new icn messageflickr-free-ic3d pan white
LOOK MICKEY  DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN © 2000 DAVID BARSALOU | by David Barsalou MFA
Back to photostream

LOOK MICKEY DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN © 2000 DAVID BARSALOU

LOOK MICKEY : ORIGINAL SOURCE IMAGE DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN © 2000 DAVID BARSALOU

 

LOOK MICKEY: Original Source

Original Artists: Bob Grant, Bob Totten

 

If everyone (including Lichtenstein) believed the Look Mickey source was a Bazooka bubble gum wrapper… How could Diane Waldman have written the following statement ? It's nowhere near the truth, and sounds completely fabricated.

 

"Look Mickey conveys a more explicit sense of the original source than the later cartoons. The image appears intact, transferred and enlarged but little else. It faithfully duplicates the illustrative and narrative framework of the original down to a cursory spatial setting indicated primarily by the receding plank and the position of the waves."

 

"Look Mickey is one of several paintings that Lichtenstein did in the Spring and Summer of 1961."

 

Roy Lichtenstein

Diane Waldman

Harry N. Abrams 1971

8109-0256-7

 

- Lichtenstein's first documented source date is July 16, 1961

 

03/20/1961 - First Day of Spring

 

06/21/1961 - First Day of Summer

 

April, 1961 - Andy Warhol shows at Bonwit Teller NYC

 

There are even more Historical discrepancies in the 1993 Waldman edition. It appears she is determined to prove that Lichtenstein did his Comic Book paintings first. Based on my research into the exact dates. Warhol did it 6 months before Lichtenstein.

 

~ Graham Bader claims that he discovered the source image to Look Mickey...

 

The following E-Mail messages prove that he is both a LIAR and a PLAGIARIST.

 

1. David Barsalou MFA discovers the Original Source Image for LOOK MICKEY in December 2000.

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein™ © 2000

 

2. December 2000 - David Barsalou MFA publishes the Original Source to Look Mickey

on his copyrighted website Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein™ © 2000

 

3. September 2002

From : Graham Bader Sent : Monday, September 23, 2002 2:20 AM To : David Barsalou

Subject : Look Mickey

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou, I am a graduate student in Art History currently working on Roy Lichtenstein, and am very interested in finding out more about the original source material for "Look Mickey," which I understand you have located. Any information you could pass on would be much appreciated. I can be reached either at this email address or by phone, at 617-547-6183. Many thanks for your help!

Graham Bader

 

4. 2007

Graham Bader is responsible for finding the actual source for the painting which is from A Little Golden Book written by Carl Buettner with pictures by Bob Grant and Bob Totten entitled Walt Disney’s Donald Duck, Lost and Found (New York: Golden Press, 1960). Lichtenstein’s recollection of the source for Look Mickey most often included the idea that it came from one of his children’s ‘bubble gum wrappers.” See . Allan Kaprow is on record as well that he and Lichtenstein discussed that art could be made from a “bubble gum wrapper.” Most likely, Lichtenstein’s memory of the actual source was simply a conflation of his and Kaprow’s discussions and things his children had around them.

 

The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, 2007 Lichtenstein: A Chronology By Clare Bell

 

5. 2007 Clare Bell of The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation claims that Graham Bader found the original source to LOOK MICKEY… This is an OUTRIGHT LIE !!

 

6. Cassandra Lozano

The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation 2001

 

Letter in reference to me finding the original source image to Look Mickey in December 2000.

 

Subject:

LOOK MICKEY ORIGINAL SOURCE IMAGE

Date:

Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:10:47 -0500

From:

"Cassandra Lozano"

To:

DAVID BARSALOU cbjb@javanet.com

 

Email me a picture!

Are you sure?

We are offering a small reward!

 

Cassandra Lozano

Managing Director

Roy Lichtenstein Foundation

745 Washington Street

New York, NY 10014

(212) 255-4570 ext: 2

fax: (212) 727-3138

clozano@lichtensteinfoundation.org

 

7. From: Jack Cowart January, 2002

 

Jack Cowart : Executive Director The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation.

2002

Look Mickey

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:31:26 -0500

From: "Jack Cowart"

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou,

We are delighted with your Look Mickey source find. I have fowarded your information to the National Gallery of Art, department of modern and contemporary art, since they own that painting and we have all anguished over its source for years. This is a wonderful addition to scholarship and I am sure they will delight in getting the exact citation. Throughout our catalogue raisonne process "sources" are a central item of Lichtenstein and we are pleased to find you so engaged in it, also.

