new icn messageflickr-free-ic3d pan white
View allAll Photos Tagged P2P+and+the+problems+that+come+with+these+networks

Stuff is getting a bit out of the caring hand of the country which does think it always knows best for it's citizens (like censoring flickr for example).

Another boogeyman the government concocted to scare the citizenry into accepting violations of their rights is on the menu: child porn. And yes, it's hard to argue with protection agains child porn. Of course everybody in his right mind want to protect children from those sick bastards out there but censorship is the wrong approach. it isn't really an effective response to the proliferation of child porn. anyone remotely serious about finding child porn is going to be able to get around this using some encrypted proxy or whatever. so a plan like this is really just a colossal waste of time, energy and resources. it is a non-solution. if a moron like me knows that, one would think the politicians would know that themself as you would expect them to get information about the matter at hand before passing a law, right? that makes me think it's just about getting the foot into the door. apparently the politicans have already build up a wish list as Thomas Strobl MdB (CDU) proposed to ban websites which advertise 'killer games'. of course another point joe doe can hardly argue with. who in his right mind (apart from myself) likes games like 'gears of war', 'call of duty' or GTA4? We need to protect our children, right? Instead I believe this is a populistic approach to changing the internet laws. music industry rejoice! your time to enforce outdated copyright laws seems to be coming. You could be tempted drawing parallels with Anti Terror laws in the UK. They were brought in under the premise that "the big baddies were about to blow us up, we promise not to misuse this power" and now you continually hear of people being questioned under "Anti Terror Legislation" when all they were doing was taking a few holiday snaps.

 

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

"Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government – a grand coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party – seems united in its decision: On Thursday the parliament is to vote on the erection of an internet censorship architecture.

 

The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and lead the discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites in order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a censorship architecture enabling the government to block content containing child pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government.

 

A strong and still growing network opposing these ideas quickly formed within the German internet community. The protest has not been limited to hackers and digital activist but rather a mainstreamed effort widely supported by bloggers and twitter-users. The HashTag used by the protesters is #zensursula – a German mesh up of the Ministers name and the word censorship equivalent to #censursula.

 

As part of the public’s protest an official e-Petition directed at the German parliament was launched. Within three days 50,000 persons signed the petition - – the number required for the petition titled „No indexing and blocking of Internet sites“ to be heard by the parliament. The running time of an e-Petition in Germany is 6 weeks – within this time over 130,000 people signed making this e-Petition the most signed and most successful ever.

 

During the past weeks, protests became more and more creative – countless blogs and twitter-users followed and commented the discussions within governments and opposing arguments. Many mainstream media picked up on this and reported about the protest taking place on-line. A working group on censorship was founded and the protest coordinated with a wiki, mailing lists, chats and of course employing twitter and blogs. One website „Zeichnemit.de“ created a landing page explaining the complicated petitioning system and making signing the petition easier and more accessible for non net-experts.

 

Over 500 people attended the governments official press conference on the planed internet censorship – a number of whom used this occasion to demonstrate and voice their concerns. In fact, demonstrators began attending some of the Minister von der Leyens public appearances, carrying banners and signs to raise attention to the stifling of information freedom in Germany.

 

The net community did not only oppose the governments plans, but also made constructive suggestions how to deal with the problem of child pornography without introducing a censorship architecture and circumcising constitutional freedoms. The working group on censorship demonstrated the alternatives for instance by actually removing over 60 websites containing child pornographic content in 12 hours, simply by emailing the international providers who then removed this content from the net. The sites were identified through the black lists of other countries documented on Wikileaks. This demonstration underlines the protesters main arguments: instead of effectively investing time and efforts to have illegal content removed from the internet, the German government is choosing censorship and blocking – an easy and dangerous way out. The greatest fear of the protesters is that once in place, the infrastructure will be used to censor other forms of unwanted content, not only child pornography. German politicians already seem to be lining up with their wish-list of content to be censored in future – the suggestions ranging form gambling sites, islamist web pages, first person shooters, and the music industry cheering up with the thought of finally banning pirate bay and p2p."

 

Source: netzpolitik.org

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

can you spare an hour? watch 'Us Now"

TEX : Original Source

Original Artist : Jerry Grandenetti

 

JERRY GRANDENETTI

Jerry Grandenetti (April 15, 1925 or 1927 (sources differ), Bronxville, New York) is an American comic book artist and advertising art director, best known for his work with writer-artist Will Eisner on the celebrated comics feature "The Spirit", and for his decade- and-a-half run on many DC Comics war series.

 

because im addicted: Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

becauseimaddicted.net/2007/10/deconstructing-lichtenstein...

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

I came across this David Barsalou's Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein page and apparently Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through over 30,000 comic books studying every illustration determined to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces.

 

Check out David Barsalou's flickr account: DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN's

Photo Cred: davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

Roy Lichtenstein

Sent: Thu 4/19/07 11:54 AM

To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

 

From: Hillary Bray Register (hregist1@my.westga.edu)

 

Mr. Barsalou,

I am currently working on my senior thesis paper in art history concerning Roy Lichtenstein's representation of women in the 60s and 90s. While searching for images, I found your website. Needless to say, your images have been invaluable to my research. I cannot find many of them in any other text. As I will be giving an oral presentation on my research, I will need to use these images to compare the originals with Lichtenstein's appropriations. However, the images are not presentation quality. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could email me higher resolution images. If this is not possible or desirable, I understand. Nonetheless, I would like to thank you for devoting such a great deal of time and effort to procure the original images.

 

Sincerely,

Hillary Register

University of West Georgia

 

Art das kunstmagazin

www.art-magazin.de

 

art Magazin D.P.V.

P.O. Box 101602

20010 Hamburg

Germany

 

U.S.A. newsstand distribution is by GLP International, 153 South Dean

Street, Englewood NJ 07631. Phone: 1-201-871-10 10, Fax 1-201-871-0870,

www.glpnews.com

 

Dear David Barsalou,

 

In our next issue we are about to publish an article on your work

Deconstruction of Roy Lichtenstein.

Therefore it would be great you could provide us a selection of 5-8 images showing your artwork.

If so, please send them in a high resolution (15x20cm, 300dpi), with

detailed captions via email to me, please. You can also use our FTP Server,

which access informations you can find below.

 

Looking forward to hear from you soon! Thank you in advance!

 

Best regards from Hamburg

 

Verena Andreas

Verena Andreas (ass.photo@art-magazin.de)

 

Spitting Image

October 23, 2006

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.spitting-image.net/archives/005964.html

Artist David Barsalou presents a comparative analysis of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein's paintings with the original source images he copied from 1960's comic books. The pictures on display are from Barsalou's forthcoming book, also titled DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN.The exhibit and book are the result of over 15 years of extensive research.Barsalou examined over 25,000 comic books to find the pictures Lichtenstein used in his work. This is the first time that Roy Lichtenstein's original source images have ever been exhibited together. Barsalou states, " DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN may influence how critics, and writers view Lichtenstein's work in the future.This exhibit will be of significant historical importance". press release | See Gallery 9/5/2000

 

flickr photos from DRL: www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

thanks Conscientious

 

~Artist as archivist. (Personal note: for years I've been visiting cemeteries & graveyards within a days drive of my home; taking photos of stones and memorials. The thrill of finding something many people overlook keeps me at it.)

One might wonder if David Barsalou's 15 years of comic-book research along with his book and exhibits have had any affect upon the dollar value of Roy Lichtenstein paintings. Do the same art galleries represent both artists?

On the other hand Lichtenstein paintings are (still?) sold for tens of millions of dollars, so Barsalou's work is truly a labor of love and Lichtenstein's body of work is worthy of his scrutiny?

Posted by Stubbornson at October 23, 2006 12:47 PM

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

drawn.ca/2005/04/page/3/

Posted at 5:13 pm by Ward | 21 Comments

John McFaul »

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

 

roy lichtenstein

 

Whether or not you fully appreciate the work of the late Pop Artist, Roy Lichtenstein, you can at least take a gander at the comic book sources that he used for his pieces . Deconstructing Lichtenstein is the pet project of David Barsalou, an avid Lichtenstein fan, who went through thousands of old comics to find the original source images to Roy’s paintings. It’s interesting to see the creative process behind the legendary painter’s work as you get to see how much (or how little) he changed the subject matter. Be patient as it takes a while for all the images to load.

 

This entry was posted on Friday, April 8th, 2005 at 5:13 pm by Ward and is filed under Art, Comics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Comments

 

1. Steve says:

April 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm

 

I’ve been doing some research on old comics lately, as part of my regimen for gearing up to publish a few graphic novels. So I’ve developed a new fondness for old comic art styles.

 

What really struck me about this Lichtenstein page was how poorly his versions fared against the originals. These unheralded comics artists, laboring under work-for-hire conditions for little pay, had better line control and anatomical control than our artiste Roy. His versions look downright amateurish.

 

It’s a little hard to appreciate his contribution in this light, other than the fact that he recontextualized these comic artist’s work by copying it badly and hanging it in an art gallery. How is this significant? Because it made it acceptable for artsy-fartsy collectors to admit they liked comics?

2. Ward says:

April 8th, 2005 at 8:31 pm

 

True, Roy’s work seems downright crude, but remember you’ve got to think that line quality and perfect interpretations of humans and animals dipicted were not his motivation. You can’t equate his paintings with the skills of those comic artists. (And, his paintings are painted on very large canvases, instead of on smaller illustration board.) Plus, you’ve got to think about from where he was coming from. He was a Pop Artist. The Pop Artists were guys who were frustrated with the art world at the time and felt that art was in the mundane everyday thing. They were putting a mirror up to ordinary objects and forcing us to look at it in a new way — through a different context. In fact, some of those guys were poking fun at what art collectors would call “art” and were amazed at the amount of money the collectors would put down on a piece. Like I said, not everybody is down with Lichtenstein, but at that time, he made people look at art and at comic books in a new light.

3. niff says:

April 8th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

 

Two great points ! It IS funny to see how crude Roy’s work looks next to the original, but then you have to think how HUGE Roy worked. I think you both made great points, and It is pretty cool how he made people re-examine comics as fine art. awesome link! thanks.

4. saamvisual says:

April 9th, 2005 at 5:56 am

 

Is a link on your site a poisoned chalice? The site is down due to bandwidth issues…. wow to be THAT popular. BTW, I really like this site - please keep it going.

5. Surfer says:

April 9th, 2005 at 7:12 am

 

Bandwidth limit exceeded!

6. jmorrison says:

April 9th, 2005 at 8:43 am

 

hey, i have to agree with steve on this one. i posted a tid bit about this a while back and did a little bit of further “deconstruction.”

 

thenonist.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/deconstructing_l...

 

check out the thumbnail…

i couldn’t help myself ;)

7. Bob Loblaws says:

April 9th, 2005 at 9:55 am

 

Lichtenstein was a crap artist who just stole work from other artist. You can try to intellectualize it any way you want. A con man in my books. How these people consistantly con the Intelligencia of the art world in is beyond me.

8. Ward says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pm

 

Bob Loblaws,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being brash and closed-minded on Lichtenstein and his work. So, what you’re telling me is that because he took work from other artists and reconfigured them and painted them in his own way that he’s a con man, right? Well, then I guess you can just lock up every single artist that is out there, from gallery to the comic-stand, because everybody is copying from everyone else. If you look on the “About” page for Drawn!, you’ll see the quote by Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources,” Lichtenstein just chose not to hide them. In fact, he blatantly made the viewer see his sources — even more so, exploited it. Thus, he became famous for it. Any other artist would’ve done the same thing, he just did it on a much larger scale than anyone else. Those comic artists could’ve done the same thing, but they didn’t. They probably didn’t seem to see the interest in it, but I wouldn’t know, so I’m not going to speak for them.

 

Artists “steal” from other artists. It’s a fact of life. I know that others have stolen from me, but all I have to do is just suck it up and just keep doing my thang. I could confront the situation, but why would I, as I do the same? Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

 

Now, we’re splitting hairs here, as there is a distinct line between “stealing” and “being influenced by.” I understand that Lichtenstein blatantly grabbed these images from old comics, but again, he took something old and made something new. Was he sued for his work? What did the comic artists say about what he did? Was there any legal action?

 

What about all the artists now who call for Creative Commons licenses when at the same time try and copyright their own material so others don’t rip it off? When is it a right? When is it wrong?

9. andrea says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm

 

I do not understand this. seriously, what is the DEAL? what is the matter with taking something (in this case, comic book art) and forcing the viewer to look at it in an entirely different way (which is what lichtenstein did)? isn’t that what art is all about? if anything, it further legitimized the work of comic book artists. case in point: I am not a comic book fan/reader, but lichtenstein’s work allowed me to see it with new eyes. I am completely puzzled by these narrow-minded views represented in the earlier posts.

10. MrBlank says:

April 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm

 

A lot of times art isn’t about style, technique or format. Sometimes it’s all about one simple idea. In today’s context, Liechtenstein’s work does seem cliché and old-hat, but that shows just how influential his work has been. We’ve gotten used to it. Every single creative medium is using Liechtenstein’s idea and running with it.

 

Fashion: Did you see ‘Project Runway’ on Bravo? One challenge was to Take clothing from a vintage clothing store, deconstruct it and create fashion for the future. Even the show’s winning designer, Jay, had a line of cloths that mixed elements from the rural past, like quilts and knitted shawls and put them in a modern, urban context.

 

Illustration\Design: Look at recent posts on Drawn! and you see it. Remember the one on Phil Noto? “Noto’s work, again, falls into the category of retro meets now, with some varied influences. His work reminds me of a cross between Bob Peak, straight up early Bond, 60’s mod, with some manga mixed in (maybe).”

 

Movies: Kill Bill — This was a motion picture’s equivalent to a photo collage. Tarantino took scenes, angles, dialog, music and many, many other things from a huge history of filmmakers’ work and created a visual mash-up of the medium. Brilliant.

 

Music: The Grey Album — DJ Dangermose’s marrage of Jay-Z’s Black Album and the Beatle’s White Album. It was labeled as the best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly even though it was never published. It was released on P2P networks finding its way to iPods all over the world. Due to copyright laws, it still remains illegal.

 

Popular culture would not be the same without Liechtenstein’s influence. You don’t have to be Clement Greenberg to see the significance of that. Like science and technology, you take what has been done before and add to it, move it forward, make it new. Everything is built on the past, everything.

 

Sidenote:

It’s also interesting to see this trend stirring up a lot of legal issues. If all of our copyright laws had been focused on in the 60’s, would Lichtenstein have been able to show is work? Is art being limited because of these laws? It seems so: www.illegal-art.org/

11. Cash Nexus says:

April 10th, 2005 at 9:03 pm

 

For further research, there’s a great examination of art, sources, and influences, including Pop Art in general and this same discussion on Roy Lichtenstein in particular, in “High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” (www.moesbooks.com/cgi-bin/moe/39669.html). I highly recommend this thorough and detailed book.

12. Paul says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

 

I’m gonna get to the heart of this: if a crap artist finds himself making a ton o’ dough by copying another artist, then at least the the guy who’s pockets are now flowing with cash could’ve looked up the poor schmo who did the original work and offered him half. But no, this Ward cat will find a way to justify not sharing the bux as well as he protected his thievery above…I’ve used exact replicas of Escher and Michelangelo in my work, and I ALWAYS sign their names, even if it’s obvious who did the original.

Since I never earned a dollar for any of the works in which I paid homage to my heroes, I have nothing to share, but damn if I don’t have the address of the Escher foundation in case I do. Crap is crap. Lichenstein was crap.

13. Sam says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:48 pm

 

This Paul guy must be right - looks like he’s an expert on crap.

14. Ward says:

April 11th, 2005 at 7:41 am

 

I was not going to respond anymore to this thread as I feel that I’ve already stated my opinon on the topic, but after being called a “thief,” I feel like I should defend myself to a certain degree. When I mentioned in my last post about how other artists “steal” (notice quotes) from others, including myself, my train of thought was about how we all take elements from other artists who have influenced us and incorporate these elements into our own work. Some people might take notice, like when you say, “Oh I definitely see a Kirby influence there, etc.” Everybody does this, and it’s not thievery in my opinon.

 

But I then thought. after reading your response, Paul, that when you say you used replicas of other’s work — in a collage effect, I’m assuming — that yes, I have used various clips of magazines, pictures, and newspapers in my work. (If you’re curious, click here. And for the record, I’ve never made any money off of these pieces.) A good amount of artists have used collage, and have made loads of money from doing so. Thievery, or not? Who’s to say?

 

And Paul, with your portrait of John Lennon — do you know that you did EXACTLY what Lichtenstein did? You both used images from a different source and made the viewer look at it in a different way. (Plus, you did not credit the photographers.)

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

15. niff says:

April 11th, 2005 at 11:51 am

 

Ward: you said it all. bravo!

16. Steve says:

April 11th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

 

Yeah! I opened up a hornet’s nest here! (puts on beekeeper’s netting)

 

It is interesting to hear why Lichtenstein’s work is considered important. I saw the Pop Artist exhibit when it came through Atlanta, and the pieces still challenged some of my ideas about art, even though their impact had been absorbed into the art world decades ago. I believe there were a few Lichtenstein pieces…something with a jet plane…bah, can’t remember.

 

As a musician who can both play instruments and samples them, as well as an experienced “photoshop jockey,” I can’t deny that the groundwork laid by these people has influenced me. In fact, what they did as “rebellion” has become part of the standard tools of the trade now.

 

Perhaps my sensibility lies somewhere in the middle of this debate. I appreciate the effect Lichtenstein’s recontextualization has had on the comics medium and the art world; yet in looking at his work, I hope for more immediate aesthetic gratification. In other words, I want a picture that is both subversive AND pretty.

 

Also, artwork created with a focus on subversive impact always strikes me as a “shave and a haircut” approach. I get the joke, I move on. It’s the art world’s version of a soundbyte. Nothing wrong with that, but I crave more substantial experiences with art. I guess I’m naive in that.

17. jo3 says:

April 11th, 2005 at 10:47 pm

 

ah, can we get a mirror up in here?

18. eck@rt says:

April 12th, 2005 at 6:01 am

 

Who can tell me more about Tony Abruzzo? Abruzzo drew romance comics in the 60s and 70s, some of which were models for Lichtenstein.

 

eck@rt

19. Elias Hiebert says:

April 12th, 2005 at 11:57 am

 

Yeah, all artists steal, whatever . But the thing that bugs me about Lichtenstein is that he appears to have no respect for the artists he stole from. It’s as if he thought all this commercial art he was surrounded by just appeared by magic. And he got filthy, filthy rich. And the artists he stole from did not. So that rub my sense of justice the wrong way. And I LIKE Lichtenstein! (Sorry I’m beginning every sentence with the word And.) Those big canvasses really HIT ya! Lichtenstein was really good. Was he good enough to do what the artists he stole from did day in and day out? I doubt it.

