, and who knows how much longer they have to live. It reminds me of the battle that Siegel and Shuster went through trying to get the rights back for Superman.
We here at ComicsAlliance were hoping to place the text of the authentications page of the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation's website. You see, it is very important that a painting worth millions of dollars can be properly verified as being the work of Roy Lichtenstein and not a copy. If the authenticity of a painting is in doubt, it devalues the work.
Unfortunately, when we went to their site, we were greeted with a warning that no texts, photographs can be reproduced in any form without their permission. Grrrrrrrr!
Add a Comment
For a brief period in time, Marvel put Pop Art Productions under their company logo. Obviously this has something to do with the Pop Art movement, but does anybody know what they were trying to go for? was it a deliberate response to Lichtenstein? Was it an attempt to position their comics as "high art"? I've always been curious.
scroll down to issues 19-22 to see what I mean.
http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/avengers
Let's see...one of his paints sells for 45 million in November. Times that by 150 swipes, times all the limited editions, tshirts, post cards...and so forth. You are now in the BILLIONS.
Then look at who the original artists are and how much they were recognized and appreciated - symbolized by a royalty...for example, Russ Heath who is in his 80's and needs to do commissions for a 100.00 here, 50.00 there just to get by...
Russ did BLAM! (which by the way I had him recreate for me) and gets nothing. nadda. zip.
A man steals art and sells it as his own and makes BILLIONS. Does this seem fair to you?
I think we're disappearing a bit too far into academia (and I usually don't have a problem with that) but the sheer amount of inference in regard to Lichtenstein's actual artist contributions to "his" supposed art.
Lichtenstein made amateurish renditions of art made by better people and better artists than him. All the art theory in the world isn't going to cloud the issue that he plagerized others for a profit. It's not like Andy Warhol, who actually made an effort and did some honest to god work. Lichtenstein didn't reappropriate anything; that's just wistful apophenia.
Photocoping a picture and cropping it slightly different is still stealing. And most of us wouldn't give a shit, if the people he stole from didn't even die or live in poverty and have to beg for scraps everytime they need life-saving surgery.
Additional Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein sites...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/
http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=230408213304
Unless I'm mistaken, the content and composition of Lichtenstein's work is largely lifted straight off the comics page he was copying.
He always seemed like a bit of a con artist, but it's saddening to find out how many artists have gone without credit or remuneration for what is, in the end, their work.
So many typos in that. Forget it.
February 02 2011 at 4:47 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThis article is grossly biased and laregely misinformed. The original comic artists have been given credit for their work by "the art world;" the presumed genius of Roy Lichtenstein is not assigned to a supposed satire of the comic idiom in a fine art context, and the value of a Lichtenstein painting or print is for the most part determined by the art market not by some elusive intrinsic value that the paintings supposedly have and the comics do not.
The basis of this article seems to be the long defunct perception that art is categorized in some sort of linear hierarchy with what is traditionally deemed commerical art (such as comics) diametrically positioned to what is considered fine or high art (such as Lichtenstein's paintings). Most Lichtenstein scholars, since roughly 1968 with the publication of Albert Boime's article "Roy Lichtenstein and the Comic Strip" focus on the content and composition of Lichtenstein's paintings as opposed to the comic source because those are the formal issues that they are interested in, not because they do not believe that comic art is non-art. Not to mention, even the highly flawed but comprehensive exhibition catalog, High and Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture of 1991 gives due deference both the the history of comics and the comic artists that provided Lichtenstein with his source images.(As a side, Duchamp has no place in this discussion--at all.)
David Barsalou's "Deconstructing Lichtenstein" should be commended for the incredible work that Barsalou has done in finding the source material for these paintings and bringing light to a relatively marginalized group of artists. In doing so, though, this does not qualify a group of casual observers to condemn an artist whose work goes beyond mere appropriation.
The original panels could be made into fine art prints (with permission from the copyright holders) and made available to the public, with the proceeds going to the artists (or their families).
That could generate both money, and publicity.
It would be interesting to see the Lichtenstein Foundation try to issue a Cease and desist order against the sale, or public exhibition of artwork Lichtenstein had copied.
I didn't know this either. Good article.
February 02 2011 at 1:05 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThe biggest barrier to getting Lichtenstein/Lichtenstein-fans to concede to comics artists actually being artists is that it would undercut the entire foundation of the man's thesis to do so.
His whole shtick as a pop artist was to go "Hey! Here's some visually pleasing but definite non-art that I've repurposed and stuck in a museum, thus transforming it into art! Man, I am all like Duchamp up in here!" As soon as you accept that his source material was art to begin with, the idea of "transforming" it into "real" art becomes meaningless. And this is pretty much the only thing he did in his whole stupid career that anyone cares about, so... yeah, the Lichtenstein-backers aren't going to let go of their snobbery anytime soon.
I disagree -- I would argue that what Lichtenstein was doing was a critique of the very art-world snobbery you're accusing him of. Acknowledging that the original artwork WAS in fact art and changing its context doesn't actually make it any more intrinsically valuable doesn't undercut his thesis, it IS his thesis.
That said, if the article is accurate then there are some Lichtenstein supporters clearly missing the damn point here. I guess I'll take "drawers" if they'll take "tracer".
As for where I stand on Lichtenstein personally, it's hard to say. I support copyright allowances for derivative works, and I don't think he should be legally obligated to pay royalties to the owners of the original panels (who of course aren't the artists anyway, they're the publishers). But offering credit and compensation to the original artists would be the right thing to do.
And of course I think it's absurd that his works are considered high art while the original works aren't. But I don't think it's fair to blame the artist for (some of) the art community missing the point.
Follow Us
Most Popular Posts
Features

The 11 Best Comics of 2011
A countdown of the must-read books of the year.


































21 Comments