More later.

Regards.

Jack Cowart

Executive Director

The Roy Lichtenstein

Foundation.

 

The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation now says that Graham Bader found the source to LOOK MICKEY… This is an OUTRIGHT LIE !!

 

December 2000 - David Barsalou publishes the Original Source to Look Mickey on his website Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein™ © 2000

 

Subject: Look Mickey 2002

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:31:26 -0500

From: "Jack Cowart"

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou,

We are delighted with your Look Mickey source find. I have fowarded your information to the National Gallery of Art, department of modern and contemporary art, since they own that painting and we have all anguished over its source for years. This is a wonderful addition to scholarship and I am sure they will delight in getting the exact citation. Throughout our catalogue raisonne process "sources" are a central item of Lichtenstein and we are pleased to find you so engaged in it,also.

More later.

Regards.

Jack Cowart

Executive Director

The Roy Lichtenstein

Foundation.

 

2007: The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation now says that Graham Bader found the source to LOOK MICKEY… This is an OUTRIGHT LIE !!

 

- David Barsalou found the original source to LOOK MICKEY in December 2000. It was published on my website in December 2000.

 

- Seven years later Graham Bader claims he discovered it !

Graham, are you so desperate for some notoriety in the Art world that you have a need to LIE ?

 

-And why do the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, and Graham Bader continue

to perpetuate this obvious LIE ?

 

Graham's Bader's Dumbness

The following E-Mail messages are from Graham Bader:

Beginning on September 23, 2002

 

- Check out his e-mail messages to me beginning in 2002. (below)

- THE TRUTH IS WHAT IT IS -

 

2002

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Monday, September 23, 2002 2:20 AM

To : David Barsalou

Subject : Look Mickey

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou,

 

I am an graduate student in Art History currently working on Roy Lichtenstein, and am very interested in finding out more about the original source material for "Look Mickey," which I understand you have located. Any information you could pass on would be much appreciated. I can be reached either at this email address or by phone, at 617-547-6183.

 

Many thanks for your help!

 

Graham Bader

 

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN wrote:

 

Roy Lichtenstein spent nearly 40 years telling the story that "Look Mickey" came from a bubble gum wrapper. Why did he hide the truth ? This is the question you should be asking. In numerous books and interviews he states this as fact. My research proves "Look Mickey" was copied from a comic source.

 

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Monday, September 23, 2002 5:18 PM

To : DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

Subject : Re: Look Mickey

 

Yes, it is a very interesting question, one I'm not sure how to answer.

It seems that once a certain story got started (about the bubble gum

wrapper, which it appears Allan Kaprow was discussing when Lichtenstein first showed him the painting), it just got repeated and repeated until taken as fact. Can I ask what comic source you've identified, or at least what decade, context, publisher, etc? Any information you have would be much appreciated.

 

thanks again,

Graham Bader

 

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN wrote:

I would rather not share specific facts at this time.( The Roy

Lichtenstein Foundation needs the same information.) I spent 22 years searching for "The Holy Grail" of Lichtenstein sources, &

I'm presently using it in my own research.

David Barsalou

 

Graham Bader Sent : Monday, September 23, 2002 7:25 PMTo : DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN Subject :

Re: Look Mickey

 

I understand your reticence (it is the Holy Grail, indeed), but do please let me know if there's anything you'd like to share. Of course I'd give you full credit for any findings you pass on. Could I just ask

the decade of origin of the source image you've found?

 

thanks,

Graham

 

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Friday, October 11, 2002 11:31 PM

To : DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

Subject : Re: Look Mickey

 

Hi, with another question about your discovery--

 

Do you know if Donald's exclamation in "Look Mickey"--"Look Mickey, I've

hooked a big one!!"--is included in his source image? If so, did

Lichtenstein change the original wording at all? If not, did he take it from another panel in the same comic, or from somewhere else, or did he just invent it?

 

Thanks!

Graham Bader

 

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:49 PM

To : David Barsalou

Subject : Look Mickey

 

Dear David,

I emailed you a few years back asking about the source image you uncovered for Roy Lichtenstein's Look Mickey, and am writing now to ask for your help again. I am planning to publish an essay on Look Mickey in the Oxford Art Journal, a British scholarly journal, and would like to include your find in my article and bring people's attention to the work you are doing. I don't have a clean copy of the image, though, nor any information regarding where it came from. Would you be willing to share these with me to help with this article? Your work has been incredibly important, and I'd like both to inform people about your insights and help introduce your efforts to the broader art historical community. I do hope you can help!