20. Jen says:

April 13th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

 

Steve: what you said, man. In spades. Bravo.

 

Ward, ditto(even if I am more of a mind with Steve, I love the way you express yourself).

 

Good discussion, all of it.

21. Joy says:

April 20th, 2005 at 11:11 pm

 

So does anyone know if the original page is down for good?

 

American Madness

Intelligent Criticism in the Service of a Better Nation

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

David Barsalou has taken the time to go back and track down the original comics of over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s works, he then compiled them next to the Lichtenstein prints and posted them online.

 

You get to see a comprehensive overview of Lichtenstein’s source materials and see how closely he interpreted/copied the originals. Some controversy has arisen over these early works as he never credited the original artists whose work he was copying. According to Wikipedia: Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a copyist, saying “Roy’s work was a wonderment of the graphic formula and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. The panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy.”

On the flipside:

Artist Dave Gibbons said of Lichtenstein’s works: “Roy Lichtenstein’s copies of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending tracings of quite sophisticated images.” Lichtenstein’s obituary in The Economist noted these artists “did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him.”

This anger from the original artists could also stem from the lack of recognition they received for their work in its original form, devalued as just another piece of pop/trash culture, while Roy Lichtenstein was elevated to celebrity and received various awards and recognition for his work.

Now you can see his works next to the original panels and determine for yourself whether you think Lichtenstein was a genius or copyist.

1.

Or a genius copyist.

 

americanmadness.com/2007/10/25/deconstructing-roy-lichten...

 

The GAB

Shaun Venish - Graphic Art Blog

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Roy Lichtenstein

18/March/2008 | Illustraton

I've been a fan of Roy Lichtenstein's comic book pop art for years. I always wondered how many of his paintings were taken from comic books and did he copy the comic panels directly or make changes to them to improve the composition? Well now there are some answers, thanks to David Barsalou and his Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Originally an exibit at the Springfield Massachusetts Gallery, he now has a flickr site that contains a ton of the source material. It's an interesting deconstruction of the wonderful work Lichtenstein created.

 

A really interesting read is the Great Bazooka Bubble Gum Wrapper Myth of 1961, A look into the controversy over whether Lichtenstein stole Andy Warhol's idea. Neat.

 

"... 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..."

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Artist or Artiface?

October 25, 2007

 

Bibi's box: July 2005 Archives

www.bibi.org/box/archives/2005_07.php?offset=160

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - The original Comic Book source images of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein, by David Barsalou. (via neurastenia)

 

JeremyS « Amnesia Blog

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

amnesiablog.wordpress.com/author/muchablogaboutnothing/

David Barsalou has a lot of time on his hands… So much time infact that he has spent the last 25 years of his life closely examining every single illustration in over 30,000 comic books with the sole purpose of uncovering the original source material for the work of 1960s Pop Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far he has sourced about 140 specific illustrations that Lichtenstein has blown up and sold for mega bucks.

Posted by JeremyS

 

scamp: an irish illustration blog » Comics

www.scamp.ie/category/comics/page/2/

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Friday, October 26th, 2007

Thanks to Mario for pointing this one out

For the last 25 years David Barsalou has examined over 30,000 comic books (a kind of obsession) to find the cartoon images Lichtenstein used in his work.

The Lichtenstein Project compares over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s paintings.

Though in art/history books I always read that Lichtenstein best-known artworks are relatively close, but not exact, copies of comic-book panels (a subject he largely abandoned in 1965) after Barsalou’s deconstruction I find quite amazing the level of similarities!!!

by Mario Sughi

 

The Art Law Blog

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Lichtenstein and Copyright

Alex Beam has an interesting piece in the Boston Globe on copyright issues surrounding Roy Lichtenstein's use of images from comics. An art teacher named David Barsalou has been tracking down and cataloging specific comics that were the inspiration for Lichtenstein's paintings; so far he's found about 140. "Color me naive," writes Beam, "but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s." He also correctly points out that Lichtenstein could have faced serious copyright problems (Beam doesn't mention it, but just think of Rogers v. Koons); he says the interesting question is why he never did. The question is in any case now moot: there's a three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims.

theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

You can see samples of Barsalou's research at his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

 

posted by Donn Zaretsky at 6:44 PM

 

Du bist nicht angemeldet

www.supertopic.de/forum/9/zeig-mir-irgendwas-947-414.html

 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.notcot.com/archives/2007/10/d...g.php#more

flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-...htenstein/

Apparently David Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through every illustration in over 30,000 comic books.... in order to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces! Knoth

Veteran

25.10.07

14:25 Uhr

 

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.

 

News and Articles on Derivative Work

news.surfwax.com/general-news/files/derivative_work.html

 

Lichtenstein: creator or copycat? Oct 18, 2006

Barsalou correctly points that musicians who ``sample" other artists' music have to pay them royalties. Does the Lichtenstein estate owe compensation to the creators of the original work?After visiting a Lichtenstein exhibition in Chicago, attorney Mark Weissburg wrote an article titled ``Roy Lichtenstein, Copyright Thief?" ``I was struck by the fact that Lichtenstein was never sued for copyright infringement," Weissburg wrote. ``Under copyright law if you copy a protected work without... (Boston Globe)

  

www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/deconstructing_and_debat...

April 12, 2005

 

Deconstructing, Debating Lichtenstein

Through the great Canadian illustrators' group blog Drawn! comes not only a link to an enlightening work comparing the comics-inspired paintings of pop artist Roy Lichtenstein to their comic-book sources, but a by-the-numbers debate in the comments thread about the merits of Lichtenstein's work.

posted 7:36 am PST | Permalink

 

209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TGeApfL35HsJ:www.thecomicfo...

 

June 14 2008, 12:34 PM

Post #8

Copyright Infringement on Art

In case anyone is interested, this is the Boston Globe article I mentioned in the 'cast:

 

"Lichtenstein: creator or copycat?" by Alex Beam

 

And this is the web site it (and I) talks about:

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

 

TV Tokyo Inquire

From: Kyoko Matsuda (matsuda@nexent.tv)

Sent: Wed 7/23/08 2:11 PM To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

Cc: yuko matsuda (yumatsuda@earthlink.net)

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou:

 

I am writing this on behalf of TV Tokyo, a Japanese TV network.

We produce weekend evening, 30 minutes-long art program titled "The Great Masters of Art" for TV Tokyo.

www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/kyojin/

This program reaches about 5 million Japanese population.

 

In each episode, one artist and one masterpiece by the featured artist will be picked. The program will explore the stories behind the production of the masterpiece and the life of the artist as well. Also the program will demonstrate/ explain the specific artistic technique that was used to create the featured art work.

 

We are planning to produce a program on Mr. Roy Lichtenstein and feature his "Girl with Hair Ribbon" for upcoming "The Great Masters" on TV Tokyo.

 

Since you have been working on the "Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein" site since 1979. I would like to ask a question about the cartoon which Mr. Lichtenstein transformed to his art work.

 

The director in Tokyo is interested in filming the original cartoon by Mr. John Romita Sr. and we are looking for its location. We already have contacted the Lichtenstein Foundation but they said they don't own it.

 

Please let me know if you know the information.

Thank you very much for your attention.

 

Cordially,

Kyoko Matsuda

BK Nexent, Inc.

545 8th Avenue 9th Floor North

New York, NY 10018, U.S.A.

Tel: (212)697-7401

Fax:(212)697-9542

E-mail: matsuda@nexent.tv

www.nexent.tv

www.nystream.net

 

I want to thank David for such an in depth article about one of the most important drummers of yesterday by some of the most important drummers today. David has inspired me to re focus Not So Modern Drummer's by adding "legendary drummers" to our mission statement. Thanks, David.

- George Lawrence

 

BATHROOM: Original Source

 

ARTICULATE

Brad darling, this painting is a masterpiece!

www.abc.net.au/news/arts/articulate/200610/s1769879.htm

By Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop. Posted: Saturday, October 21 2006 .

Could it all be a lie? ...

 

American artist David Barsalou is on a mission to knock 60s pop artist Roy Lichtenstein off his throne.

 

Barsalou's idea of fun is finding and cataloging the comic book panels that made Lichtenstein a big name. Of the 140 he's found, many of the artist's works seem to be near copies.

"He tried to make it seem as though he was making major compositional changes in his work, but he wasn't," he said. "The critics are of one mind that he made major changes but if you look at the work, he copied them almost verbatim. Only a few were original."

Though news to me, apparently this is well known among artists. The general consensus seems to be that while Lichtenstein may have been a copyright thief, his co-option of pop culture fits the pop art conventions. It seems fair to say that the implications of the comics change when they're blown up to massive proportions and displayed on a wall. After all, if a soup can has the potential to become art, so does a comic strip. But it all becomes a bit comical (excuse the pun) when you consider one of Lichtenstein's works can go for $US1.6 million.

 

Check out the comparisons and tell us what you think. Is Lichtenstein a copycat or is he merely borrowing, like all great artists do?

 

And while you're pondering the prospect of plagiarism, why not rip the man off yourself and learn how to make your own Lichtenstein?

 

Spitting Image

October 23, 2006

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.spitting-image.net/archives/005964.html

Artist David Barsalou presents a comparative analysis of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein's paintings with the original source images he copied from 1960's comic books. The pictures on display are from Barsalou's forthcoming book, also titled DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN.The exhibit and book are the result of over 15 years of extensive research.Barsalou examined over 25,000 comic books to find the pictures Lichtenstein used in his work. This is the first time that Roy Lichtenstein's original source images have ever been exhibited together. Barsalou states, " DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN may influence how critics, and writers view Lichtenstein's work in the future.This exhibit will be of significant historical importance". press release | See Gallery 9/5/2000

 

roy lichtenstein

 

Whether or not you fully appreciate the work of the late Pop Artist, Roy Lichtenstein, you can at least take a gander at the comic book sources that he used for his pieces . Deconstructing Lichtenstein is the pet project of David Barsalou, an avid Lichtenstein fan, who went through thousands of old comics to find the original source images to Roy’s paintings. It’s interesting to see the creative process behind the legendary painter’s work as you get to see how much (or how little) he changed the subject matter. Be patient as it takes a while for all the images to load.

 

This entry was posted on Friday, April 8th, 2005 at 5:13 pm by Ward and is filed under Art, Comics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Comments

 

1. Steve says:

April 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm

 

I’ve been doing some research on old comics lately, as part of my regimen for gearing up to publish a few graphic novels. So I’ve developed a new fondness for old comic art styles.

 

What really struck me about this Lichtenstein page was how poorly his versions fared against the originals. These unheralded comics artists, laboring under work-for-hire conditions for little pay, had better line control and anatomical control than our artiste Roy. His versions look downright amateurish.

 

It’s a little hard to appreciate his contribution in this light, other than the fact that he recontextualized these comic artist’s work by copying it badly and hanging it in an art gallery. How is this significant? Because it made it acceptable for artsy-fartsy collectors to admit they liked comics?

2. Ward says:

April 8th, 2005 at 8:31 pm

 

True, Roy’s work seems downright crude, but remember you’ve got to think that line quality and perfect interpretations of humans and animals dipicted were not his motivation. You can’t equate his paintings with the skills of those comic artists. (And, his paintings are painted on very large canvases, instead of on smaller illustration board.) Plus, you’ve got to think about from where he was coming from. He was a Pop Artist. The Pop Artists were guys who were frustrated with the art world at the time and felt that art was in the mundane everyday thing. They were putting a mirror up to ordinary objects and forcing us to look at it in a new way — through a different context. In fact, some of those guys were poking fun at what art collectors would call “art” and were amazed at the amount of money the collectors would put down on a piece. Like I said, not everybody is down with Lichtenstein, but at that time, he made people look at art and at comic books in a new light.

3. niff says:

April 8th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

 

Two great points ! It IS funny to see how crude Roy’s work looks next to the original, but then you have to think how HUGE Roy worked. I think you both made great points, and It is pretty cool how he made people re-examine comics as fine art. awesome link! thanks.

4. saamvisual says:

April 9th, 2005 at 5:56 am

 

Is a link on your site a poisoned chalice? The site is down due to bandwidth issues…. wow to be THAT popular. BTW, I really like this site - please keep it going.

5. Surfer says:

April 9th, 2005 at 7:12 am

 

Bandwidth limit exceeded!

6. jmorrison says:

April 9th, 2005 at 8:43 am

 

hey, i have to agree with steve on this one. i posted a tid bit about this a while back and did a little bit of further “deconstruction.”

 

thenonist.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/deconstructing_l...

 

check out the thumbnail…

i couldn’t help myself ;)

7. Bob Loblaws says:

April 9th, 2005 at 9:55 am

 

Lichtenstein was a crap artist who just stole work from other artist. You can try to intellectualize it any way you want. A con man in my books. How these people consistantly con the Intelligencia of the art world in is beyond me.

8. Ward says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pm

 

Bob Loblaws,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being brash and closed-minded on Lichtenstein and his work. So, what you’re telling me is that because he took work from other artists and reconfigured them and painted them in his own way that he’s a con man, right? Well, then I guess you can just lock up every single artist that is out there, from gallery to the comic-stand, because everybody is copying from everyone else. If you look on the “About” page for Drawn!, you’ll see the quote by Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources,” Lichtenstein just chose not to hide them. In fact, he blatantly made the viewer see his sources — even more so, exploited it. Thus, he became famous for it. Any other artist would’ve done the same thing, he just did it on a much larger scale than anyone else. Those comic artists could’ve done the same thing, but they didn’t. They probably didn’t seem to see the interest in it, but I wouldn’t know, so I’m not going to speak for them.

 

Artists “steal” from other artists. It’s a fact of life. I know that others have stolen from me, but all I have to do is just suck it up and just keep doing my thang. I could confront the situation, but why would I, as I do the same? Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

 

Now, we’re splitting hairs here, as there is a distinct line between “stealing” and “being influenced by.” I understand that Lichtenstein blatantly grabbed these images from old comics, but again, he took something old and made something new. Was he sued for his work? What did the comic artists say about what he did? Was there any legal action?

 

What about all the artists now who call for Creative Commons licenses when at the same time try and copyright their own material so others don’t rip it off? When is it a right? When is it wrong?

9. andrea says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm

 

I do not understand this. seriously, what is the DEAL? what is the matter with taking something (in this case, comic book art) and forcing the viewer to look at it in an entirely different way (which is what lichtenstein did)? isn’t that what art is all about? if anything, it further legitimized the work of comic book artists. case in point: I am not a comic book fan/reader, but lichtenstein’s work allowed me to see it with new eyes. I am completely puzzled by these narrow-minded views represented in the earlier posts.

10. MrBlank says:

April 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm

 

A lot of times art isn’t about style, technique or format. Sometimes it’s all about one simple idea. In today’s context, Liechtenstein’s work does seem cliché and old-hat, but that shows just how influential his work has been. We’ve gotten used to it. Every single creative medium is using Liechtenstein’s idea and running with it.

 

Fashion: Did you see ‘Project Runway’ on Bravo? One challenge was to Take clothing from a vintage clothing store, deconstruct it and create fashion for the future. Even the show’s winning designer, Jay, had a line of cloths that mixed elements from the rural past, like quilts and knitted shawls and put them in a modern, urban context.

 

Illustration\Design: Look at recent posts on Drawn! and you see it. Remember the one on Phil Noto? “Noto’s work, again, falls into the category of retro meets now, with some varied influences. His work reminds me of a cross between Bob Peak, straight up early Bond, 60’s mod, with some manga mixed in (maybe).”

 

Movies: Kill Bill — This was a motion picture’s equivalent to a photo collage. Tarantino took scenes, angles, dialog, music and many, many other things from a huge history of filmmakers’ work and created a visual mash-up of the medium. Brilliant.

 

Music: The Grey Album — DJ Dangermose’s marrage of Jay-Z’s Black Album and the Beatle’s White Album. It was labeled as the best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly even though it was never published. It was released on P2P networks finding its way to iPods all over the world. Due to copyright laws, it still remains illegal.

 

Popular culture would not be the same without Liechtenstein’s influence. You don’t have to be Clement Greenberg to see the significance of that. Like science and technology, you take what has been done before and add to it, move it forward, make it new. Everything is built on the past, everything.

 

Sidenote:

It’s also interesting to see this trend stirring up a lot of legal issues. If all of our copyright laws had been focused on in the 60’s, would Lichtenstein have been able to show is work? Is art being limited because of these laws? It seems so: www.illegal-art.org/

11. Cash Nexus says:

April 10th, 2005 at 9:03 pm

 

For further research, there’s a great examination of art, sources, and influences, including Pop Art in general and this same discussion on Roy Lichtenstein in particular, in “High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” (www.moesbooks.com/cgi-bin/moe/39669.html). I highly recommend this thorough and detailed book.

12. Paul says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

 

I’m gonna get to the heart of this: if a crap artist finds himself making a ton o’ dough by copying another artist, then at least the the guy who’s pockets are now flowing with cash could’ve looked up the poor schmo who did the original work and offered him half. But no, this Ward cat will find a way to justify not sharing the bux as well as he protected his thievery above…I’ve used exact replicas of Escher and Michelangelo in my work, and I ALWAYS sign their names, even if it’s obvious who did the original.

Since I never earned a dollar for any of the works in which I paid homage to my heroes, I have nothing to share, but damn if I don’t have the address of the Escher foundation in case I do. Crap is crap. Lichenstein was crap.

13. Sam says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:48 pm

 

This Paul guy must be right - looks like he’s an expert on crap.

14. Ward says:

April 11th, 2005 at 7:41 am

 

I was not going to respond anymore to this thread as I feel that I’ve already stated my opinon on the topic, but after being called a “thief,” I feel like I should defend myself to a certain degree. When I mentioned in my last post about how other artists “steal” (notice quotes) from others, including myself, my train of thought was about how we all take elements from other artists who have influenced us and incorporate these elements into our own work. Some people might take notice, like when you say, “Oh I definitely see a Kirby influence there, etc.” Everybody does this, and it’s not thievery in my opinon.

 

But I then thought. after reading your response, Paul, that when you say you used replicas of other’s work — in a collage effect, I’m assuming — that yes, I have used various clips of magazines, pictures, and newspapers in my work. (If you’re curious, click here. And for the record, I’ve never made any money off of these pieces.) A good amount of artists have used collage, and have made loads of money from doing so. Thievery, or not? Who’s to say?

 

And Paul, with your portrait of John Lennon — do you know that you did EXACTLY what Lichtenstein did? You both used images from a different source and made the viewer look at it in a different way. (Plus, you did not credit the photographers.)

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

15. niff says:

April 11th, 2005 at 11:51 am

 

Ward: you said it all. bravo!

16. Steve says:

April 11th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

 

Yeah! I opened up a hornet’s nest here! (puts on beekeeper’s netting)

 

It is interesting to hear why Lichtenstein’s work is considered important. I saw the Pop Artist exhibit when it came through Atlanta, and the pieces still challenged some of my ideas about art, even though their impact had been absorbed into the art world decades ago. I believe there were a few Lichtenstein pieces…something with a jet plane…bah, can’t remember.

 

As a musician who can both play instruments and samples them, as well as an experienced “photoshop jockey,” I can’t deny that the groundwork laid by these people has influenced me. In fact, what they did as “rebellion” has become part of the standard tools of the trade now.

 

Perhaps my sensibility lies somewhere in the middle of this debate. I appreciate the effect Lichtenstein’s recontextualization has had on the comics medium and the art world; yet in looking at his work, I hope for more immediate aesthetic gratification. In other words, I want a picture that is both subversive AND pretty.

 

Also, artwork created with a focus on subversive impact always strikes me as a “shave and a haircut” approach. I get the joke, I move on. It’s the art world’s version of a soundbyte. Nothing wrong with that, but I crave more substantial experiences with art. I guess I’m naive in that.

17. jo3 says:

April 11th, 2005 at 10:47 pm

 

ah, can we get a mirror up in here?

18. eck@rt says:

April 12th, 2005 at 6:01 am

 

Who can tell me more about Tony Abruzzo? Abruzzo drew romance comics in the 60s and 70s, some of which were models for Lichtenstein.

 

eck@rt

19. Elias Hiebert says:

April 12th, 2005 at 11:57 am

 

Yeah, all artists steal, whatever . But the thing that bugs me about Lichtenstein is that he appears to have no respect for the artists he stole from. It’s as if he thought all this commercial art he was surrounded by just appeared by magic. And he got filthy, filthy rich. And the artists he stole from did not. So that rub my sense of justice the wrong way. And I LIKE Lichtenstein! (Sorry I’m beginning every sentence with the word And.) Those big canvasses really HIT ya! Lichtenstein was really good. Was he good enough to do what the artists he stole from did day in and day out? I doubt it.

20. Jen says:

April 13th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

 

Steve: what you said, man. In spades. Bravo.

 

Ward, ditto(even if I am more of a mind with Steve, I love the way you express yourself).

 

Good discussion, all of it.

21. Joy says:

April 20th, 2005 at 11:11 pm

 

So does anyone know if the original page is down for good?

     

American Madness

Intelligent Criticism in the Service of a Better Nation

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

David Barsalou has taken the time to go back and track down the original comics of over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s works, he then compiled them next to the Lichtenstein prints and posted them online.

 

You get to see a comprehensive overview of Lichtenstein’s source materials and see how closely he interpreted/copied the originals. Some controversy has arisen over these early works as he never credited the original artists whose work he was copying. According to Wikipedia: Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a copyist, saying “Roy’s work was a wonderment of the graphic formula and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. The panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy.”

On the flipside:

Artist Dave Gibbons said of Lichtenstein’s works: “Roy Lichtenstein’s copies of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending tracings of quite sophisticated images.” Lichtenstein’s obituary in The Economist noted these artists “did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him.”

This anger from the original artists could also stem from the lack of recognition they received for their work in its original form, devalued as just another piece of pop/trash culture, while Roy Lichtenstein was elevated to celebrity and received various awards and recognition for his work.

Now you can see his works next to the original panels and determine for yourself whether you think Lichtenstein was a genius or copyist.

1.

Or a genius copyist.

 

americanmadness.com/2007/10/25/deconstructing-roy-lichten...

  

The GAB

Shaun Venish - Graphic Art Blog

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Roy Lichtenstein

18/March/2008 | Illustraton

I've been a fan of Roy Lichtenstein's comic book pop art for years. I always wondered how many of his paintings were taken from comic books and did he copy the comic panels directly or make changes to them to improve the composition? Well now there are some answers, thanks to David Barsalou and his Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Originally an exibit at the Springfield Massachusetts Gallery, he now has a flickr site that contains a ton of the source material. It's an interesting deconstruction of the wonderful work Lichtenstein created.

 

A really interesting read is the Great Bazooka Bubble Gum Wrapper Myth of 1961, A look into the controversy over whether Lichtenstein stole Andy Warhol's idea. Neat.

 

"... 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..."

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

web.archive.org/web/20030310054018/www.newmassmedia.com/a...

 

www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/10/18/lich...

 

www.cbgxtra.com/

www.cbldf.org/

www.wizarduniverse.com/

 

Artist or Artiface?

October 25, 2007

 

Bibi's box: July 2005 Archives

www.bibi.org/box/archives/2005_07.php?offset=160

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - The original Comic Book source images of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein, by David Barsalou. (via neurastenia)

 

JeremyS « Amnesia Blog

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

amnesiablog.wordpress.com/author/muchablogaboutnothing/

David Barsalou has a lot of time on his hands… So much time infact that he has spent the last 25 years of his life closely examining every single illustration in over 30,000 comic books with the sole purpose of uncovering the original source material for the work of 1960s Pop Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far he has sourced about 140 specific illustrations that Lichtenstein has blown up and sold for mega bucks.

Posted by JeremyS

 

scamp: an irish illustration blog » Comics

www.scamp.ie/category/comics/page/2/

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Friday, October 26th, 2007

Thanks to Mario for pointing this one out

For the last 25 years David Barsalou has examined over 30,000 comic books (a kind of obsession) to find the cartoon images Lichtenstein used in his work.

The Lichtenstein Project compares over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s paintings.

Though in art/history books I always read that Lichtenstein best-known artworks are relatively close, but not exact, copies of comic-book panels (a subject he largely abandoned in 1965) after Barsalou’s deconstruction I find quite amazing the level of similarities!!!

by Mario Sughi

  

The Art Law Blog

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Lichtenstein and Copyright

Alex Beam has an interesting piece in the Boston Globe on copyright issues surrounding Roy Lichtenstein's use of images from comics. An art teacher named David Barsalou has been tracking down and cataloging specific comics that were the inspiration for Lichtenstein's paintings; so far he's found about 140. "Color me naive," writes Beam, "but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s." He also correctly points out that Lichtenstein could have faced serious copyright problems (Beam doesn't mention it, but just think of Rogers v. Koons); he says the interesting question is why he never did. The question is in any case now moot: there's a three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims.

theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

You can see samples of Barsalou's research at his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

 

posted by Donn Zaretsky at 6:44 PM

  

Golden Age Artist Needs Your Help!

We have just been informed that Gene Colon, artist extraordinaire has been diagnosed with liver failure. Medicare covers the majority of his bills, but since his family does not have any insurance whatsoever, his prescriptions have been running hundreds of dollars. I am taking it upon myself to ask for your help in sending a donation large or small to help defray these expenses. It is up to us, the collectors and fans of today to help those stalwarts who made our industry what it is today.

 

Please send it to: Gene Colan, 2 Sea Cliff, Sea Cliff, NY 11579. You’ll be glad you did.

JERRY GRANDENETTI (b. 1925), started out as an assistant to Will Eisner on THE SPIRIT. In the 1950s, he did the drawing on 'Crimebuster' and various western and war comics for DC Comics. During the 1960s, Grandenetti worked for Warren, and later retired from comics to enter the advertising field.

 

RUSS HEATH (b. 1926) is one of the most respected and revered comic artists in history. Noted for his intensely realistic style and incredible attention to detail, he has worked in many genres, but really came into his own doing a series of war books for DC, including lengthy runs on The Haunted Tank and Sgt. Rock. He assisted Harvey Kurtzman on the "Little Annie Fannie" stories for Playboy, did a fondly-remembered Lone Ranger comic strip, and even worked in the animation field for a time. He has continued to lend his expert pencil & pen to comics well into the new millennium.

 

JOE KUBERT (b. 1926) began his comic book career at the ripe old age of 12, doing inks for MLJ Publications. He was extremely prolific during the Golden Age, and in the '50s he became the managing editor of St. John Comics, where he created Tor, Mighty Mouse, and others. He is perhaps best known for his work in the '60s and '70s on DC's war titles, as well as the re-launched TARZAN comic, where he developed a distinctive, expressive inking style. In 1976, he founded the Joe Kubert School of Cartoon and Graphics in New Jersey, where he still teaches today.

 

CARMINE INFANTINO (b. 1925) began his comics career working on JACK FROST for Timely in 1942. He worked on many classic Golden Age characters such as the Flash, Green Lantern, and Black Canary. Prior to being appointed Editorial Director (and later Publisher) of DC Comics, his most notable work was an eleven-year run on the Silver Age revival of the Flash.

 

Dear jerryweist,

 

Jerry... Please check out my website project

Deconstructing Roy

Lichtenstein. I think you will

find it quite informative.

Regards,

David

Barsalou

 

www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

-stezko

www.paulgravett.com/articles/112_cult_fiction/112_cult_fi...

    

ImageTexT

ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies is a web journal dedicated to furthering comics scholarship in a variety of disciplines and theoretical perspectives. Access to ImageTexT is provided free of charge by the Department of English at the University of Florida. From the site:

The objective of ImageTexT is to advance the academic study of comic books, comic strips, and animated cartoons. Under the guidance of an editorial board of scholars from a variety of disciplines, ImageTexT publishes solicited and peer-reviewed papers that investigate the material, historical, theoretical, and cultural implications of visual textuality. ImageTexT welcomes essays emphasizing (but not limited to) the aesthetics, cognition, production, reception, distribution and dissemination of comics and other media as they relate to comics, along with translations of previously existing research on comics as dimensions of visual culture. Exploring all periods and all countries, and deploying a wide range of disciplinary approaches, ImageTexT is designed to foster innovative discussions of the political and social implications of comics, to generate original formal aesthetic analyses of comics, and to broaden theoretical discussions of genre, period, narrative, and complex image/text relationships in comics and related media. ImageTexT will include reviews of current scholarship in the field, announcements regarding relevant conferences and upcoming publications, and links to other theoretical projects of interest to readers. ImageTexT will also provide currently unavailable English-language translations of seminal essays of comics theory.

Whew! There is some pretty interesting stuff to be read here, including the history of Zippy the Pinhead (seen above in his earliest incarnation as a drawing of the famous Schlitzie from Tod Browning’s Freaks) in an article by Bill Griffith himself, entitled Still Asking, “Are We Having Fun Yet?”

  

to Product Overview

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

As a teenager, future television and comics writer Evanier became an assistant to Jack Kirby, one of the foremost artists in the history of American comics. Kirby played a major role in shaping the superhero genre, not only through his innovative, dynamic artwork but through collaborating with Stan Lee to create classic Marvel characters like the Fantastic Four, the Hulk and the X-Men. Evanier has now written this magnificently illustrated biography of his mentor. Rather than employing the academic prose that one might expect from an art book, Evanier, a talented raconteur, tells Kirby's life story in an informal, entertaining manner. Although Evanier does not delve into psychological analysis, he brings Kirby's personality vividly alive: a child of the Great Depression, a creative visionary who struggled most of his life to support his family. The book recounts how Kirby was insufficiently appreciated by clueless corporate executives and close-minded comics professionals. But the stunning artwork in this book, taken from private collections, makes the case for Kirby's genius. A landmark work, this is essential reading for comics fans and those who want to better understand the history of the comics medium—or those who just want to enjoy Kirby's incredible artwork. (Mar.)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Product Description

Jack Kirby created or co-created some of comic books’ most popular characters including Captain America, The X-Men, The Hulk, The Fantastic Four, The Mighty Thor, Darkseid, and The New Gods. More significantly, he created much of the visual language for fantasy and adventure comics. There were comics before Kirby, but for the most part their page layout, graphics, and visual dynamic aped what was being done in syndicated newspaper strips. Almost everything that was different about comic books began in the forties on the drawing table of Jack Kirby. This is his story by one who knew him well—the authorized celebration of the one and only “King of Comics” and his groundbreaking work.

 

“I don’t think it’s any accident that . . . the entire Marvel universe and the entire DC universe are all pinned or rooted on Kirby’s concepts.” —Michael Chabon

  

About the Author

Mark Evanier met Jack Kirby in 1969, worked as his assistant, and later became his official biographer. A writer and historian, Evanier has written more than 500 comics for Gold Key, DC Comics, and Marvel Comics, several hundred hours of television (including Garfield) and is the author of several books including Mad Art (2002). He has three Emmy Award nominations, and received the Lifetime Achievement Award for animation from the Writers Guild of America.

  

(Study) For Whamm! Panel 1 : Original Source

Original Artist : Jerry Grandenetti

 

JERRY GRANDENETTI

Jerry Grandenetti (April 15, 1925 or 1927 (sources differ), Bronxville, New York) is an American comic book artist and advertising art director, best known for his work with writer-artist Will Eisner on the celebrated comics feature "The Spirit", and for his decade- and-a-half run on many DC Comics war series.

 

because im addicted: Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

becauseimaddicted.net/2007/10/deconstructing-lichtenstein...

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

I came across this David Barsalou's Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein page and apparently Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through over 30,000 comic books studying every illustration determined to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces.

 

Check out David Barsalou's flickr account: DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN's

Photo Cred: davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

Roy Lichtenstein

Sent: Thu 4/19/07 11:54 AM

To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

 

From: Hillary Bray Register (hregist1@my.westga.edu)

 

Mr. Barsalou,

I am currently working on my senior thesis paper in art history concerning Roy Lichtenstein's representation of women in the 60s and 90s. While searching for images, I found your website. Needless to say, your images have been invaluable to my research. I cannot find many of them in any other text. As I will be giving an oral presentation on my research, I will need to use these images to compare the originals with Lichtenstein's appropriations. However, the images are not presentation quality. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could email me higher resolution images. If this is not possible or desirable, I understand. Nonetheless, I would like to thank you for devoting such a great deal of time and effort to procure the original images.

 

Sincerely,

Hillary Register

University of West Georgia

 

Art das kunstmagazin

www.art-magazin.de

 

art Magazin D.P.V.

P.O. Box 101602

20010 Hamburg

Germany

 

U.S.A. newsstand distribution is by GLP International, 153 South Dean

Street, Englewood NJ 07631. Phone: 1-201-871-10 10, Fax 1-201-871-0870,

www.glpnews.com

 

Dear David Barsalou,

 

In our next issue we are about to publish an article on your work

Deconstruction of Roy Lichtenstein.

Therefore it would be great you could provide us a selection of 5-8 images showing your artwork.

If so, please send them in a high resolution (15x20cm, 300dpi), with

detailed captions via email to me, please. You can also use our FTP Server,

which access informations you can find below.

 

Looking forward to hear from you soon! Thank you in advance!

 

Best regards from Hamburg

 

Verena Andreas

Verena Andreas (ass.photo@art-magazin.de)

 

Spitting Image

October 23, 2006

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.spitting-image.net/archives/005964.html

Artist David Barsalou presents a comparative analysis of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein's paintings with the original source images he copied from 1960's comic books. The pictures on display are from Barsalou's forthcoming book, also titled DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN.The exhibit and book are the result of over 15 years of extensive research.Barsalou examined over 25,000 comic books to find the pictures Lichtenstein used in his work. This is the first time that Roy Lichtenstein's original source images have ever been exhibited together. Barsalou states, " DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN may influence how critics, and writers view Lichtenstein's work in the future.This exhibit will be of significant historical importance". press release | See Gallery 9/5/2000

 

flickr photos from DRL: www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

thanks Conscientious

 

~Artist as archivist. (Personal note: for years I've been visiting cemeteries & graveyards within a days drive of my home; taking photos of stones and memorials. The thrill of finding something many people overlook keeps me at it.)

One might wonder if David Barsalou's 15 years of comic-book research along with his book and exhibits have had any affect upon the dollar value of Roy Lichtenstein paintings. Do the same art galleries represent both artists?

On the other hand Lichtenstein paintings are (still?) sold for tens of millions of dollars, so Barsalou's work is truly a labor of love and Lichtenstein's body of work is worthy of his scrutiny?

Posted by Stubbornson at October 23, 2006 12:47 PM

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

drawn.ca/2005/04/page/3/

Posted at 5:13 pm by Ward | 21 Comments

John McFaul »

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

 

roy lichtenstein

 

Whether or not you fully appreciate the work of the late Pop Artist, Roy Lichtenstein, you can at least take a gander at the comic book sources that he used for his pieces . Deconstructing Lichtenstein is the pet project of David Barsalou, an avid Lichtenstein fan, who went through thousands of old comics to find the original source images to Roy’s paintings. It’s interesting to see the creative process behind the legendary painter’s work as you get to see how much (or how little) he changed the subject matter. Be patient as it takes a while for all the images to load.

 

This entry was posted on Friday, April 8th, 2005 at 5:13 pm by Ward and is filed under Art, Comics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Comments

 

1. Steve says:

April 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm

 

I’ve been doing some research on old comics lately, as part of my regimen for gearing up to publish a few graphic novels. So I’ve developed a new fondness for old comic art styles.

 

What really struck me about this Lichtenstein page was how poorly his versions fared against the originals. These unheralded comics artists, laboring under work-for-hire conditions for little pay, had better line control and anatomical control than our artiste Roy. His versions look downright amateurish.

 

It’s a little hard to appreciate his contribution in this light, other than the fact that he recontextualized these comic artist’s work by copying it badly and hanging it in an art gallery. How is this significant? Because it made it acceptable for artsy-fartsy collectors to admit they liked comics?

2. Ward says:

April 8th, 2005 at 8:31 pm

 

True, Roy’s work seems downright crude, but remember you’ve got to think that line quality and perfect interpretations of humans and animals dipicted were not his motivation. You can’t equate his paintings with the skills of those comic artists. (And, his paintings are painted on very large canvases, instead of on smaller illustration board.) Plus, you’ve got to think about from where he was coming from. He was a Pop Artist. The Pop Artists were guys who were frustrated with the art world at the time and felt that art was in the mundane everyday thing. They were putting a mirror up to ordinary objects and forcing us to look at it in a new way — through a different context. In fact, some of those guys were poking fun at what art collectors would call “art” and were amazed at the amount of money the collectors would put down on a piece. Like I said, not everybody is down with Lichtenstein, but at that time, he made people look at art and at comic books in a new light.

3. niff says:

April 8th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

 

Two great points ! It IS funny to see how crude Roy’s work looks next to the original, but then you have to think how HUGE Roy worked. I think you both made great points, and It is pretty cool how he made people re-examine comics as fine art. awesome link! thanks.

4. saamvisual says:

April 9th, 2005 at 5:56 am

 

Is a link on your site a poisoned chalice? The site is down due to bandwidth issues…. wow to be THAT popular. BTW, I really like this site - please keep it going.

5. Surfer says:

April 9th, 2005 at 7:12 am

 

Bandwidth limit exceeded!

6. jmorrison says:

April 9th, 2005 at 8:43 am

 

hey, i have to agree with steve on this one. i posted a tid bit about this a while back and did a little bit of further “deconstruction.”

 

thenonist.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/deconstructing_l...