 

Many thanks,

Graham Bader

 

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:12 PM

To : "DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN"

Subject : RE: Look Mickey

 

Dear David,

I'm very sorry to hear of your loss, and greatly appreciate your response in what I'm sure is a trying time. Let's be in touch soon and we can figure out a plan to meet. I very much look forward to talking to you about your work.

 

Best regards,

Graham

 

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Thursday, December 9, 2004 7:27 PM

To : "DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN"

Subject : RE: Look Mickey

 

Dear David,

 

I hope things are well with you. I wanted to ask if you might have some time this month to discuss your work on Roy Lichtenstein's "Look Mickey," either over the phone or in person. I'm very anxious to move forward with my article and would love to hear your thoughts and ideas regarding Lichtenstein's work.

All best,

Graham Bader

 

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:11 PM

To : "DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN"

Subject : RE: Look Mickey

 

Dear David,

 

Hi again, after a long absence--if you forget, I'm the one planning to publish an article on Look Mickey who was interested in talking with you about your work on the painting. (I unfortunately got sick after we last corresponded in December and ended up having to delay the article, hence the long delay since I last wrote.) Would it be convenient for me to call you this weekend? I very much look forward to discussing your research!

 

All best,

Graham Bader

 

To: "DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN"

 

Subject: RE: Look Mickey

Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 21:42:08 -0400

 

Hi David,

 

Thanks again for talking with me today--I really enjoyed it. And though it's of course frustrating for me as a researcher, I do understand your reticence to share your findings. I only wish the Lichtenstein Foundation had been a bit more welcoming back in 2000!

 

As we discussed, I would be extremely grateful if you could send me a digital file of the Look Mickey source image to reproduce with my article. I'll be sure to credit you and include a reference to your website. Many, many thanks in advance for your help!

 

All best,

Graham

 

-----Original Message-----

From: DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

[mailto:deconstructingroylichtenstein@hotmail.com]

Sent: Mon 5/23/2005 8:48 AM

To: Graham Bader

Cc: deconstructingroylichtenstein@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: Look Mickey

 

Graham... Please credit Deconstructing Roy

Lichtenstein (c) 2000 by David Barsalou

& Include the URL for my site.

davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:01 PM

To : "DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN"

Subject : RE: Look Mickey

David, thanks so much for this. I'll be sure to credit you and include a link to your site. I'll be in touch once the article is out.

 

All best,

Graham

 

From : Graham Bader

Sent : Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:52 PM

To : "DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN"

Subject : RE: MICKEY 1

 

Thanks, David. You've been a huge help throughout this process.

Graham

 

To : RICE UNIVERSITY'S GRAHAM BADER

 

Graham... PLEASE STOP STEALING MY RESEARCH. I STARTED THIS PROJECT IN 1979 . WHERE WERE YOU IN 1979 ?

 

Dave, It sure looks like Graham Bader learned the "Art of Stealing" from his idol, Roy Lichtenstein. JK

 

Posted : The Boston Globe on Oct-20 12:10 AM

It seems to me that the Lichtenstein Foundation is GREEN WITH ENVY. Did you know that Art Teacher David Barsalou was the first person in the world to identify the source image for "LOOK MICKEY" the most prolific of Roy Lichtenstein's work? I find the comment made by the foundation that "we find Barsalou boring" in no way shocking, coming from the elitist snobs who are out of touch with main stream America. It is ironic how they so diligently protect the copyrights of Roy's work and give little to no credence to the aricle written here. Assuredly, the foundation would take any and all legal actions to protect their rights to Lichtenstein's work.

 

Molly Donovan

Look Mickey

From: Molly Donovan (M-DONOVAN@nga.gov)

Sent: Wed 2/20/02 9:39 PM To: deconstructingroylichtenstein@hotmail.com

 

February 20, 2002

Dear Mr. Barsalou,

 

I have recently heard of your discovery of the sources for many of Roy Lichtenstein's images. What an impressive project. I have browsed your web site gallery, but have not seen the source for Look Mickey . I would be extremely interested to know if you have located the source for that painting as well. If so, it would be important information to add to the record for this seminal painting. I hope your show continues to be well received and I look forward to hearing more about your discoveries. Until then, I am,

 

Sincerely,

Molly Donovan

Assistant Curator

Modern and Contemporary Art

National Gallery of Art

 

Subject:

Re: "LOOK MICKEY"

Date:

Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:48:28 -0500

From:

"Molly Donovan"

To:

 

February 21, 2002

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou,

 

Thank you for your message. I certainly can appreciate the amount of time it took you to locate the source for Look Mickey . We too have been looking on and off for many years. I am not clear, however, about any connection between our interest in knowing the source and your relationship with the Lichtenstein Foundation. They seem like two different matters. Please explain if otherwise. It would be a shame not to have this information for future studies of the painting.

 

Sincerely,

 

Molly Donovan

Assistant Curator

Modern and Contemporary Art

National Gallery of Art

 

Graham's Dumbness...

It's interesting that critic Graham Bader's recent discourse in the OXFORD ART JOURNAL claims that the source image for "LOOK MICKEY" was never published before. It's been exhibited & digitally published on my copyrighted website DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN © 2000 for the last NINE years.

 

davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN © 2000

 

davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

From : DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

Sent : Tuesday, March 7, 2006 1:26 PM

To : oxfordonline@oup.com Oxford Art Journal

CC : deconstructingroylichtenstein@hotmail.com

Subject : Plagiarism by Graham Bader

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

This is a follow up to a prior e-mail sent regarding Graham Bader’s article in your journal on “Look Mickey”. Copies of e-mails depicting prior correspondence I had with him date back to September 23, 2002. Mr. Bader’s incredulous behavior in failing to acknowledge my life’s work as an Art Historian can only be interpreted as deliberate, as he gave me not only his word, but written assurances that he would publish my website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein which is copyrighted 2000 in the article, in exchange for my expertise. It is apparent that his motivations in omitting the bibliographical credit to me were to bolster his reputation as an art historian and his career aspirations. This is morally and legally reprehensible especially since he is a professor of academia and plagiarism is not only illegal but totally unacceptable, especially in the academic arena. I believed Mr. Bader to be a man of great integrity and agreed to help him as a means to promote my art research project which began over 26 years ago. Obviously this perception was a complete misjudgment on my part. Please note that it is NOT my intention to discredit your university in any way. However, as the publisher of this article, it is my contention that you have a moral and legal obligation to correct the record. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that the Oxford Art Journal and I can come to a reasonable and equitable resolution. I am eager to resolve this matter as expeditiously as possible.

Respectfully,

David Barsalou

 

In Graham Bader's recent article in the Oxford Art Journal he claimed the source image for "LOOK MICKEY" was never published before. It has been published on my copyrighted website

"DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN" for SIX years.

In the bibliography he never mentions my website, or the website address. Essentially stealing my research information. He gave me virtually no credit for an Art History project which I began in 1979. Check it out for yourself… All the URL'S to my sites & all the e-mails from Mr. Bader beginning

in 2002 are included in this message.

As an Art Historian... I find this to be a personal insult, and an affront to my reputation.

David Barsalou

 

OUTRIGHT LIE 2007

Graham Bader is the PLAGIARIST who stole my research... And claimed it as his own !

 

Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, 2007

© Revised and expanded edition,

Lichtenstein: A Chronology

By Clare Bell

 

2007 Revisionist History = LIES

The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation says:

Graham Bader is responsible for finding the actual source for the painting which is from A Little Golden Book written by Carl Buettner with pictures by Bob Grant and Bob Totten entitled Walt Disney’s Donald Duck, Lost and Found (New York: Golden Press, 1960). Lichtenstein’s recollection of the source for Look Mickey most often included the idea that it came from one of his children’s ‘bubble gum wrappers.” See . Allan Kaprow is on record as well that he and Lichtenstein discussed that art could be made from a “bubble gum wrapper.” Most likely, Lichtenstein’s memory of the actual source was simply a conflation of his and Kaprow’s discussions and things his children had around them.