 

check out the thumbnail…

i couldn’t help myself ;)

7. Bob Loblaws says:

April 9th, 2005 at 9:55 am

 

Lichtenstein was a crap artist who just stole work from other artist. You can try to intellectualize it any way you want. A con man in my books. How these people consistantly con the Intelligencia of the art world in is beyond me.

8. Ward says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pm

 

Bob Loblaws,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being brash and closed-minded on Lichtenstein and his work. So, what you’re telling me is that because he took work from other artists and reconfigured them and painted them in his own way that he’s a con man, right? Well, then I guess you can just lock up every single artist that is out there, from gallery to the comic-stand, because everybody is copying from everyone else. If you look on the “About” page for Drawn!, you’ll see the quote by Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources,” Lichtenstein just chose not to hide them. In fact, he blatantly made the viewer see his sources — even more so, exploited it. Thus, he became famous for it. Any other artist would’ve done the same thing, he just did it on a much larger scale than anyone else. Those comic artists could’ve done the same thing, but they didn’t. They probably didn’t seem to see the interest in it, but I wouldn’t know, so I’m not going to speak for them.

 

Artists “steal” from other artists. It’s a fact of life. I know that others have stolen from me, but all I have to do is just suck it up and just keep doing my thang. I could confront the situation, but why would I, as I do the same? Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

 

Now, we’re splitting hairs here, as there is a distinct line between “stealing” and “being influenced by.” I understand that Lichtenstein blatantly grabbed these images from old comics, but again, he took something old and made something new. Was he sued for his work? What did the comic artists say about what he did? Was there any legal action?

 

What about all the artists now who call for Creative Commons licenses when at the same time try and copyright their own material so others don’t rip it off? When is it a right? When is it wrong?

9. andrea says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm

 

I do not understand this. seriously, what is the DEAL? what is the matter with taking something (in this case, comic book art) and forcing the viewer to look at it in an entirely different way (which is what lichtenstein did)? isn’t that what art is all about? if anything, it further legitimized the work of comic book artists. case in point: I am not a comic book fan/reader, but lichtenstein’s work allowed me to see it with new eyes. I am completely puzzled by these narrow-minded views represented in the earlier posts.

10. MrBlank says:

April 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm

 

A lot of times art isn’t about style, technique or format. Sometimes it’s all about one simple idea. In today’s context, Liechtenstein’s work does seem cliché and old-hat, but that shows just how influential his work has been. We’ve gotten used to it. Every single creative medium is using Liechtenstein’s idea and running with it.

 

Fashion: Did you see ‘Project Runway’ on Bravo? One challenge was to Take clothing from a vintage clothing store, deconstruct it and create fashion for the future. Even the show’s winning designer, Jay, had a line of cloths that mixed elements from the rural past, like quilts and knitted shawls and put them in a modern, urban context.

 

Illustration\Design: Look at recent posts on Drawn! and you see it. Remember the one on Phil Noto? “Noto’s work, again, falls into the category of retro meets now, with some varied influences. His work reminds me of a cross between Bob Peak, straight up early Bond, 60’s mod, with some manga mixed in (maybe).”

 

Movies: Kill Bill — This was a motion picture’s equivalent to a photo collage. Tarantino took scenes, angles, dialog, music and many, many other things from a huge history of filmmakers’ work and created a visual mash-up of the medium. Brilliant.

 

Music: The Grey Album — DJ Dangermose’s marrage of Jay-Z’s Black Album and the Beatle’s White Album. It was labeled as the best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly even though it was never published. It was released on P2P networks finding its way to iPods all over the world. Due to copyright laws, it still remains illegal.

 

Popular culture would not be the same without Liechtenstein’s influence. You don’t have to be Clement Greenberg to see the significance of that. Like science and technology, you take what has been done before and add to it, move it forward, make it new. Everything is built on the past, everything.

 

Sidenote:

It’s also interesting to see this trend stirring up a lot of legal issues. If all of our copyright laws had been focused on in the 60’s, would Lichtenstein have been able to show is work? Is art being limited because of these laws? It seems so: www.illegal-art.org/

11. Cash Nexus says:

April 10th, 2005 at 9:03 pm

 

For further research, there’s a great examination of art, sources, and influences, including Pop Art in general and this same discussion on Roy Lichtenstein in particular, in “High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” (www.moesbooks.com/cgi-bin/moe/39669.html). I highly recommend this thorough and detailed book.

12. Paul says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

 

I’m gonna get to the heart of this: if a crap artist finds himself making a ton o’ dough by copying another artist, then at least the the guy who’s pockets are now flowing with cash could’ve looked up the poor schmo who did the original work and offered him half. But no, this Ward cat will find a way to justify not sharing the bux as well as he protected his thievery above…I’ve used exact replicas of Escher and Michelangelo in my work, and I ALWAYS sign their names, even if it’s obvious who did the original.

Since I never earned a dollar for any of the works in which I paid homage to my heroes, I have nothing to share, but damn if I don’t have the address of the Escher foundation in case I do. Crap is crap. Lichenstein was crap.

13. Sam says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:48 pm

 

This Paul guy must be right - looks like he’s an expert on crap.

14. Ward says:

April 11th, 2005 at 7:41 am

 

I was not going to respond anymore to this thread as I feel that I’ve already stated my opinon on the topic, but after being called a “thief,” I feel like I should defend myself to a certain degree. When I mentioned in my last post about how other artists “steal” (notice quotes) from others, including myself, my train of thought was about how we all take elements from other artists who have influenced us and incorporate these elements into our own work. Some people might take notice, like when you say, “Oh I definitely see a Kirby influence there, etc.” Everybody does this, and it’s not thievery in my opinon.

 

But I then thought. after reading your response, Paul, that when you say you used replicas of other’s work — in a collage effect, I’m assuming — that yes, I have used various clips of magazines, pictures, and newspapers in my work. (If you’re curious, click here. And for the record, I’ve never made any money off of these pieces.) A good amount of artists have used collage, and have made loads of money from doing so. Thievery, or not? Who’s to say?

 

And Paul, with your portrait of John Lennon — do you know that you did EXACTLY what Lichtenstein did? You both used images from a different source and made the viewer look at it in a different way. (Plus, you did not credit the photographers.)

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

15. niff says:

April 11th, 2005 at 11:51 am

 

Ward: you said it all. bravo!

16. Steve says:

April 11th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

 

Yeah! I opened up a hornet’s nest here! (puts on beekeeper’s netting)

 

It is interesting to hear why Lichtenstein’s work is considered important. I saw the Pop Artist exhibit when it came through Atlanta, and the pieces still challenged some of my ideas about art, even though their impact had been absorbed into the art world decades ago. I believe there were a few Lichtenstein pieces…something with a jet plane…bah, can’t remember.

 

As a musician who can both play instruments and samples them, as well as an experienced “photoshop jockey,” I can’t deny that the groundwork laid by these people has influenced me. In fact, what they did as “rebellion” has become part of the standard tools of the trade now.

 

Perhaps my sensibility lies somewhere in the middle of this debate. I appreciate the effect Lichtenstein’s recontextualization has had on the comics medium and the art world; yet in looking at his work, I hope for more immediate aesthetic gratification. In other words, I want a picture that is both subversive AND pretty.

 

Also, artwork created with a focus on subversive impact always strikes me as a “shave and a haircut” approach. I get the joke, I move on. It’s the art world’s version of a soundbyte. Nothing wrong with that, but I crave more substantial experiences with art. I guess I’m naive in that.

17. jo3 says:

April 11th, 2005 at 10:47 pm

 

ah, can we get a mirror up in here?

18. eck@rt says:

April 12th, 2005 at 6:01 am

 

Who can tell me more about Tony Abruzzo? Abruzzo drew romance comics in the 60s and 70s, some of which were models for Lichtenstein.

 

eck@rt

19. Elias Hiebert says:

April 12th, 2005 at 11:57 am

 

Yeah, all artists steal, whatever . But the thing that bugs me about Lichtenstein is that he appears to have no respect for the artists he stole from. It’s as if he thought all this commercial art he was surrounded by just appeared by magic. And he got filthy, filthy rich. And the artists he stole from did not. So that rub my sense of justice the wrong way. And I LIKE Lichtenstein! (Sorry I’m beginning every sentence with the word And.) Those big canvasses really HIT ya! Lichtenstein was really good. Was he good enough to do what the artists he stole from did day in and day out? I doubt it.

20. Jen says:

April 13th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

 

Steve: what you said, man. In spades. Bravo.

 

Ward, ditto(even if I am more of a mind with Steve, I love the way you express yourself).

 

Good discussion, all of it.

21. Joy says:

April 20th, 2005 at 11:11 pm

 

So does anyone know if the original page is down for good?

 

American Madness

Intelligent Criticism in the Service of a Better Nation

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

David Barsalou has taken the time to go back and track down the original comics of over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s works, he then compiled them next to the Lichtenstein prints and posted them online.

 

You get to see a comprehensive overview of Lichtenstein’s source materials and see how closely he interpreted/copied the originals. Some controversy has arisen over these early works as he never credited the original artists whose work he was copying. According to Wikipedia: Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a copyist, saying “Roy’s work was a wonderment of the graphic formula and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. The panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy.”

On the flipside:

Artist Dave Gibbons said of Lichtenstein’s works: “Roy Lichtenstein’s copies of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending tracings of quite sophisticated images.” Lichtenstein’s obituary in The Economist noted these artists “did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him.”

This anger from the original artists could also stem from the lack of recognition they received for their work in its original form, devalued as just another piece of pop/trash culture, while Roy Lichtenstein was elevated to celebrity and received various awards and recognition for his work.

Now you can see his works next to the original panels and determine for yourself whether you think Lichtenstein was a genius or copyist.

1.

Or a genius copyist.

 

americanmadness.com/2007/10/25/deconstructing-roy-lichten...

 

The GAB

Shaun Venish - Graphic Art Blog

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Roy Lichtenstein

18/March/2008 | Illustraton

I've been a fan of Roy Lichtenstein's comic book pop art for years. I always wondered how many of his paintings were taken from comic books and did he copy the comic panels directly or make changes to them to improve the composition? Well now there are some answers, thanks to David Barsalou and his Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Originally an exibit at the Springfield Massachusetts Gallery, he now has a flickr site that contains a ton of the source material. It's an interesting deconstruction of the wonderful work Lichtenstein created.

 

A really interesting read is the Great Bazooka Bubble Gum Wrapper Myth of 1961, A look into the controversy over whether Lichtenstein stole Andy Warhol's idea. Neat.

 

"... 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..."

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Artist or Artiface?

October 25, 2007

 

Bibi's box: July 2005 Archives

www.bibi.org/box/archives/2005_07.php?offset=160

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - The original Comic Book source images of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein, by David Barsalou. (via neurastenia)

 

JeremyS « Amnesia Blog

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

amnesiablog.wordpress.com/author/muchablogaboutnothing/

David Barsalou has a lot of time on his hands… So much time infact that he has spent the last 25 years of his life closely examining every single illustration in over 30,000 comic books with the sole purpose of uncovering the original source material for the work of 1960s Pop Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far he has sourced about 140 specific illustrations that Lichtenstein has blown up and sold for mega bucks.

Posted by JeremyS

 

scamp: an irish illustration blog » Comics

www.scamp.ie/category/comics/page/2/

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Friday, October 26th, 2007

Thanks to Mario for pointing this one out

For the last 25 years David Barsalou has examined over 30,000 comic books (a kind of obsession) to find the cartoon images Lichtenstein used in his work.

The Lichtenstein Project compares over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s paintings.

Though in art/history books I always read that Lichtenstein best-known artworks are relatively close, but not exact, copies of comic-book panels (a subject he largely abandoned in 1965) after Barsalou’s deconstruction I find quite amazing the level of similarities!!!

by Mario Sughi

 

The Art Law Blog

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Lichtenstein and Copyright

Alex Beam has an interesting piece in the Boston Globe on copyright issues surrounding Roy Lichtenstein's use of images from comics. An art teacher named David Barsalou has been tracking down and cataloging specific comics that were the inspiration for Lichtenstein's paintings; so far he's found about 140. "Color me naive," writes Beam, "but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s." He also correctly points out that Lichtenstein could have faced serious copyright problems (Beam doesn't mention it, but just think of Rogers v. Koons); he says the interesting question is why he never did. The question is in any case now moot: there's a three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims.

theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

You can see samples of Barsalou's research at his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

 

posted by Donn Zaretsky at 6:44 PM

 

Du bist nicht angemeldet

www.supertopic.de/forum/9/zeig-mir-irgendwas-947-414.html

 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.notcot.com/archives/2007/10/d...g.php#more

flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-...htenstein/

Apparently David Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through every illustration in over 30,000 comic books.... in order to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces! Knoth

Veteran

25.10.07

14:25 Uhr

 

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.

 

News and Articles on Derivative Work

news.surfwax.com/general-news/files/derivative_work.html

 

Lichtenstein: creator or copycat? Oct 18, 2006

Barsalou correctly points that musicians who ``sample" other artists' music have to pay them royalties. Does the Lichtenstein estate owe compensation to the creators of the original work?After visiting a Lichtenstein exhibition in Chicago, attorney Mark Weissburg wrote an article titled ``Roy Lichtenstein, Copyright Thief?" ``I was struck by the fact that Lichtenstein was never sued for copyright infringement," Weissburg wrote. ``Under copyright law if you copy a protected work without... (Boston Globe)

  

www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/deconstructing_and_debat...

April 12, 2005

  

Deconstructing, Debating Lichtenstein

Through the great Canadian illustrators' group blog Drawn! comes not only a link to an enlightening work comparing the comics-inspired paintings of pop artist Roy Lichtenstein to their comic-book sources, but a by-the-numbers debate in the comments thread about the merits of Lichtenstein's work.

posted 7:36 am PST | Permalink

  

209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TGeApfL35HsJ:www.thecomicfo...

 

June 14 2008, 12:34 PM

Post #8

Copyright Infringement on Art

In case anyone is interested, this is the Boston Globe article I mentioned in the 'cast:

 

"Lichtenstein: creator or copycat?" by Alex Beam

 

And this is the web site it (and I) talks about:

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

 

TV Tokyo Inquire

From: Kyoko Matsuda (matsuda@nexent.tv)

Sent: Wed 7/23/08 2:11 PM To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

Cc: yuko matsuda (yumatsuda@earthlink.net)

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou:

 

I am writing this on behalf of TV Tokyo, a Japanese TV network.

We produce weekend evening, 30 minutes-long art program titled "The Great Masters of Art" for TV Tokyo.

www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/kyojin/

This program reaches about 5 million Japanese population.

 

In each episode, one artist and one masterpiece by the featured artist will be picked. The program will explore the stories behind the production of the masterpiece and the life of the artist as well. Also the program will demonstrate/ explain the specific artistic technique that was used to create the featured art work.

 

We are planning to produce a program on Mr. Roy Lichtenstein and feature his "Girl with Hair Ribbon" for upcoming "The Great Masters" on TV Tokyo.

 

Since you have been working on the "Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein" site since 1979. I would like to ask a question about the cartoon which Mr. Lichtenstein transformed to his art work.

 

The director in Tokyo is interested in filming the original cartoon by Mr. John Romita Sr. and we are looking for its location. We already have contacted the Lichtenstein Foundation but they said they don't own it.

 

Please let me know if you know the information.

Thank you very much for your attention.

  

Cordially,

Kyoko Matsuda

BK Nexent, Inc.

545 8th Avenue 9th Floor North

New York, NY 10018, U.S.A.

Tel: (212)697-7401

Fax:(212)697-9542

E-mail: matsuda@nexent.tv

www.nexent.tv

www.nystream.net

 

astrofella.wordpress.com

 

(Soon after publishing this post, I received a comment from David Barsalou linking to the flickrstream – Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - which he’s created comparing some 140 Lichtenstein artworks with the comic strip source images, along with fascinating biographies of the comicbook artists who created them.)

 

September 28, 1963

You may appreciate pop art, but did you know that Whaam!, a 1963 pop art piece painted by Roy Lichtenstein, is one of the best-known works of the art form? The painting was first exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New Your City on this day in 1963. It was purchased by the Tate Gallery in London three years later and has been on permanent display at Tate Modern since 2006.

ICE CREAM CONE : Original Source

 

All The Code You Never Gave Me

deconstructing art

Thursday, February 8, 2007, 01:50 PM - Copyfight

www.selectparks.net/~marta/index.php?entry=entry070214-00...

Boston News published a comment on the looping issue of Lichtenstein's use of foreign artwork, mostly comic artwork from DC Comics. It is called Lichtenstein, creator or copycat?:

Art teacher David Barsalou has an interesting avocation. He has found and catalog ed almost every comic book panel later blown up and sold for megabucks by 1960s POP Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far, Barsalou has about 140. You will see a sample on this page, or go to his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

 

Color me naive, but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s. ``He tried to make it seem as though he was making major compositional changes in his work, but he wasn't," says Barsalou, who teaches at the High School of Commerce in Springfield. ``The critics are of one mind that he made major changes, but if you look at the work , he copied them almost verbatim. Only a few were original."

"Barsalou is boring to us," comments Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation. He contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a mere copyist: "Roy's work was a wonderment of the graphic formulae and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. Barsalou's thesis notwithstanding, the panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy."

There is no exact copy. Eddie Campbell also writes a handsome post where he expains, among other things, the value of the actual process in the art production:

Showing them side by side like this is useful for an understanding of the iconographic connections, but it does miss the essence of the exercise, that is that Lichtenstein took a tiny picture, smaller than the palm of the hand, printed in four color inks on newsprint and blew it up to the conventional size at which 'art' is made and exhibited and finished it in paint on canvas. In theory it was like painting a view of a building, or a vase. He worked through a long series of the same kind of thing before applying the particular treatments he had devised, such as the mechanical dots, to other kinds of images, ultimately including abstract images as in the brushstroke series. I find his whole project quite astonishing and invigorating. It was good for art. Hell, it was even good for the comic book medium, setting a precedent for it to be taken seriously. Cambell's post is stuffed with interesting sideviews, including a suggestion from his comment system, Historically, copying the Masters was considered to be a part of the painter’s training, not the final product . . .

 

ARTICULATE

Brad darling, this painting is a masterpiece!

www.abc.net.au/news/arts/articulate/200610/s1769879.htm

By Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop. Posted: Saturday, October 21 2006 .

Could it all be a lie? ...

 

American artist David Barsalou is on a mission to knock 60s pop artist Roy Lichtenstein off his throne.

 

Barsalou's idea of fun is finding and cataloging the comic book panels that made Lichtenstein a big name. Of the 140 he's found, many of the artist's works seem to be near copies.

"He tried to make it seem as though he was making major compositional changes in his work, but he wasn't," he said. "The critics are of one mind that he made major changes but if you look at the work, he copied them almost verbatim. Only a few were original."