 

Look Mickey

Evaluation of Look Mickey

 

"Look Mickey" was painted in 1961 by Roy Lichtenstein in Columbus, Ohio. It is one of the first comic book reproductions he experiences relative success with. The painting is based off of an early Walt Disney cartoon with Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. His inspiration for the painting came from his sons, David and Mitchell, who once said to their father: "Hey dad, I bet you can't paint as good as this!" The painting is oil on canvas and measures 48 by 69 inches. In the painting, Donald exclaims to Mickey how he has hooked "a big one". Judging by the expression on Mickey's face, he notices that Donald has only hooked the back end of his pants and is about to jerk himself into the water. However, Mickey is too overcome with laughter to warn his friend of the impending disaster. In the speech bubble above Donald's head, the words look and big are in bold type. This highlights Donald's pride and surprise of his apparent achievement. The balance of the painting leans to the right, which emphasizes what Donald is doing. The perspective of the deck they are standing on seems to be tilting towards the water, favoring Donald's imminent fall. There is no value in this artwork, only shape and line. The transparency of the tan color in Mickey's face blends in too well with the whites of his eyes making it seem as though he only has pupils. The lines on the posts are broken and in the shape of the letter C, suggesting the posts are made out of wood. The V shape on the post in the foreground suggests that it was hastily cut and adds a small amount of texture to the painting. In the water below Donald, waves are depicted by the use of contour line. This painting was done in primary colors with the addition of black and white. The color scheme lends itself to the humorous elements of the scene. The overall mood of the painting is light hearted and funny. The dominant color is yellow. On the right side of the painting there is a white blotch on the deck. This abrupt change in color could be implying that that part of the deck is wet is stained. Aside from what it could literally be, I believe it serves as an area of white space to balance the speech bubble. I don not believe the subject matter is a metaphor for anything or has any sheaved meaning. In fact, I believe Lichtenstein created this painting just to be a vessel to showcase the style of pop art. Although the painting was created with an excellent degree of craftsmanship, it looks like it was created by a machine and not a human being. Without the personal element present, the painting looks commercial. In fact, compared to the original painting done by Bob Grant and Bob Totten, it is flat, lifeless, and devoid of talent (Barsalou). There is absolutely no originality present whatsoever; the subject matter was flagrantly stolen from Walt Disney. I am personal surprised that Lichtenstein has not been sued for any of the royalties from paintings like this.

 

-Mark Berry. Roy Lichtenstein: Deconstructing a Contemporary

 

Monday, February 12, 2007

 

cinerati.blogspot.com/2007/02/lichtenstein-revisted.html

Friday, February 16, 2007

Lichtenstein Revisted

 

When it comes to the Pop Art of Roy Lichtenstein, I am of two minds. One the one hand, I like the fact that he demonstrated that the draftsmanship of comic books was worthy of being considered Art. On the other hand, his demonstrations pretty much had the exact opposite effect when it comes to how the art world looked at comics. Most people look at a Lichtenstein and they thing that he elevated the image by making the common into the grand, the low into the high. Personally, I think those people are absolutely nuts.

 

I like the Lichtenstein comic series, but his artwork is actually inferior in craft to the ones that he lifted whole cloth from the pages of the "funny mags." Alex Beam of the Boston Globe has an article discussing whether or not Lichtenstein was a Creator or a Copycat that was written last October. It's a good read, and it directs you to David Barsalou's enlightening site "Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein." At the deconstructing site, Barsalou displays many of Lichtenstein's most famous pieces next to the comic pages they are "inspired" by. I'll leave it to you to decide whether the images are copycats or not, but I will say that the original version of "Kiss II" with the weird "emanation" lines is far more moving aesthetically than the "explosion" that Lichtenstein gives it and that the different backgrounds (in that one particular image) changes the meaning significantly. The Lichtenstein Foundation adamantly asserts that Lichtenstein added considerable value and alterations to the images that inspired him, but that's their job.I am reminded of a conversation in The Philosophy of Andy Warhol where Andy is discussing Art with "Damian."

 

Damian: "I guess you have to take a lot of risks to be famous in any field...For instance, to be an artist."

 

Andy: "Any time you slice a salami, you take a risk."

 

Damian: "No, but I mean for an artist--"

 

Andy: "An artist!!...What do you mean, an 'artist'? An artist can slice a salami, too! Why do people think artists are special? It's just another job."

 

Damian: "But to become a famous artist you had to do something that was 'different.' And if it was 'different,' then it means you took a risk, because the critics could have said it was bad instead of good."

 

Andy: "In the first place,...they usually did say it was bad. And in the second place, if you say that artists take 'risks,' it's insulting to the men who landed on D-Day, to stunt men, to baby-sitters, to Evel Knievel, to stepdaughters, to coal miners, and to hitch-hikers, because they're the ones who really know what 'risks' are."

 

I just love the fact that he says that "artists" don't take risks, Evel Knievel takes risks. Though I imagine, if you pressed him, Warhol might say that Knievel also made art. But that is another discussion. I just wanted to highlight the Evel Knievel quote because I am going to see Ghost Rider this evening and Johnny Blaze is nothing if not inspired by Evel Knievel...but with a flaming head.

 

loretomartin.blogspot.com/2007/01/art-and-comics.html

 

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Art and Comics

 

Comics have influenced contemporary art for decades. By appropriating imagery from comics in the early '60s, pop artists Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, and Mel Ramos equalized high and low culture and helped establish four-color characters as viable artistic subjects.

 

Today's artists rely less on direct reference to comic-book imagery in favor of a more discursive visual style in which comics comprise one star in a dense constellation of cultural references...

 

ArtKrush magazine

January, 2007.

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

The original comic book source images of pop artist Roy Lichtenstein.

 

Posted by loreto martin at 5:07 PM

 

www.deathbyulysses.com/

 

It would seem that Lichtenstein was even less original than many of his existing detractors had thought.

 

The first time that Warhol's large canvases of comic strip characters were exhibited publicly was in April 1961 as part of a window display at the Bonwit Teller department store. Ted Carey discovered afterwards that Roy Lichtenstein was doing similar work.

 

Ted Carey:

 

"... I can remember one Saturday afternoon going into Castelli [Gallery], and I was in looking at a show, and Ivan said, 'Oh, I've got something to show you...' so, we went into the closet and he pulled out this big Pop Art painting, and I can't remember what it was, but it was a cartoon-type painting. And I said, 'It looks like Andy Warhol.' and he said, 'No, it's Roy Lichtenstein.' And I said, 'Well it looks very much like some paintings that Andy is doing.' 'Yes, we've heard that Andy is doing some paintings like this,' he said, 'Leo would like to see them. So, tell Andy to give us a call.'"1

 

When Carey told Warhol of Lichtenstein's paintings, Warhol thought Lichtenstein was copying his ideas.

 

Ted Carey:

 

"... So, I went home and called Andy - no, I think, I went right over to Andy's house... and so, I said, 'Prepare yourself for a shock.' And he said, 'What?' I said, 'Castelli has a closet full of comic paintings.' And he said, 'You're kidding?!' And he said, 'Who did them?' And I said, 'Somebody by the name of Lichtenstein.' Well, Andy turned white. He said, 'Roy Lichtenstein.' He said, 'Roy Lichtenstein used to... ' - as I remember, he used to be a sign painter for Bonwit Teller, and here's where I'm a little bit confused because Andy... couldn't get anybody to show his early cartoon paintings, so he went to Gene Moore and Gene Moore said, 'Well I can put the paintings in the windows...' He put them in the 57th Street window... As I remember, the implication was: Andy felt that Lichtenstein had seen the paintings in the window and gave him the idea to do his paintings. Now, whether this is true or not, I don't know, but at this time, this is what Andy had felt."2

 

Lichtenstein later denied that he had any knowledge of Warhol's comic strip paintings prior to doing his own:

 

Roy Lichtenstein:

 

"I saw Andy's work at Leo Castelli's about the same time I brought mine in, about the spring of 1961... Of course, I was amazed to see Andy's work because he was doing cartoons of Nancy and Dick Tracy and they were similar to mine."3

 

Although Lichtenstein maintains that he saw Warhol's paintings at Castelli's gallery in "about" the Spring of 1961, Castelli did not have any Warhol paintings at that time. The only place they had been exhibited was in April 1961 in the windows of Bonwit Teller. Lichtenstein implies that Castelli was stocking Warhol's work prior to his own, whereas Carey's comments indicate the opposite - and Carey's comments are supported by the recollections of both Leo Castelli and Ivan Karp. Although Lichtenstein had been using comic book imagery in his paintings since 1957, he did not do large canvases reproducing single comic strip panels featuring speech balloons until he painted Look Mickey in the summer of 1961 4 months after he had, by his own admission, seen Warhol's canvases. Warhol had been painting single comic strip panels featuring speech balloons since 1960 - a year earlier than Lichtenstein. It is possible that Lichtenstein, as Warhol suspected, had seen Warhol's paintings at Bonwit Teller, although Lichtenstein never mentioned it in interviews. In any case, Lichtenstein admitted having seen Warhol's cartoon paintings prior to doing his own single panel comic strip paintings featuring speech balloons (Look Mickey) and it is possible he was influenced by Warhol's work.

 

www.planetcrap.com/topics/1126/844/

#868 by G-Man

2006-10-12 02:48:11

[davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html]Lichtenstein swipes[/url] as seen on Boing Boing a year ago,and who reposted it themselves today. Thoughts?