 

Though news to me, apparently this is well known among artists. The general consensus seems to be that while Lichtenstein may have been a copyright thief, his co-option of pop culture fits the pop art conventions. It seems fair to say that the implications of the comics change when they're blown up to massive proportions and displayed on a wall. After all, if a soup can has the potential to become art, so does a comic strip. But it all becomes a bit comical (excuse the pun) when you consider one of Lichtenstein's works can go for $US1.6 million.

 

Check out the comparisons and tell us what you think. Is Lichtenstein a copycat or is he merely borrowing, like all great artists do?

 

And while you're pondering the prospect of plagiarism, why not rip the man off yourself and learn how to make your own Lichtenstein?

 

KANARDO™ // BLOG

kanardo.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/deconstructing-roy-licht...

 

.DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN.

 

22 October, 2007 in art

For the last 25 years David Barsalou has examined over 30,000 comic books to find the cartoon images Lichtenstein used in his work.

LINK: davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

FurdLog » Art? Or Copying?

msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/?p=5355

 

Lichtenstein: creator or copycat?

Color me naive, but I never thought Lichtenstein’s work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s. “He tried to make it seem as though he was making major compositional changes in his work, but he wasn’t,” says Barsalou, who teaches at the High School of Commerce in Springfield. “The critics are of one mind that he made major changes, but if you look at the work , he copied them almost verbatim. Only a few were original.”

 

[…] Lichtenstein’s fans, and the collectors who now pay millions of dollars for individual canvases, will continue to revere his work. But what are the implications for copyright law? Barsalou correctly points that musicians who “sample” other artists’ music have to pay them royalties. Does the Lichtenstein estate owe compensation to the creators of the original work?

 

After visiting a Lichtenstein exhibition in Chicago, attorney Mark Weissburg wrote an article titled “Roy Lichtenstein, Copyright Thief?” [pdf] […]

   

Because Im Addicted: Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

becauseimaddicted.net/2007/10/deconstructing-lichtenstein...

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

I came across this David Barsalou's Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein page and apparently Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through over 30,000 comic books studying every illustration determined to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces.

 

Check out David Barsalou's flickr account: DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN's

Photo Cred: davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

Spitting Image

October 23, 2006

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.spitting-image.net/archives/005964.html

Artist David Barsalou presents a comparative analysis of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein's paintings with the original source images he copied from 1960's comic books. The pictures on display are from Barsalou's forthcoming book, also titled DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN.The exhibit and book are the result of over 15 years of extensive research.Barsalou examined over 25,000 comic books to find the pictures Lichtenstein used in his work. This is the first time that Roy Lichtenstein's original source images have ever been exhibited together. Barsalou states, " DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN may influence how critics, and writers view Lichtenstein's work in the future.This exhibit will be of significant historical importance". press release | See Gallery 9/5/2000

 

flickr photos from DRL: www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

thanks Conscientious

 

~Artist as archivist. (Personal note: for years I've been visiting cemeteries & graveyards within a days drive of my home; taking photos of stones and memorials. The thrill of finding something many people overlook keeps me at it.)

One might wonder if David Barsalou's 15 years of comic-book research along with his book and exhibits have had any affect upon the dollar value of Roy Lichtenstein paintings. Do the same art galleries represent both artists?

On the other hand Lichtenstein paintings are (still?) sold for tens of millions of dollars, so Barsalou's work is truly a labor of love and Lichtenstein's body of work is worthy of his scrutiny?

Posted by Stubbornson at October 23, 2006 12:47 PM

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

drawn.ca/2005/04/page/3/

Posted at 5:13 pm by Ward | 21 Comments

John McFaul »

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

 

roy lichtenstein

 

Whether or not you fully appreciate the work of the late Pop Artist, Roy Lichtenstein, you can at least take a gander at the comic book sources that he used for his pieces . Deconstructing Lichtenstein is the pet project of David Barsalou, an avid Lichtenstein fan, who went through thousands of old comics to find the original source images to Roy’s paintings. It’s interesting to see the creative process behind the legendary painter’s work as you get to see how much (or how little) he changed the subject matter. Be patient as it takes a while for all the images to load.

 

This entry was posted on Friday, April 8th, 2005 at 5:13 pm by Ward and is filed under Art, Comics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Comments

 

1. Steve says:

April 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm

 

I’ve been doing some research on old comics lately, as part of my regimen for gearing up to publish a few graphic novels. So I’ve developed a new fondness for old comic art styles.

 

What really struck me about this Lichtenstein page was how poorly his versions fared against the originals. These unheralded comics artists, laboring under work-for-hire conditions for little pay, had better line control and anatomical control than our artiste Roy. His versions look downright amateurish.

 

It’s a little hard to appreciate his contribution in this light, other than the fact that he recontextualized these comic artist’s work by copying it badly and hanging it in an art gallery. How is this significant? Because it made it acceptable for artsy-fartsy collectors to admit they liked comics?

2. Ward says:

April 8th, 2005 at 8:31 pm

 

True, Roy’s work seems downright crude, but remember you’ve got to think that line quality and perfect interpretations of humans and animals dipicted were not his motivation. You can’t equate his paintings with the skills of those comic artists. (And, his paintings are painted on very large canvases, instead of on smaller illustration board.) Plus, you’ve got to think about from where he was coming from. He was a Pop Artist. The Pop Artists were guys who were frustrated with the art world at the time and felt that art was in the mundane everyday thing. They were putting a mirror up to ordinary objects and forcing us to look at it in a new way — through a different context. In fact, some of those guys were poking fun at what art collectors would call “art” and were amazed at the amount of money the collectors would put down on a piece. Like I said, not everybody is down with Lichtenstein, but at that time, he made people look at art and at comic books in a new light.

3. niff says:

April 8th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

 

Two great points ! It IS funny to see how crude Roy’s work looks next to the original, but then you have to think how HUGE Roy worked. I think you both made great points, and It is pretty cool how he made people re-examine comics as fine art. awesome link! thanks.

4. saamvisual says:

April 9th, 2005 at 5:56 am

 

Is a link on your site a poisoned chalice? The site is down due to bandwidth issues…. wow to be THAT popular. BTW, I really like this site - please keep it going.

5. Surfer says:

April 9th, 2005 at 7:12 am

 

Bandwidth limit exceeded!

6. jmorrison says:

April 9th, 2005 at 8:43 am

 

hey, i have to agree with steve on this one. i posted a tid bit about this a while back and did a little bit of further “deconstruction.”

 

thenonist.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/deconstructing_l...

 

check out the thumbnail…

i couldn’t help myself ;)

7. Bob Loblaws says:

April 9th, 2005 at 9:55 am

 

Lichtenstein was a crap artist who just stole work from other artist. You can try to intellectualize it any way you want. A con man in my books. How these people consistantly con the Intelligencia of the art world in is beyond me.

8. Ward says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pm

 

Bob Loblaws,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being brash and closed-minded on Lichtenstein and his work. So, what you’re telling me is that because he took work from other artists and reconfigured them and painted them in his own way that he’s a con man, right? Well, then I guess you can just lock up every single artist that is out there, from gallery to the comic-stand, because everybody is copying from everyone else. If you look on the “About” page for Drawn!, you’ll see the quote by Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources,” Lichtenstein just chose not to hide them. In fact, he blatantly made the viewer see his sources — even more so, exploited it. Thus, he became famous for it. Any other artist would’ve done the same thing, he just did it on a much larger scale than anyone else. Those comic artists could’ve done the same thing, but they didn’t. They probably didn’t seem to see the interest in it, but I wouldn’t know, so I’m not going to speak for them.

 

Artists “steal” from other artists. It’s a fact of life. I know that others have stolen from me, but all I have to do is just suck it up and just keep doing my thang. I could confront the situation, but why would I, as I do the same? Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

 

Now, we’re splitting hairs here, as there is a distinct line between “stealing” and “being influenced by.” I understand that Lichtenstein blatantly grabbed these images from old comics, but again, he took something old and made something new. Was he sued for his work? What did the comic artists say about what he did? Was there any legal action?

 

What about all the artists now who call for Creative Commons licenses when at the same time try and copyright their own material so others don’t rip it off? When is it a right? When is it wrong?

9. andrea says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm

 

I do not understand this. seriously, what is the DEAL? what is the matter with taking something (in this case, comic book art) and forcing the viewer to look at it in an entirely different way (which is what lichtenstein did)? isn’t that what art is all about? if anything, it further legitimized the work of comic book artists. case in point: I am not a comic book fan/reader, but lichtenstein’s work allowed me to see it with new eyes. I am completely puzzled by these narrow-minded views represented in the earlier posts.

10. MrBlank says:

April 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm

 

A lot of times art isn’t about style, technique or format. Sometimes it’s all about one simple idea. In today’s context, Liechtenstein’s work does seem cliché and old-hat, but that shows just how influential his work has been. We’ve gotten used to it. Every single creative medium is using Liechtenstein’s idea and running with it.

 

Fashion: Did you see ‘Project Runway’ on Bravo? One challenge was to Take clothing from a vintage clothing store, deconstruct it and create fashion for the future. Even the show’s winning designer, Jay, had a line of cloths that mixed elements from the rural past, like quilts and knitted shawls and put them in a modern, urban context.

 

Illustration\Design: Look at recent posts on Drawn! and you see it. Remember the one on Phil Noto? “Noto’s work, again, falls into the category of retro meets now, with some varied influences. His work reminds me of a cross between Bob Peak, straight up early Bond, 60’s mod, with some manga mixed in (maybe).”

 

Movies: Kill Bill — This was a motion picture’s equivalent to a photo collage. Tarantino took scenes, angles, dialog, music and many, many other things from a huge history of filmmakers’ work and created a visual mash-up of the medium. Brilliant.

 

Music: The Grey Album — DJ Dangermose’s marrage of Jay-Z’s Black Album and the Beatle’s White Album. It was labeled as the best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly even though it was never published. It was released on P2P networks finding its way to iPods all over the world. Due to copyright laws, it still remains illegal.

 

Popular culture would not be the same without Liechtenstein’s influence. You don’t have to be Clement Greenberg to see the significance of that. Like science and technology, you take what has been done before and add to it, move it forward, make it new. Everything is built on the past, everything.

 

Sidenote:

It’s also interesting to see this trend stirring up a lot of legal issues. If all of our copyright laws had been focused on in the 60’s, would Lichtenstein have been able to show is work? Is art being limited because of these laws? It seems so: www.illegal-art.org/

11. Cash Nexus says:

April 10th, 2005 at 9:03 pm

 

For further research, there’s a great examination of art, sources, and influences, including Pop Art in general and this same discussion on Roy Lichtenstein in particular, in “High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” (www.moesbooks.com/cgi-bin/moe/39669.html). I highly recommend this thorough and detailed book.

12. Paul says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

 

I’m gonna get to the heart of this: if a crap artist finds himself making a ton o’ dough by copying another artist, then at least the the guy who’s pockets are now flowing with cash could’ve looked up the poor schmo who did the original work and offered him half. But no, this Ward cat will find a way to justify not sharing the bux as well as he protected his thievery above…I’ve used exact replicas of Escher and Michelangelo in my work, and I ALWAYS sign their names, even if it’s obvious who did the original.

Since I never earned a dollar for any of the works in which I paid homage to my heroes, I have nothing to share, but damn if I don’t have the address of the Escher foundation in case I do. Crap is crap. Lichenstein was crap.

13. Sam says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:48 pm

 

This Paul guy must be right - looks like he’s an expert on crap.

14. Ward says:

April 11th, 2005 at 7:41 am

 

I was not going to respond anymore to this thread as I feel that I’ve already stated my opinon on the topic, but after being called a “thief,” I feel like I should defend myself to a certain degree. When I mentioned in my last post about how other artists “steal” (notice quotes) from others, including myself, my train of thought was about how we all take elements from other artists who have influenced us and incorporate these elements into our own work. Some people might take notice, like when you say, “Oh I definitely see a Kirby influence there, etc.” Everybody does this, and it’s not thievery in my opinon.

 

But I then thought. after reading your response, Paul, that when you say you used replicas of other’s work — in a collage effect, I’m assuming — that yes, I have used various clips of magazines, pictures, and newspapers in my work. (If you’re curious, click here. And for the record, I’ve never made any money off of these pieces.) A good amount of artists have used collage, and have made loads of money from doing so. Thievery, or not? Who’s to say?

 

And Paul, with your portrait of John Lennon — do you know that you did EXACTLY what Lichtenstein did? You both used images from a different source and made the viewer look at it in a different way. (Plus, you did not credit the photographers.)

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

15. niff says:

April 11th, 2005 at 11:51 am

 

Ward: you said it all. bravo!

16. Steve says:

April 11th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

 

Yeah! I opened up a hornet’s nest here! (puts on beekeeper’s netting)

 

It is interesting to hear why Lichtenstein’s work is considered important. I saw the Pop Artist exhibit when it came through Atlanta, and the pieces still challenged some of my ideas about art, even though their impact had been absorbed into the art world decades ago. I believe there were a few Lichtenstein pieces…something with a jet plane…bah, can’t remember.

 

As a musician who can both play instruments and samples them, as well as an experienced “photoshop jockey,” I can’t deny that the groundwork laid by these people has influenced me. In fact, what they did as “rebellion” has become part of the standard tools of the trade now.

 

Perhaps my sensibility lies somewhere in the middle of this debate. I appreciate the effect Lichtenstein’s recontextualization has had on the comics medium and the art world; yet in looking at his work, I hope for more immediate aesthetic gratification. In other words, I want a picture that is both subversive AND pretty.

 

Also, artwork created with a focus on subversive impact always strikes me as a “shave and a haircut” approach. I get the joke, I move on. It’s the art world’s version of a soundbyte. Nothing wrong with that, but I crave more substantial experiences with art. I guess I’m naive in that.

17. jo3 says:

April 11th, 2005 at 10:47 pm

 

ah, can we get a mirror up in here?

18. eck@rt says:

April 12th, 2005 at 6:01 am

 

Who can tell me more about Tony Abruzzo? Abruzzo drew romance comics in the 60s and 70s, some of which were models for Lichtenstein.

 

eck@rt

19. Elias Hiebert says:

April 12th, 2005 at 11:57 am

 

Yeah, all artists steal, whatever . But the thing that bugs me about Lichtenstein is that he appears to have no respect for the artists he stole from. It’s as if he thought all this commercial art he was surrounded by just appeared by magic. And he got filthy, filthy rich. And the artists he stole from did not. So that rub my sense of justice the wrong way. And I LIKE Lichtenstein! (Sorry I’m beginning every sentence with the word And.) Those big canvasses really HIT ya! Lichtenstein was really good. Was he good enough to do what the artists he stole from did day in and day out? I doubt it.

20. Jen says:

April 13th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

 

Steve: what you said, man. In spades. Bravo.

 

Ward, ditto(even if I am more of a mind with Steve, I love the way you express yourself).

 

Good discussion, all of it.

21. Joy says:

April 20th, 2005 at 11:11 pm

 

So does anyone know if the original page is down for good?

     

American Madness

Intelligent Criticism in the Service of a Better Nation

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

David Barsalou has taken the time to go back and track down the original comics of over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s works, he then compiled them next to the Lichtenstein prints and posted them online.

 

You get to see a comprehensive overview of Lichtenstein’s source materials and see how closely he interpreted/copied the originals. Some controversy has arisen over these early works as he never credited the original artists whose work he was copying. According to Wikipedia: Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a copyist, saying “Roy’s work was a wonderment of the graphic formula and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. The panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy.”

On the flipside:

Artist Dave Gibbons said of Lichtenstein’s works: “Roy Lichtenstein’s copies of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending tracings of quite sophisticated images.” Lichtenstein’s obituary in The Economist noted these artists “did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him.”

This anger from the original artists could also stem from the lack of recognition they received for their work in its original form, devalued as just another piece of pop/trash culture, while Roy Lichtenstein was elevated to celebrity and received various awards and recognition for his work.

Now you can see his works next to the original panels and determine for yourself whether you think Lichtenstein was a genius or copyist.

1.

Or a genius copyist.

 

americanmadness.com/2007/10/25/deconstructing-roy-lichten...

  

The GAB

Shaun Venish - Graphic Art Blog

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Roy Lichtenstein

18/March/2008 | Illustraton

I've been a fan of Roy Lichtenstein's comic book pop art for years. I always wondered how many of his paintings were taken from comic books and did he copy the comic panels directly or make changes to them to improve the composition? Well now there are some answers, thanks to David Barsalou and his Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Originally an exibit at the Springfield Massachusetts Gallery, he now has a flickr site that contains a ton of the source material. It's an interesting deconstruction of the wonderful work Lichtenstein created.

 

A really interesting read is the Great Bazooka Bubble Gum Wrapper Myth of 1961, A look into the controversy over whether Lichtenstein stole Andy Warhol's idea. Neat.

 

"... 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..."

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

  

www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/10/18/lich...

 

www.cbgxtra.com/

www.cbldf.org/

www.wizarduniverse.com/

 

Artist or Artiface?

October 25, 2007

 

Bibi's box: July 2005 Archives

www.bibi.org/box/archives/2005_07.php?offset=160

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - The original Comic Book source images of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein, by David Barsalou. (via neurastenia)

 

JeremyS « Amnesia Blog

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

amnesiablog.wordpress.com/author/muchablogaboutnothing/

David Barsalou has a lot of time on his hands… So much time infact that he has spent the last 25 years of his life closely examining every single illustration in over 30,000 comic books with the sole purpose of uncovering the original source material for the work of 1960s Pop Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far he has sourced about 140 specific illustrations that Lichtenstein has blown up and sold for mega bucks.

Posted by JeremyS

 

scamp: an irish illustration blog » Comics

www.scamp.ie/category/comics/page/2/

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Friday, October 26th, 2007

Thanks to Mario for pointing this one out

For the last 25 years David Barsalou has examined over 30,000 comic books (a kind of obsession) to find the cartoon images Lichtenstein used in his work.

The Lichtenstein Project compares over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s paintings.

Though in art/history books I always read that Lichtenstein best-known artworks are relatively close, but not exact, copies of comic-book panels (a subject he largely abandoned in 1965) after Barsalou’s deconstruction I find quite amazing the level of similarities!!!

by Mario Sughi

  

The Art Law Blog

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Lichtenstein and Copyright

Alex Beam has an interesting piece in the Boston Globe on copyright issues surrounding Roy Lichtenstein's use of images from comics. An art teacher named David Barsalou has been tracking down and cataloging specific comics that were the inspiration for Lichtenstein's paintings; so far he's found about 140. "Color me naive," writes Beam, "but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s." He also correctly points out that Lichtenstein could have faced serious copyright problems (Beam doesn't mention it, but just think of Rogers v. Koons); he says the interesting question is why he never did. The question is in any case now moot: there's a three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims.

theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

You can see samples of Barsalou's research at his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

 

posted by Donn Zaretsky at 6:44 PM

 

ROY LICHTENSTEIN SWIPES ARTIST JERRY GRANDENETTI

 

As I Opened Fire

Original Artist : Jerry Grandenetti

 

JERRY GRANDENETTI

Jerry Grandenetti (April 15, 1925 or 1927 (sources differ), Bronxville, New York) is an American comic book artist and advertising art director, best known for his work with writer-artist Will Eisner on the celebrated comics feature "The Spirit", and for his decade- and-a-half run on many DC Comics war series.