 

#870 by Jibble

2006-10-12 03:01:18

 

#871 by Hugin

2006-10-12 03:21:22

 

Thoughts?

 

Could you be a bit more specific, or give some context?

#872 by Hugin

2006-10-12 03:23:56

What I mean is, all I've got right now is:

 

"Yup, that's totally a bunch of mostly early-to-mid Lichtenstein comic stuff, side by side with the source material."

 

Is there a point you want to debate or something?

#873 by yotsuya

2006-10-12 03:26:02

I think G-Man wants to know if you all think Lichtenstien loved his cats.

#876 by G-Man

2006-10-12 05:57:31

Hugin: I dunno. I was going for a vague troll rather than a Joker-style specific rant troll. But here are some starter arguments: OMG plagiarism. No it is fair use. No it is art. That's not art. Art sucks. We need to redefine art! Wait, if it is art then the original artist should get credit, right? No, the art is in the selection and framing. So can I steal Px's art too? Ow, why did you ounch me in the face? Etc.

#880 by schnee

2006-10-12 07:42:18

 

But here are some starter arguments: OMG plagiarism. No it is fair use. No it is art. That's not art. Art sucks. We need to redefine art! Wait, if it is art then the original artist should get credit, right? No, the art is in the selection and framing. So can I steal Px's art too? Ow, why did you ounch me in the face? Etc.

 

Lichtenstein was a whore, in the same way modern blog 'artists' take photos of the Brooklyn bridge cabling at an odd angle, drop on some type and a twirly 3-d rendered glass thingy, and call it design. The thing they think is so cool that 'only they saw' was, get this, intended that way by the original artist. Recognizing that is not art to me at all, unless you see something that is so goddamn striking and novel that it becomes something else entirely, which I'm not sure his stuff is.

 

Lichtenstein came about because that era had to have someone who was doing that, because that was the zeitgeist. Fuck it all, try something 'new' which is new precisely because it's not, blah blah. Not to mention the fact that the original artwork was better in almost all cases.

 

So, yeah, he has a place in history, but that's not always saying much.

 

I'm not condemning him, though. If I could pull off that trope - i.e. do something asinine and silly and get famous for it - I'd probably run with it, because hey, it's novel, and I have enough mediocre workmanlike stuff in my portfolio already that I'm pretty secure in a career.

#881 by Marsh Davies

2006-10-12 11:16:13

Schnee's pretty much said everything there is to say, but, you know, I would lose precious Pretentiousness Points if I didn't stick my oar in.

 

To react in shock and alarm that Lichtenstein copied his artwork is to miss the point, just as it would be to miss the point about Andy Warhol's many prints not actually being by Andy Warhol.

 

The idea of unoriginality, reproduction and elevating supposedly base media like comics to the level of art was the kernel of Lichtenstein's work. It's conceptual, not material art - all though this is belied its popular perception as iconic.

 

That said, my personal feeling is that such introspective ideas about the nature of art need only be made once. In fact, as with most conceptual art, the point would be more effectively made if you just described it, and didn't bother making the art. This stuff makes good essays and boring art, in my opinion. And Lichtenstein's continual ploughing of this furrow makes him a hack, albeit one of some importance to post-modernity. Same with Warhol. That's the shittiness of the art world for you. And there are still conceptual artists making the same point over and over again. But I guess whilst the Daily Mail reading masses and so on are still outraged by it, then it still has some use.

#882 by CheesyPoof

2006-10-12 14:37:07

Is it showing my ignorance something terrible to say I never heard of Lichtenstein before?

#885 by Jibble

2006-10-12 14:55:06

It's not any worse than Duchamp's Readymades. That's really all I have to say on the subject.

#887 by Jibble

2006-10-12 15:33:29

Don't you see? It merely asks a little something of the viewer. It asks, it begs, am I art? Can I hang in your galleries?

 

#888 by Hugin

2006-10-12 15:39:27

Litchenstein, among others in the pop art movement, helped to change our society's perception of it's own cultural infrastructure, in fact, it helped our society recognize it had a cultural infrastructure at all. Societies are generally horrible at deconstructing themselves, and pop art, approached intelligently, can help with that.

 

Plus, it performed some degree of service merely by partially collapsing or vertically integrating "high" and "low" culture. People who bemoan that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction generally overstate the case, or have a fairly ahistorical view of art and craft in cultures, especially in modern western society.