 

because im addicted: Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

becauseimaddicted.net/2007/10/deconstructing-lichtenstein...

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

I came across this David Barsalou's Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein page and apparently Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through over 30,000 comic books studying every illustration determined to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces.

 

Check out David Barsalou's flickr account: DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN's

Photo Cred: davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

Roy Lichtenstein

Sent: Thu 4/19/07 11:54 AM

To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

 

From: Hillary Bray Register (hregist1@my.westga.edu)

 

Mr. Barsalou,

I am currently working on my senior thesis paper in art history concerning Roy Lichtenstein's representation of women in the 60s and 90s. While searching for images, I found your website. Needless to say, your images have been invaluable to my research. I cannot find many of them in any other text. As I will be giving an oral presentation on my research, I will need to use these images to compare the originals with Lichtenstein's appropriations. However, the images are not presentation quality. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could email me higher resolution images. If this is not possible or desirable, I understand. Nonetheless, I would like to thank you for devoting such a great deal of time and effort to procure the original images.

 

Sincerely,

Hillary Register

University of West Georgia

 

Art das kunstmagazin

www.art-magazin.de

 

art Magazin D.P.V.

P.O. Box 101602

20010 Hamburg

Germany

 

U.S.A. newsstand distribution is by GLP International, 153 South Dean

Street, Englewood NJ 07631. Phone: 1-201-871-10 10, Fax 1-201-871-0870,

www.glpnews.com

 

Dear David Barsalou,

 

In our next issue we are about to publish an article on your work

Deconstruction of Roy Lichtenstein.

Therefore it would be great you could provide us a selection of 5-8 images showing your artwork.

If so, please send them in a high resolution (15x20cm, 300dpi), with

detailed captions via email to me, please. You can also use our FTP Server,

which access informations you can find below.

 

Looking forward to hear from you soon! Thank you in advance!

 

Best regards from Hamburg

 

Verena Andreas

Verena Andreas (ass.photo@art-magazin.de)

 

Spitting Image

October 23, 2006

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.spitting-image.net/archives/005964.html

Artist David Barsalou presents a comparative analysis of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein's paintings with the original source images he copied from 1960's comic books. The pictures on display are from Barsalou's forthcoming book, also titled DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN.The exhibit and book are the result of over 15 years of extensive research.Barsalou examined over 25,000 comic books to find the pictures Lichtenstein used in his work. This is the first time that Roy Lichtenstein's original source images have ever been exhibited together. Barsalou states, " DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN may influence how critics, and writers view Lichtenstein's work in the future.This exhibit will be of significant historical importance". press release | See Gallery 9/5/2000

 

flickr photos from DRL: www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

thanks Conscientious

 

~Artist as archivist. (Personal note: for years I've been visiting cemeteries & graveyards within a days drive of my home; taking photos of stones and memorials. The thrill of finding something many people overlook keeps me at it.)

One might wonder if David Barsalou's 15 years of comic-book research along with his book and exhibits have had any affect upon the dollar value of Roy Lichtenstein paintings. Do the same art galleries represent both artists?

On the other hand Lichtenstein paintings are (still?) sold for tens of millions of dollars, so Barsalou's work is truly a labor of love and Lichtenstein's body of work is worthy of his scrutiny?

Posted by Stubbornson at October 23, 2006 12:47 PM

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

drawn.ca/2005/04/page/3/

Posted at 5:13 pm by Ward | 21 Comments

John McFaul »

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

 

roy lichtenstein

 

Whether or not you fully appreciate the work of the late Pop Artist, Roy Lichtenstein, you can at least take a gander at the comic book sources that he used for his pieces . Deconstructing Lichtenstein is the pet project of David Barsalou, an avid Lichtenstein fan, who went through thousands of old comics to find the original source images to Roy’s paintings. It’s interesting to see the creative process behind the legendary painter’s work as you get to see how much (or how little) he changed the subject matter. Be patient as it takes a while for all the images to load.

 

This entry was posted on Friday, April 8th, 2005 at 5:13 pm by Ward and is filed under Art, Comics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Comments

 

1. Steve says:

April 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm

 

I’ve been doing some research on old comics lately, as part of my regimen for gearing up to publish a few graphic novels. So I’ve developed a new fondness for old comic art styles.

 

What really struck me about this Lichtenstein page was how poorly his versions fared against the originals. These unheralded comics artists, laboring under work-for-hire conditions for little pay, had better line control and anatomical control than our artiste Roy. His versions look downright amateurish.

 

It’s a little hard to appreciate his contribution in this light, other than the fact that he recontextualized these comic artist’s work by copying it badly and hanging it in an art gallery. How is this significant? Because it made it acceptable for artsy-fartsy collectors to admit they liked comics?

2. Ward says:

April 8th, 2005 at 8:31 pm

 

True, Roy’s work seems downright crude, but remember you’ve got to think that line quality and perfect interpretations of humans and animals dipicted were not his motivation. You can’t equate his paintings with the skills of those comic artists. (And, his paintings are painted on very large canvases, instead of on smaller illustration board.) Plus, you’ve got to think about from where he was coming from. He was a Pop Artist. The Pop Artists were guys who were frustrated with the art world at the time and felt that art was in the mundane everyday thing. They were putting a mirror up to ordinary objects and forcing us to look at it in a new way — through a different context. In fact, some of those guys were poking fun at what art collectors would call “art” and were amazed at the amount of money the collectors would put down on a piece. Like I said, not everybody is down with Lichtenstein, but at that time, he made people look at art and at comic books in a new light.

3. niff says:

April 8th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

 

Two great points ! It IS funny to see how crude Roy’s work looks next to the original, but then you have to think how HUGE Roy worked. I think you both made great points, and It is pretty cool how he made people re-examine comics as fine art. awesome link! thanks.

4. saamvisual says:

April 9th, 2005 at 5:56 am

 

Is a link on your site a poisoned chalice? The site is down due to bandwidth issues…. wow to be THAT popular. BTW, I really like this site - please keep it going.

5. Surfer says:

April 9th, 2005 at 7:12 am

 

Bandwidth limit exceeded!

6. jmorrison says:

April 9th, 2005 at 8:43 am

 

hey, i have to agree with steve on this one. i posted a tid bit about this a while back and did a little bit of further “deconstruction.”

 

thenonist.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/deconstructing_l...

 

check out the thumbnail…

i couldn’t help myself ;)

7. Bob Loblaws says:

April 9th, 2005 at 9:55 am

 

Lichtenstein was a crap artist who just stole work from other artist. You can try to intellectualize it any way you want. A con man in my books. How these people consistantly con the Intelligencia of the art world in is beyond me.

8. Ward says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pm

 

Bob Loblaws,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being brash and closed-minded on Lichtenstein and his work. So, what you’re telling me is that because he took work from other artists and reconfigured them and painted them in his own way that he’s a con man, right? Well, then I guess you can just lock up every single artist that is out there, from gallery to the comic-stand, because everybody is copying from everyone else. If you look on the “About” page for Drawn!, you’ll see the quote by Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources,” Lichtenstein just chose not to hide them. In fact, he blatantly made the viewer see his sources — even more so, exploited it. Thus, he became famous for it. Any other artist would’ve done the same thing, he just did it on a much larger scale than anyone else. Those comic artists could’ve done the same thing, but they didn’t. They probably didn’t seem to see the interest in it, but I wouldn’t know, so I’m not going to speak for them.

 

Artists “steal” from other artists. It’s a fact of life. I know that others have stolen from me, but all I have to do is just suck it up and just keep doing my thang. I could confront the situation, but why would I, as I do the same? Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

 

Now, we’re splitting hairs here, as there is a distinct line between “stealing” and “being influenced by.” I understand that Lichtenstein blatantly grabbed these images from old comics, but again, he took something old and made something new. Was he sued for his work? What did the comic artists say about what he did? Was there any legal action?

 

What about all the artists now who call for Creative Commons licenses when at the same time try and copyright their own material so others don’t rip it off? When is it a right? When is it wrong?

9. andrea says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm

 

I do not understand this. seriously, what is the DEAL? what is the matter with taking something (in this case, comic book art) and forcing the viewer to look at it in an entirely different way (which is what lichtenstein did)? isn’t that what art is all about? if anything, it further legitimized the work of comic book artists. case in point: I am not a comic book fan/reader, but lichtenstein’s work allowed me to see it with new eyes. I am completely puzzled by these narrow-minded views represented in the earlier posts.

10. MrBlank says:

April 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm

 

A lot of times art isn’t about style, technique or format. Sometimes it’s all about one simple idea. In today’s context, Liechtenstein’s work does seem cliché and old-hat, but that shows just how influential his work has been. We’ve gotten used to it. Every single creative medium is using Liechtenstein’s idea and running with it.

 

Fashion: Did you see ‘Project Runway’ on Bravo? One challenge was to Take clothing from a vintage clothing store, deconstruct it and create fashion for the future. Even the show’s winning designer, Jay, had a line of cloths that mixed elements from the rural past, like quilts and knitted shawls and put them in a modern, urban context.

 

Illustration\Design: Look at recent posts on Drawn! and you see it. Remember the one on Phil Noto? “Noto’s work, again, falls into the category of retro meets now, with some varied influences. His work reminds me of a cross between Bob Peak, straight up early Bond, 60’s mod, with some manga mixed in (maybe).”

 

Movies: Kill Bill — This was a motion picture’s equivalent to a photo collage. Tarantino took scenes, angles, dialog, music and many, many other things from a huge history of filmmakers’ work and created a visual mash-up of the medium. Brilliant.

 

Music: The Grey Album — DJ Dangermose’s marrage of Jay-Z’s Black Album and the Beatle’s White Album. It was labeled as the best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly even though it was never published. It was released on P2P networks finding its way to iPods all over the world. Due to copyright laws, it still remains illegal.

 

Popular culture would not be the same without Liechtenstein’s influence. You don’t have to be Clement Greenberg to see the significance of that. Like science and technology, you take what has been done before and add to it, move it forward, make it new. Everything is built on the past, everything.

 

Sidenote:

It’s also interesting to see this trend stirring up a lot of legal issues. If all of our copyright laws had been focused on in the 60’s, would Lichtenstein have been able to show is work? Is art being limited because of these laws? It seems so: www.illegal-art.org/

11. Cash Nexus says:

April 10th, 2005 at 9:03 pm

 

For further research, there’s a great examination of art, sources, and influences, including Pop Art in general and this same discussion on Roy Lichtenstein in particular, in “High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” (www.moesbooks.com/cgi-bin/moe/39669.html). I highly recommend this thorough and detailed book.

12. Paul says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

 

I’m gonna get to the heart of this: if a crap artist finds himself making a ton o’ dough by copying another artist, then at least the the guy who’s pockets are now flowing with cash could’ve looked up the poor schmo who did the original work and offered him half. But no, this Ward cat will find a way to justify not sharing the bux as well as he protected his thievery above…I’ve used exact replicas of Escher and Michelangelo in my work, and I ALWAYS sign their names, even if it’s obvious who did the original.

Since I never earned a dollar for any of the works in which I paid homage to my heroes, I have nothing to share, but damn if I don’t have the address of the Escher foundation in case I do. Crap is crap. Lichenstein was crap.

13. Sam says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:48 pm

 

This Paul guy must be right - looks like he’s an expert on crap.

14. Ward says:

April 11th, 2005 at 7:41 am

 

I was not going to respond anymore to this thread as I feel that I’ve already stated my opinon on the topic, but after being called a “thief,” I feel like I should defend myself to a certain degree. When I mentioned in my last post about how other artists “steal” (notice quotes) from others, including myself, my train of thought was about how we all take elements from other artists who have influenced us and incorporate these elements into our own work. Some people might take notice, like when you say, “Oh I definitely see a Kirby influence there, etc.” Everybody does this, and it’s not thievery in my opinon.

 

But I then thought. after reading your response, Paul, that when you say you used replicas of other’s work — in a collage effect, I’m assuming — that yes, I have used various clips of magazines, pictures, and newspapers in my work. (If you’re curious, click here. And for the record, I’ve never made any money off of these pieces.) A good amount of artists have used collage, and have made loads of money from doing so. Thievery, or not? Who’s to say?

 

And Paul, with your portrait of John Lennon — do you know that you did EXACTLY what Lichtenstein did? You both used images from a different source and made the viewer look at it in a different way. (Plus, you did not credit the photographers.)

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

15. niff says:

April 11th, 2005 at 11:51 am

 

Ward: you said it all. bravo!

16. Steve says:

April 11th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

 

Yeah! I opened up a hornet’s nest here! (puts on beekeeper’s netting)

 

It is interesting to hear why Lichtenstein’s work is considered important. I saw the Pop Artist exhibit when it came through Atlanta, and the pieces still challenged some of my ideas about art, even though their impact had been absorbed into the art world decades ago. I believe there were a few Lichtenstein pieces…something with a jet plane…bah, can’t remember.

 

As a musician who can both play instruments and samples them, as well as an experienced “photoshop jockey,” I can’t deny that the groundwork laid by these people has influenced me. In fact, what they did as “rebellion” has become part of the standard tools of the trade now.

 

Perhaps my sensibility lies somewhere in the middle of this debate. I appreciate the effect Lichtenstein’s recontextualization has had on the comics medium and the art world; yet in looking at his work, I hope for more immediate aesthetic gratification. In other words, I want a picture that is both subversive AND pretty.

 

Also, artwork created with a focus on subversive impact always strikes me as a “shave and a haircut” approach. I get the joke, I move on. It’s the art world’s version of a soundbyte. Nothing wrong with that, but I crave more substantial experiences with art. I guess I’m naive in that.

17. jo3 says:

April 11th, 2005 at 10:47 pm

 

ah, can we get a mirror up in here?

18. eck@rt says:

April 12th, 2005 at 6:01 am

 

Who can tell me more about Tony Abruzzo? Abruzzo drew romance comics in the 60s and 70s, some of which were models for Lichtenstein.

 

eck@rt

19. Elias Hiebert says:

April 12th, 2005 at 11:57 am

 

Yeah, all artists steal, whatever . But the thing that bugs me about Lichtenstein is that he appears to have no respect for the artists he stole from. It’s as if he thought all this commercial art he was surrounded by just appeared by magic. And he got filthy, filthy rich. And the artists he stole from did not. So that rub my sense of justice the wrong way. And I LIKE Lichtenstein! (Sorry I’m beginning every sentence with the word And.) Those big canvasses really HIT ya! Lichtenstein was really good. Was he good enough to do what the artists he stole from did day in and day out? I doubt it.

20. Jen says:

April 13th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

 

Steve: what you said, man. In spades. Bravo.

 

Ward, ditto(even if I am more of a mind with Steve, I love the way you express yourself).

 

Good discussion, all of it.

21. Joy says:

April 20th, 2005 at 11:11 pm

 

So does anyone know if the original page is down for good?

 

American Madness

Intelligent Criticism in the Service of a Better Nation

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

David Barsalou has taken the time to go back and track down the original comics of over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s works, he then compiled them next to the Lichtenstein prints and posted them online.

 

You get to see a comprehensive overview of Lichtenstein’s source materials and see how closely he interpreted/copied the originals. Some controversy has arisen over these early works as he never credited the original artists whose work he was copying. According to Wikipedia: Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a copyist, saying “Roy’s work was a wonderment of the graphic formula and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. The panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy.”

On the flipside:

Artist Dave Gibbons said of Lichtenstein’s works: “Roy Lichtenstein’s copies of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending tracings of quite sophisticated images.” Lichtenstein’s obituary in The Economist noted these artists “did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him.”

This anger from the original artists could also stem from the lack of recognition they received for their work in its original form, devalued as just another piece of pop/trash culture, while Roy Lichtenstein was elevated to celebrity and received various awards and recognition for his work.

Now you can see his works next to the original panels and determine for yourself whether you think Lichtenstein was a genius or copyist.

1.

Or a genius copyist.

 

americanmadness.com/2007/10/25/deconstructing-roy-lichten...

 

The GAB

Shaun Venish - Graphic Art Blog

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Roy Lichtenstein

18/March/2008 | Illustraton

I've been a fan of Roy Lichtenstein's comic book pop art for years. I always wondered how many of his paintings were taken from comic books and did he copy the comic panels directly or make changes to them to improve the composition? Well now there are some answers, thanks to David Barsalou and his Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Originally an exibit at the Springfield Massachusetts Gallery, he now has a flickr site that contains a ton of the source material. It's an interesting deconstruction of the wonderful work Lichtenstein created.

 

A really interesting read is the Great Bazooka Bubble Gum Wrapper Myth of 1961, A look into the controversy over whether Lichtenstein stole Andy Warhol's idea. Neat.

 

"... 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..."

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Artist or Artiface?

October 25, 2007

 

Bibi's box: July 2005 Archives

www.bibi.org/box/archives/2005_07.php?offset=160

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - The original Comic Book source images of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein, by David Barsalou. (via neurastenia)

 

JeremyS « Amnesia Blog

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

amnesiablog.wordpress.com/author/muchablogaboutnothing/

David Barsalou has a lot of time on his hands… So much time infact that he has spent the last 25 years of his life closely examining every single illustration in over 30,000 comic books with the sole purpose of uncovering the original source material for the work of 1960s Pop Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far he has sourced about 140 specific illustrations that Lichtenstein has blown up and sold for mega bucks.

Posted by JeremyS

 

scamp: an irish illustration blog » Comics

www.scamp.ie/category/comics/page/2/

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Friday, October 26th, 2007

Thanks to Mario for pointing this one out

For the last 25 years David Barsalou has examined over 30,000 comic books (a kind of obsession) to find the cartoon images Lichtenstein used in his work.

The Lichtenstein Project compares over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s paintings.

Though in art/history books I always read that Lichtenstein best-known artworks are relatively close, but not exact, copies of comic-book panels (a subject he largely abandoned in 1965) after Barsalou’s deconstruction I find quite amazing the level of similarities!!!

by Mario Sughi

 

The Art Law Blog

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Lichtenstein and Copyright

Alex Beam has an interesting piece in the Boston Globe on copyright issues surrounding Roy Lichtenstein's use of images from comics. An art teacher named David Barsalou has been tracking down and cataloging specific comics that were the inspiration for Lichtenstein's paintings; so far he's found about 140. "Color me naive," writes Beam, "but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s." He also correctly points out that Lichtenstein could have faced serious copyright problems (Beam doesn't mention it, but just think of Rogers v. Koons); he says the interesting question is why he never did. The question is in any case now moot: there's a three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims.

theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

You can see samples of Barsalou's research at his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

 

posted by Donn Zaretsky at 6:44 PM

 

Du bist nicht angemeldet

www.supertopic.de/forum/9/zeig-mir-irgendwas-947-414.html

 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.notcot.com/archives/2007/10/d...g.php#more

flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-...htenstein/

Apparently David Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through every illustration in over 30,000 comic books.... in order to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces! Knoth

Veteran

25.10.07

14:25 Uhr

 

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.

 

News and Articles on Derivative Work

news.surfwax.com/general-news/files/derivative_work.html

 

Lichtenstein: creator or copycat? Oct 18, 2006

Barsalou correctly points that musicians who ``sample" other artists' music have to pay them royalties. Does the Lichtenstein estate owe compensation to the creators of the original work?After visiting a Lichtenstein exhibition in Chicago, attorney Mark Weissburg wrote an article titled ``Roy Lichtenstein, Copyright Thief?" ``I was struck by the fact that Lichtenstein was never sued for copyright infringement," Weissburg wrote. ``Under copyright law if you copy a protected work without... (Boston Globe)

  

www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/deconstructing_and_debat...

April 12, 2005

  

Deconstructing, Debating Lichtenstein

Through the great Canadian illustrators' group blog Drawn! comes not only a link to an enlightening work comparing the comics-inspired paintings of pop artist Roy Lichtenstein to their comic-book sources, but a by-the-numbers debate in the comments thread about the merits of Lichtenstein's work.

posted 7:36 am PST | Permalink

  

209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TGeApfL35HsJ:www.thecomicfo...

 

June 14 2008, 12:34 PM

Post #8

Copyright Infringement on Art

In case anyone is interested, this is the Boston Globe article I mentioned in the 'cast:

 

"Lichtenstein: creator or copycat?" by Alex Beam

 

And this is the web site it (and I) talks about:

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

 

TV Tokyo Inquire

From: Kyoko Matsuda (matsuda@nexent.tv)

Sent: Wed 7/23/08 2:11 PM To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

Cc: yuko matsuda (yumatsuda@earthlink.net)

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou:

 

I am writing this on behalf of TV Tokyo, a Japanese TV network.

We produce weekend evening, 30 minutes-long art program titled "The Great Masters of Art" for TV Tokyo.

www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/kyojin/

This program reaches about 5 million Japanese population.

 

In each episode, one artist and one masterpiece by the featured artist will be picked. The program will explore the stories behind the production of the masterpiece and the life of the artist as well. Also the program will demonstrate/ explain the specific artistic technique that was used to create the featured art work.

 

We are planning to produce a program on Mr. Roy Lichtenstein and feature his "Girl with Hair Ribbon" for upcoming "The Great Masters" on TV Tokyo.

 

Since you have been working on the "Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein" site since 1979. I would like to ask a question about the cartoon which Mr. Lichtenstein transformed to his art work.

 

The director in Tokyo is interested in filming the original cartoon by Mr. John Romita Sr. and we are looking for its location. We already have contacted the Lichtenstein Foundation but they said they don't own it.

 

Please let me know if you know the information.

Thank you very much for your attention.

  

Cordially,

Kyoko Matsuda

BK Nexent, Inc.

545 8th Avenue 9th Floor North

New York, NY 10018, U.S.A.

Tel: (212)697-7401

Fax:(212)697-9542

E-mail: matsuda@nexent.tv

www.nexent.tv

www.nystream.net

 

astrofella.wordpress.com

(Soon after publishing this post, I received a comment from David Barsalou linking to the flickrstream – deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - which he’s created comparing some 140 Lichtenstein artworks with the comic strip source images, along with fascinating biographies of the comicbook artists who created them.)

 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN:tm: :copyright: 2000

 

David Barsalou MFA Hartford Art School

 

www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=230408213304

 

www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

ROY LICHTENSTEIN SWIPES ARTIST JERRY GRANDENETTI

 

Whamm! Panel 1

Original Artist : Jerry Grandenetti

 

JERRY GRANDENETTI

Jerry Grandenetti (April 15, 1925 or 1927 (sources differ), Bronxville, New York) is an American comic book artist and advertising art director, best known for his work with writer-artist Will Eisner on the celebrated comics feature "The Spirit", and for his decade- and-a-half run on many DC Comics war series.

 

because im addicted: Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

becauseimaddicted.net/2007/10/deconstructing-lichtenstein...

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

I came across this David Barsalou's Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein page and apparently Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through over 30,000 comic books studying every illustration determined to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces.

 

Check out David Barsalou's flickr account: DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN's

Photo Cred: davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

Roy Lichtenstein

Sent: Thu 4/19/07 11:54 AM

To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

 

From: Hillary Bray Register (hregist1@my.westga.edu)

 

Mr. Barsalou,

I am currently working on my senior thesis paper in art history concerning Roy Lichtenstein's representation of women in the 60s and 90s. While searching for images, I found your website. Needless to say, your images have been invaluable to my research. I cannot find many of them in any other text. As I will be giving an oral presentation on my research, I will need to use these images to compare the originals with Lichtenstein's appropriations. However, the images are not presentation quality. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could email me higher resolution images. If this is not possible or desirable, I understand. Nonetheless, I would like to thank you for devoting such a great deal of time and effort to procure the original images.

 

Sincerely,

Hillary Register

University of West Georgia

 

Art das kunstmagazin

www.art-magazin.de

 

art Magazin D.P.V.

P.O. Box 101602

20010 Hamburg

Germany

 

U.S.A. newsstand distribution is by GLP International, 153 South Dean

Street, Englewood NJ 07631. Phone: 1-201-871-10 10, Fax 1-201-871-0870,

www.glpnews.com

 

Dear David Barsalou,

 

In our next issue we are about to publish an article on your work

Deconstruction of Roy Lichtenstein.

Therefore it would be great you could provide us a selection of 5-8 images showing your artwork.

If so, please send them in a high resolution (15x20cm, 300dpi), with

detailed captions via email to me, please. You can also use our FTP Server,

which access informations you can find below.

 

Looking forward to hear from you soon! Thank you in advance!

 

Best regards from Hamburg

 

Verena Andreas

Verena Andreas (ass.photo@art-magazin.de)

 

Spitting Image

October 23, 2006

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.spitting-image.net/archives/005964.html

Artist David Barsalou presents a comparative analysis of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein's paintings with the original source images he copied from 1960's comic books. The pictures on display are from Barsalou's forthcoming book, also titled DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN.The exhibit and book are the result of over 15 years of extensive research.Barsalou examined over 25,000 comic books to find the pictures Lichtenstein used in his work. This is the first time that Roy Lichtenstein's original source images have ever been exhibited together. Barsalou states, " DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN may influence how critics, and writers view Lichtenstein's work in the future.This exhibit will be of significant historical importance". press release | See Gallery 9/5/2000

 

flickr photos from DRL: www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

thanks Conscientious

 

~Artist as archivist. (Personal note: for years I've been visiting cemeteries & graveyards within a days drive of my home; taking photos of stones and memorials. The thrill of finding something many people overlook keeps me at it.)

One might wonder if David Barsalou's 15 years of comic-book research along with his book and exhibits have had any affect upon the dollar value of Roy Lichtenstein paintings. Do the same art galleries represent both artists?

On the other hand Lichtenstein paintings are (still?) sold for tens of millions of dollars, so Barsalou's work is truly a labor of love and Lichtenstein's body of work is worthy of his scrutiny?

Posted by Stubbornson at October 23, 2006 12:47 PM

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

drawn.ca/2005/04/page/3/

Posted at 5:13 pm by Ward | 21 Comments

John McFaul »

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

 

roy lichtenstein

 

Whether or not you fully appreciate the work of the late Pop Artist, Roy Lichtenstein, you can at least take a gander at the comic book sources that he used for his pieces . Deconstructing Lichtenstein is the pet project of David Barsalou, an avid Lichtenstein fan, who went through thousands of old comics to find the original source images to Roy’s paintings. It’s interesting to see the creative process behind the legendary painter’s work as you get to see how much (or how little) he changed the subject matter. Be patient as it takes a while for all the images to load.

 

This entry was posted on Friday, April 8th, 2005 at 5:13 pm by Ward and is filed under Art, Comics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Comments

 

1. Steve says:

April 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm

 

I’ve been doing some research on old comics lately, as part of my regimen for gearing up to publish a few graphic novels. So I’ve developed a new fondness for old comic art styles.

 

What really struck me about this Lichtenstein page was how poorly his versions fared against the originals. These unheralded comics artists, laboring under work-for-hire conditions for little pay, had better line control and anatomical control than our artiste Roy. His versions look downright amateurish.

 

It’s a little hard to appreciate his contribution in this light, other than the fact that he recontextualized these comic artist’s work by copying it badly and hanging it in an art gallery. How is this significant? Because it made it acceptable for artsy-fartsy collectors to admit they liked comics?

2. Ward says:

April 8th, 2005 at 8:31 pm

 

True, Roy’s work seems downright crude, but remember you’ve got to think that line quality and perfect interpretations of humans and animals dipicted were not his motivation. You can’t equate his paintings with the skills of those comic artists. (And, his paintings are painted on very large canvases, instead of on smaller illustration board.) Plus, you’ve got to think about from where he was coming from. He was a Pop Artist. The Pop Artists were guys who were frustrated with the art world at the time and felt that art was in the mundane everyday thing. They were putting a mirror up to ordinary objects and forcing us to look at it in a new way — through a different context. In fact, some of those guys were poking fun at what art collectors would call “art” and were amazed at the amount of money the collectors would put down on a piece. Like I said, not everybody is down with Lichtenstein, but at that time, he made people look at art and at comic books in a new light.

3. niff says:

April 8th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

 

Two great points ! It IS funny to see how crude Roy’s work looks next to the original, but then you have to think how HUGE Roy worked. I think you both made great points, and It is pretty cool how he made people re-examine comics as fine art. awesome link! thanks.

4. saamvisual says:

April 9th, 2005 at 5:56 am

 

Is a link on your site a poisoned chalice? The site is down due to bandwidth issues…. wow to be THAT popular. BTW, I really like this site - please keep it going.

5. Surfer says:

April 9th, 2005 at 7:12 am

 

Bandwidth limit exceeded!

6. jmorrison says:

April 9th, 2005 at 8:43 am

 

hey, i have to agree with steve on this one. i posted a tid bit about this a while back and did a little bit of further “deconstruction.”

 

thenonist.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/deconstructing_l...

 

check out the thumbnail…

i couldn’t help myself ;)

7. Bob Loblaws says:

April 9th, 2005 at 9:55 am

 

Lichtenstein was a crap artist who just stole work from other artist. You can try to intellectualize it any way you want. A con man in my books. How these people consistantly con the Intelligencia of the art world in is beyond me.

8. Ward says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pm

 

Bob Loblaws,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being brash and closed-minded on Lichtenstein and his work. So, what you’re telling me is that because he took work from other artists and reconfigured them and painted them in his own way that he’s a con man, right? Well, then I guess you can just lock up every single artist that is out there, from gallery to the comic-stand, because everybody is copying from everyone else. If you look on the “About” page for Drawn!, you’ll see the quote by Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources,” Lichtenstein just chose not to hide them. In fact, he blatantly made the viewer see his sources — even more so, exploited it. Thus, he became famous for it. Any other artist would’ve done the same thing, he just did it on a much larger scale than anyone else. Those comic artists could’ve done the same thing, but they didn’t. They probably didn’t seem to see the interest in it, but I wouldn’t know, so I’m not going to speak for them.

 

Artists “steal” from other artists. It’s a fact of life. I know that others have stolen from me, but all I have to do is just suck it up and just keep doing my thang. I could confront the situation, but why would I, as I do the same? Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

 

Now, we’re splitting hairs here, as there is a distinct line between “stealing” and “being influenced by.” I understand that Lichtenstein blatantly grabbed these images from old comics, but again, he took something old and made something new. Was he sued for his work? What did the comic artists say about what he did? Was there any legal action?

 

What about all the artists now who call for Creative Commons licenses when at the same time try and copyright their own material so others don’t rip it off? When is it a right? When is it wrong?

9. andrea says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm

 

I do not understand this. seriously, what is the DEAL? what is the matter with taking something (in this case, comic book art) and forcing the viewer to look at it in an entirely different way (which is what lichtenstein did)? isn’t that what art is all about? if anything, it further legitimized the work of comic book artists. case in point: I am not a comic book fan/reader, but lichtenstein’s work allowed me to see it with new eyes. I am completely puzzled by these narrow-minded views represented in the earlier posts.

10. MrBlank says:

April 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm

 

A lot of times art isn’t about style, technique or format. Sometimes it’s all about one simple idea. In today’s context, Liechtenstein’s work does seem cliché and old-hat, but that shows just how influential his work has been. We’ve gotten used to it. Every single creative medium is using Liechtenstein’s idea and running with it.

 

Fashion: Did you see ‘Project Runway’ on Bravo? One challenge was to Take clothing from a vintage clothing store, deconstruct it and create fashion for the future. Even the show’s winning designer, Jay, had a line of cloths that mixed elements from the rural past, like quilts and knitted shawls and put them in a modern, urban context.

 

Illustration\Design: Look at recent posts on Drawn! and you see it. Remember the one on Phil Noto? “Noto’s work, again, falls into the category of retro meets now, with some varied influences. His work reminds me of a cross between Bob Peak, straight up early Bond, 60’s mod, with some manga mixed in (maybe).”

 

Movies: Kill Bill — This was a motion picture’s equivalent to a photo collage. Tarantino took scenes, angles, dialog, music and many, many other things from a huge history of filmmakers’ work and created a visual mash-up of the medium. Brilliant.

 

Music: The Grey Album — DJ Dangermose’s marrage of Jay-Z’s Black Album and the Beatle’s White Album. It was labeled as the best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly even though it was never published. It was released on P2P networks finding its way to iPods all over the world. Due to copyright laws, it still remains illegal.

 

Popular culture would not be the same without Liechtenstein’s influence. You don’t have to be Clement Greenberg to see the significance of that. Like science and technology, you take what has been done before and add to it, move it forward, make it new. Everything is built on the past, everything.

 

Sidenote:

It’s also interesting to see this trend stirring up a lot of legal issues. If all of our copyright laws had been focused on in the 60’s, would Lichtenstein have been able to show is work? Is art being limited because of these laws? It seems so: www.illegal-art.org/

11. Cash Nexus says:

April 10th, 2005 at 9:03 pm

 

For further research, there’s a great examination of art, sources, and influences, including Pop Art in general and this same discussion on Roy Lichtenstein in particular, in “High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” (www.moesbooks.com/cgi-bin/moe/39669.html). I highly recommend this thorough and detailed book.

12. Paul says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

 

I’m gonna get to the heart of this: if a crap artist finds himself making a ton o’ dough by copying another artist, then at least the the guy who’s pockets are now flowing with cash could’ve looked up the poor schmo who did the original work and offered him half. But no, this Ward cat will find a way to justify not sharing the bux as well as he protected his thievery above…I’ve used exact replicas of Escher and Michelangelo in my work, and I ALWAYS sign their names, even if it’s obvious who did the original.

Since I never earned a dollar for any of the works in which I paid homage to my heroes, I have nothing to share, but damn if I don’t have the address of the Escher foundation in case I do. Crap is crap. Lichenstein was crap.

13. Sam says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:48 pm

 

This Paul guy must be right - looks like he’s an expert on crap.

14. Ward says:

April 11th, 2005 at 7:41 am

 

I was not going to respond anymore to this thread as I feel that I’ve already stated my opinon on the topic, but after being called a “thief,” I feel like I should defend myself to a certain degree. When I mentioned in my last post about how other artists “steal” (notice quotes) from others, including myself, my train of thought was about how we all take elements from other artists who have influenced us and incorporate these elements into our own work. Some people might take notice, like when you say, “Oh I definitely see a Kirby influence there, etc.” Everybody does this, and it’s not thievery in my opinon.

 

But I then thought. after reading your response, Paul, that when you say you used replicas of other’s work — in a collage effect, I’m assuming — that yes, I have used various clips of magazines, pictures, and newspapers in my work. (If you’re curious, click here. And for the record, I’ve never made any money off of these pieces.) A good amount of artists have used collage, and have made loads of money from doing so. Thievery, or not? Who’s to say?

 

And Paul, with your portrait of John Lennon — do you know that you did EXACTLY what Lichtenstein did? You both used images from a different source and made the viewer look at it in a different way. (Plus, you did not credit the photographers.)

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

15. niff says:

April 11th, 2005 at 11:51 am

 

Ward: you said it all. bravo!

16. Steve says:

April 11th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

 

Yeah! I opened up a hornet’s nest here! (puts on beekeeper’s netting)

 

It is interesting to hear why Lichtenstein’s work is considered important. I saw the Pop Artist exhibit when it came through Atlanta, and the pieces still challenged some of my ideas about art, even though their impact had been absorbed into the art world decades ago. I believe there were a few Lichtenstein pieces…something with a jet plane…bah, can’t remember.

 

As a musician who can both play instruments and samples them, as well as an experienced “photoshop jockey,” I can’t deny that the groundwork laid by these people has influenced me. In fact, what they did as “rebellion” has become part of the standard tools of the trade now.

 

Perhaps my sensibility lies somewhere in the middle of this debate. I appreciate the effect Lichtenstein’s recontextualization has had on the comics medium and the art world; yet in looking at his work, I hope for more immediate aesthetic gratification. In other words, I want a picture that is both subversive AND pretty.

 

Also, artwork created with a focus on subversive impact always strikes me as a “shave and a haircut” approach. I get the joke, I move on. It’s the art world’s version of a soundbyte. Nothing wrong with that, but I crave more substantial experiences with art. I guess I’m naive in that.

17. jo3 says:

April 11th, 2005 at 10:47 pm

 

ah, can we get a mirror up in here?

18. eck@rt says:

April 12th, 2005 at 6:01 am

 

Who can tell me more about Tony Abruzzo? Abruzzo drew romance comics in the 60s and 70s, some of which were models for Lichtenstein.

 

eck@rt

19. Elias Hiebert says:

April 12th, 2005 at 11:57 am

 

Yeah, all artists steal, whatever . But the thing that bugs me about Lichtenstein is that he appears to have no respect for the artists he stole from. It’s as if he thought all this commercial art he was surrounded by just appeared by magic. And he got filthy, filthy rich. And the artists he stole from did not. So that rub my sense of justice the wrong way. And I LIKE Lichtenstein! (Sorry I’m beginning every sentence with the word And.) Those big canvasses really HIT ya! Lichtenstein was really good. Was he good enough to do what the artists he stole from did day in and day out? I doubt it.

20. Jen says:

April 13th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

 

Steve: what you said, man. In spades. Bravo.

 

Ward, ditto(even if I am more of a mind with Steve, I love the way you express yourself).

 

Good discussion, all of it.