#892 by Penguinx

2006-10-12 15:45:16

While I understand the value of the conceptual fibble-fabble, the thing I come away with is that the original comic artists had way better brush control.

#893 by bago

2006-10-12 15:49:10

manga_Rando@hotmail.com Wow, I wound up being in the center of this one.

 

#894 by Hugin

2006-10-12 15:53:50

 

#881 by Marsh Davies

 

That said, my personal feeling is that such introspective ideas about the nature of art need only be made once.

 

I disagree. Cultures have such an overwhelming weight of inertia, and people are so difficult to introduce new ideas to, especially ideas that conflict with their internal worldview, a little (or a lot) of repetition doesn't hurt.

 

In fact, as with most conceptual art, the point would be more effectively made if you just described it, and didn't bother making the art. This stuff makes good essays and boring art, in my opinion.

 

Again I disagree. I think it's a lot harder for essays to speak to people at the instinctive level than good art can. It's such a cliche, but a piscture (or sculpture or whatever) is worth a thousand words when it comes to shifting people's perceptions, if done well. Of course, some, probably most pop art is either redundant or crap, but most of everything is redundant or crap. No attack on pop art related to unorigonality or volume or redundancy can't be leveled with equal severity at other major/popular art movements. I mean, Impressionism? Surrealism? Folk/Outsider? How much wank and dross comprises those piles?

And Lichtenstein's continual ploughing of this furrow makes him a hack, albeit one of some importance to post-modernity. Same with Warhol. That's the shittiness of the art world for you.

 

Enh, as I said above, nearly every great artist (and this is true of people like scientists and mathematicians as well) have a couple great ideas in them, and probably some level of compulsion tying them to the pursuit of those ideas. A lifetime of churn will produce a handful of essential pieces (books, theorems, patents etc), everything else will be a commentary on/repudiation of those pieces, practice/foundation for those pieces, or crap.

 

And there are still conceptual artists making the same point over and over again. But I guess whilst the Daily Mail reading masses and so on are still outraged by it, then it still has some use.

 

David Barsalou

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein © 2000

deconstructingroylichtenstein@hotmail.com

 

Разбирая Рой Lichtenstein

 

1960's Pop Art

 

National Gallery of Art

Washington D.C.

www.nga.gov

Look Mickey, 1961. Oil on canvas

48 x 69 inches; 121.9 x 175.3 cm

 

mickey mouse donald duck lichtenstein barsalou

 

Carl Buettner

(Carl Von Buettner)

(1903 - 1965

Carl Buettner was an artist of Disney comics from the 1940s. Coming from a family with German origins, Buettner was born in 1903 in Minneapolis. There, he studied at the Federal School of Art until the 1930s. In 1935 he cooperated on the satirical Captain Billy's Whiz Bang magazine, drawing illustrations and cartoons. He moved to California, where he joined the Disney Studios. He stayed there for a couple of years, before joining another animation studios, led by former Disney animators Hugh Harman and Rudolph Ising. In 1938 Buettner met the famous ventriloquist Edgar Bergen. He was then assigned to take over the syndicated comic version of Bergen's puppet character Charlie McCarthy, famous from theatre, TV and cinema. For the job he teamed up with Chase Craig, with whom he had also created the shortlived 'Hollywood Hams' daily. Both Buettner and Craig joined Western Publishing in 1942. Buettner soon became art director there. At Western, Buettner worked on Warner Bros characters, as well as Disney characters. He was one of the early artists to draw 'Joe Carioca'. He also illustrated comics with 'Bucky Bug', 'The Seven Dwarfs', 'Dumbo' and 'Bambi'.

 

roy lichtenstein obras

 

Art Historian David Barsalou found the original source to LOOK MICKEY in 2000. It was first published in December 2000 on his website DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN™ © 2000 - The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation used his extensive research which began in 1979 without permission, citation, or attribution.

Subject: Look Mickey From: Jack Cowart : Executive Director The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:31:26 -0500

Dear Mr. Barsalou, We are delighted with your Look Mickey source find. I have fowarded your information to the National Gallery of Art, department of modern and contemporary art, since they own that painting and we have all anguished over its source for years. This is a wonderful addition to scholarship and I am sure they will delight in getting the exact citation. Throughout our catalogue raisonne process "sources" are a central item of Lichtenstein and we are pleased to find you so engaged in it, also. More later. Regards. Jack Cowart Executive Director The Roy Lichtenstein Foundation

12,614 views
0 faves
0 comments
Taken on September 5, 2000