21. Joy says:

April 20th, 2005 at 11:11 pm

 

So does anyone know if the original page is down for good?

 

American Madness

Intelligent Criticism in the Service of a Better Nation

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

David Barsalou has taken the time to go back and track down the original comics of over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s works, he then compiled them next to the Lichtenstein prints and posted them online.

 

You get to see a comprehensive overview of Lichtenstein’s source materials and see how closely he interpreted/copied the originals. Some controversy has arisen over these early works as he never credited the original artists whose work he was copying. According to Wikipedia: Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a copyist, saying “Roy’s work was a wonderment of the graphic formula and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. The panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy.”

On the flipside:

Artist Dave Gibbons said of Lichtenstein’s works: “Roy Lichtenstein’s copies of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending tracings of quite sophisticated images.” Lichtenstein’s obituary in The Economist noted these artists “did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him.”

This anger from the original artists could also stem from the lack of recognition they received for their work in its original form, devalued as just another piece of pop/trash culture, while Roy Lichtenstein was elevated to celebrity and received various awards and recognition for his work.

Now you can see his works next to the original panels and determine for yourself whether you think Lichtenstein was a genius or copyist.

1.

Or a genius copyist.

 

americanmadness.com/2007/10/25/deconstructing-roy-lichten...

 

The GAB

Shaun Venish - Graphic Art Blog

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Roy Lichtenstein

18/March/2008 | Illustraton

I've been a fan of Roy Lichtenstein's comic book pop art for years. I always wondered how many of his paintings were taken from comic books and did he copy the comic panels directly or make changes to them to improve the composition? Well now there are some answers, thanks to David Barsalou and his Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Originally an exibit at the Springfield Massachusetts Gallery, he now has a flickr site that contains a ton of the source material. It's an interesting deconstruction of the wonderful work Lichtenstein created.

 

A really interesting read is the Great Bazooka Bubble Gum Wrapper Myth of 1961, A look into the controversy over whether Lichtenstein stole Andy Warhol's idea. Neat.

 

"... 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..."

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Artist or Artiface?

October 25, 2007

 

Bibi's box: July 2005 Archives

www.bibi.org/box/archives/2005_07.php?offset=160

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - The original Comic Book source images of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein, by David Barsalou. (via neurastenia)

 

JeremyS « Amnesia Blog

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

amnesiablog.wordpress.com/author/muchablogaboutnothing/

David Barsalou has a lot of time on his hands… So much time infact that he has spent the last 25 years of his life closely examining every single illustration in over 30,000 comic books with the sole purpose of uncovering the original source material for the work of 1960s Pop Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far he has sourced about 140 specific illustrations that Lichtenstein has blown up and sold for mega bucks.

Posted by JeremyS

 

scamp: an irish illustration blog » Comics

www.scamp.ie/category/comics/page/2/

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Friday, October 26th, 2007

Thanks to Mario for pointing this one out

For the last 25 years David Barsalou has examined over 30,000 comic books (a kind of obsession) to find the cartoon images Lichtenstein used in his work.

The Lichtenstein Project compares over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s paintings.

Though in art/history books I always read that Lichtenstein best-known artworks are relatively close, but not exact, copies of comic-book panels (a subject he largely abandoned in 1965) after Barsalou’s deconstruction I find quite amazing the level of similarities!!!

by Mario Sughi

 

The Art Law Blog

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Lichtenstein and Copyright

Alex Beam has an interesting piece in the Boston Globe on copyright issues surrounding Roy Lichtenstein's use of images from comics. An art teacher named David Barsalou has been tracking down and cataloging specific comics that were the inspiration for Lichtenstein's paintings; so far he's found about 140. "Color me naive," writes Beam, "but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s." He also correctly points out that Lichtenstein could have faced serious copyright problems (Beam doesn't mention it, but just think of Rogers v. Koons); he says the interesting question is why he never did. The question is in any case now moot: there's a three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims.

theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

You can see samples of Barsalou's research at his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

 

posted by Donn Zaretsky at 6:44 PM

 

Du bist nicht angemeldet

www.supertopic.de/forum/9/zeig-mir-irgendwas-947-414.html

 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.notcot.com/archives/2007/10/d...g.php#more

flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-...htenstein/

Apparently David Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through every illustration in over 30,000 comic books.... in order to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces! Knoth

Veteran

25.10.07

14:25 Uhr

 

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.

 

News and Articles on Derivative Work

news.surfwax.com/general-news/files/derivative_work.html

 

Lichtenstein: creator or copycat? Oct 18, 2006

Barsalou correctly points that musicians who ``sample" other artists' music have to pay them royalties. Does the Lichtenstein estate owe compensation to the creators of the original work?After visiting a Lichtenstein exhibition in Chicago, attorney Mark Weissburg wrote an article titled ``Roy Lichtenstein, Copyright Thief?" ``I was struck by the fact that Lichtenstein was never sued for copyright infringement," Weissburg wrote. ``Under copyright law if you copy a protected work without... (Boston Globe)

  

www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/deconstructing_and_debat...

April 12, 2005

  

Deconstructing, Debating Lichtenstein

Through the great Canadian illustrators' group blog Drawn! comes not only a link to an enlightening work comparing the comics-inspired paintings of pop artist Roy Lichtenstein to their comic-book sources, but a by-the-numbers debate in the comments thread about the merits of Lichtenstein's work.

posted 7:36 am PST | Permalink

  

209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TGeApfL35HsJ:www.thecomicfo...

 

June 14 2008, 12:34 PM

Post #8

Copyright Infringement on Art

In case anyone is interested, this is the Boston Globe article I mentioned in the 'cast:

 

"Lichtenstein: creator or copycat?" by Alex Beam

 

And this is the web site it (and I) talks about:

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

 

TV Tokyo Inquire

From: Kyoko Matsuda (matsuda@nexent.tv)

Sent: Wed 7/23/08 2:11 PM To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

Cc: yuko matsuda (yumatsuda@earthlink.net)

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou:

 

I am writing this on behalf of TV Tokyo, a Japanese TV network.

We produce weekend evening, 30 minutes-long art program titled "The Great Masters of Art" for TV Tokyo.

www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/kyojin/

This program reaches about 5 million Japanese population.

 

In each episode, one artist and one masterpiece by the featured artist will be picked. The program will explore the stories behind the production of the masterpiece and the life of the artist as well. Also the program will demonstrate/ explain the specific artistic technique that was used to create the featured art work.

 

We are planning to produce a program on Mr. Roy Lichtenstein and feature his "Girl with Hair Ribbon" for upcoming "The Great Masters" on TV Tokyo.

 

Since you have been working on the "Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein" site since 1979. I would like to ask a question about the cartoon which Mr. Lichtenstein transformed to his art work.

 

The director in Tokyo is interested in filming the original cartoon by Mr. John Romita Sr. and we are looking for its location. We already have contacted the Lichtenstein Foundation but they said they don't own it.

 

Please let me know if you know the information.

Thank you very much for your attention.

  

Cordially,

Kyoko Matsuda

BK Nexent, Inc.

545 8th Avenue 9th Floor North

New York, NY 10018, U.S.A.

Tel: (212)697-7401

Fax:(212)697-9542

E-mail: matsuda@nexent.tv

www.nexent.tv

www.nystream.net

 

astrofella.wordpress.com

(Soon after publishing this post, I received a comment from David Barsalou linking to the flickrstream – deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - which he’s created comparing some 140 Lichtenstein artworks with the comic strip source images, along with fascinating biographies of the comicbook artists who created them.)

 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN:tm: :copyright: 2000

 

David Barsalou MFA Hartford Art School

 

www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=230408213304

 

www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

Cory is telling some great stories about, particularly the EFF's campaigns vs. the NSA about crypto exports. The audience is mostly law students.

 

Cory gets 12,000 spam emails a day! Digging at the people ("secret police") trying to intervene with internet's network effectss.

 

Moving on to p2p. The p2p wars challlenge the internet's ability to be free and open, as it was designed to be.

 

- Anti-circumvention: WIPO's copyright updates treaty. Treated internet's openness as a flaw. DVD region coding is an example. Geography isn't on the copyright law! The law maker's left it out on purpose.

 

- DMCA was passed by congress by using a lie. No time for review. Based on junk science. Illegal to look inside your computer to record an unencrypted dvd for example.

 

- DRM is broken, and means you pass control of your record player while you listen to your record. And is usually broken in days at most.

 

- Computers telling selective and beneficial lies is a tradition. Ecosystem relies on this.

 

- Skipping ads is "theft"!

 

- Some maths in the US is illegal!

 

- SDMI broken in hours. Blocked the presentation, sued presenting team and the conference.

 

Look at the difference between CDs and DVDs. CDs are open and you can invent new features. Happens all the time. DVD hasn't changed 10 years.

 

Broadcast Flag: relies on switch to digital only tv networks. Pushed by Hollywood, despite them being a poor judge of what is good for their business model. Need to address possible copying problems that may appear tomorrow, today. "The plane's about to crash, I'll eat my seatmate now!"

 

Tech industry sold us out: Intel and Sony lobbied for broadcast flag. "Unforgivably reprehensible."

 

Talking about software defined radio now (gnu radio). Eric Blossom has built an FM receiver to receive all fm broadcasts at once - that's cool. He thinks the best bit is using the spare spectrum for communication, but that will be illegal when broadcast flag comes into effect.

 

Europe is working to bring the worst elements of US regulation such as broadcast flag, cable plug and play, and live feature removal from STBs! How wonderful.

 

They want to get rid of VGA displays!?!

 

Broadcasting Treaty: if you receive my signal, even if the creative isn't mine or is public domain, I can tell you what to do with the signal for 50 years! And they want to apply this to webcasting as well.

 

Database Treaty: unless you are the incumbent, there is no value to database copyright.

 

EFF is undertaking to break all this, but what if it can't?

 

Cory is imploring us to take action, as no companies are stepping up to fight for us like Sony did for the VCR. Use Creative Commons licences, open science journals, turn up at WIPO, join the Campaign for Digital Rights and support BBC Creative Archive by asking for the required changes to be included in the charter renewal.

 

The End.

===========================================================

Download link:

yourfile.3utilities.com/?r=download-asus-p5gc-mx-1333-dri...

===========================================================

 

Driver & Tools, P5GC-MX/1333, Motherboard, Socket775., There are 3

download servers available on ASUS Download Site - Global, China and P2P.Driver & Tools. There are 3 download servers available on ASUS Download Site

- Global, China and P2P. Each server provides exact the same content noP5GC-MX/1333s Atheros L2 network weird problems Abit - Asus - Aopen.,

Testing with XP, tried all drivers from Asus download. Also triedWrong! The mainboard is a P5GC-MX/1333 from Asus., The bios number was

0312 en I download 0413 from Asus then I flash (via Windows).26 Dec 2011, Bad sound quality( after installing Realtek latest driver?), specs here ASUSTeK

Computer Inc. - Motherboards- ASUS P5GC-MX/1333, File Type: txt, . I

installed the Realtek HD audio driver from the ASUS download siteHi , My PCs Motherboard is ASUS P5GC-MX/1333 with onboard ALC662 ICH7

HDA Sound card., Kernel driver in use: HDA Intel Kernel modules: snd-hda-

intel. Code:, . Screenshot-HDAAnalyzer.png (114.3 KB, 180 views); File Type:

png, Downloading the analyser and resetting Pin 19 works. But it isThat file type is not supported!, Download drivers nome da placa me pcware pw

945gcx download drivers nome da placa me pcware pw 945gcx., We checked

the latest version of Drivers da placa mae p5gc mx1333 using 50 antivirus,

Driver de audio da placa me asus p5vd2 mx ASUS ZenFone 2 featured 5 True 7.View and Download ASUS P6X58DE user manual online. P6X58DE

Motherboard pdf manual download., Motherboard Asus P5GC-MX GBL User

Manual, . P6X58D-E Motherboard Qualified Vendors Lists (QVL) DDR3-1333

MHz capability DIMM, .. that came with your graphics card package to install the

device drivers.Driver & Tools, P5GC-MX/1333, Motherboard, Socket775.Driver & Tools.Global, China and P2P.P5GC-MX/1333s Atheros L2 network weird problems Abit - Asus - Aopen.Testing with XP, tried all drivers from Asus download.Wrong! The mainboard is a P5GC-MX/1333 from Asus.Dec 2011, Bad sound quality( after installing Realtek latest driver?), Computer Inc. - Motherboards- ASUS P5GC-MX/1333, File Type: txt, .HDA Sound card., Downloading the analyser and resetting Pin 19 works.That file type is not supported!Drivers da placa mae p5gc mx1333 using 50 antivirus, View and Download ASUS P6X58DE user manual online.Motherboard pdf manual download.MHz capability DIMM, ..

===========================================================

Download link:

istorage.serveftp.com/?r=samsung-unlock-client-download

===========================================================

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

20 Jan 2015, From GalaxyUnlocker: GalaxyUnlocker is an unlocking software designed for

Samsung phones and tablets. To unlock your Samsung device,Unlock Samsung Online powered by 123Unlock, .. Some (not professional)

antivirus scanners detect our software as virus, this is because we use advanced

File Type: zip, Galaxy S, . Just download the zip for the pc unlock, and run the .

bat, thats it. Quick Reply, Generate unlock code for any Samsung Galaxy S, .

Android Software and Hacking General [Developers Only].Im going to try and summarise the steps to play around with 3G and 4G bands on

Samsung Galaxy S5 devices. I didn come to it on my own,4 Nov 2014, Sprint Samsung Unlocker - Unlock any Sprint Samsung phone, File Type: apk

.. Android Software and Hacking General [Developers Only].Full Unlock v4.6 Not much to write here Features: App precaching Native

application support. Selective root access for applications alongside1 Feb 2011, Carrier unlocking phones is a pretty standard practice these days,, Samsung:

carrier unlock your Windows Phone, void your warranty?, 8 Zip Lite now lets

you unpack any archive file type, . If my MO doesn have a properly formatted "

over-the-air WAP push OMA client provisioning" my understanding isI can even open older downloaded PDFs with Polaris still., . Samsung N920

Unlocked Galaxy Note 5, GS…, . That is their stock email client., from email

gives him the error "file read error. the file type is unsupported". is a peer-to-peer client for Windows that allows you to download any file-type,

Samsung unlock and Samsung repair phone freeze & phone locked, return17 Feb 2015, Click here for downloads, Q: How do I lock/unlock recorded video files?, A:

Yes, the DVR firmware and software must be upgraded to the latest version, .

Configure the Record Type, File Type, Start Time, and End Time as16 Jun 2015, A remote attacker capable of controlling a users network traffic can, . curl -s http:

//skslm.swiftkey.net/samsung/downloads/v1.3-USA/, . user to tell if the carrier

has patched the problem with a software update., It emitted a .dex file within /

data/local/tmp/dalvik-cache/arm64 but its file type is ELF not dex. client for Windows that allows you to download any file-type found on several

popular P2P networks. CruX is, Download. Unlock Samsung @ Home 10.0.1.2 Feb 2013, Unlock your phone safe and instant., Unlock LG Unlock Motorola Unlock Nokia

Unlock Samsung Unlock Sony Unlock Sony ericsson Unlock ZTE and more! (HP

. Download Google Chrome, . Play your downloaded videos on the

Chromecast:tm: (any file type), .. Free Accounting Software by ZipBooks.It also locks SOME Samsung phones along with two other, line unlocker offered

at several sites or download an unlocking application from2 Aug 2015, thank you! been having difficulties installing cyberlink software i own i think,

whats the file type? did you type filename.exe?, . has anyone figured this out?

trying to install samsung usb drivers and it says blocked publisher.Samsung phones and tablets.Unlock Samsung Online powered by 123Unlock, ..File Type: zip, Galaxy S, .Quick Reply, Generate unlock code for any Samsung Galaxy S, .Samsung Galaxy S5 devices.Nov 2014, Sprint Samsung Unlocker - Unlock any Sprint Samsung phone, Feb 2011, Carrier unlocking phones is a pretty standard practice these days,, Windows Phone, void your warranty?I can even open older downloaded PDFs with Polaris still.Unlocked Galaxy Note 5, GS…, .That is their stock email client.Windows that allows you to download any file-type, Feb 2015, Click here for downloads, Q: How do I lock/unlock recorded video files?Yes, the DVR firmware and software must be upgraded to the latest version, .Jun 2015, A remote attacker capable of controlling a users network traffic can, .P2P networks. CruX is, Feb 2013, Unlock your phone safe and instant.Unlock Samsung Unlock Sony Unlock Sony ericsson Unlock ZTE and more!Download Google Chrome, .Chromecast:tm: (any file type), ..It also locks SOME Samsung phones along with two other, Aug 2015, thank you!

===========================================================

Download link:

yourfile.3utilities.com/?r=download-asus-m2n68-am-drivers...

===========================================================

 

Driver & Tools, M2N68-AM PLUS, Motherboard,, There are 3 download servers

available on ASUS Download Site - Global, China and P2P, Windows 7 32bit.M2N68-AM supports AMD Cool ´n´ Quiet!, The ASUS CrashFree BIOS 2 allows

users to restore corrupted BIOS data from a disk containing the BIOS file.“ASUS M2N68-AM-PLUS” printed clearly on center of board., Updates”. The

upgrade file will automatically download., The file that downloads has a “.zip”

extension., sure it has the “.upg” extension or is an UPG file “Type”. If it has the “

.zipAsus M2N68-AM Plus AMD (some sort of Athlon or so) 2Gb RAM The HDD is

totally, If we tick "Install Third Party software" when we install, then we get a

proprietary video driver., I set the BIOS to CD first., File Type: jpgNow it still shows in the BIOS, but the 64-bit Maverick LiveCD Im using doesn,

Im using Asus M2N68AM-Plus MB with latest BIOS.ok i installed windows xp on my hp pavilion a6210z then it had me restart, with

is download the 513.rom bios and use awdflash and install on floppy, does

anyone have the orginal bios or a newer bios that i flash back on this, to

windows xp it installed and everthing then i installed the video driver andAsus motherbord m2n68-am bios update. Tags:, Download; BIOS; Computers;

Motherboards, . MSI a88x-g45 gaming bios flash file type change, help needed.Hi, I just brought a new motherboard last week I cant use my USB to, February

11, 2014 11:24:36 AM, . And also how would I install the bios if i download it

because it comes in a .cad file type and the motherboard doesn pick it up., .

Mzn68-la motherboard usb drivers · Cant find motherboard/usb drivers.View and Download ASUS P6X58DE user manual online. P6X58DE,

Motherboard Asus M2N68-AM PLUS ION SI User Manual, 3-5 BIOS setup

program .Now have fedora 21 and have new printer epson xp-322., . Request file type is

application/pdf., . 64-bit Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.2 on an Asus M2N68-AM

PLUS motherboard, with AMD Phenom 9600 Quad, Download the ESC/P-R

driver rpm from the Epson web site, right-click it in downloads folder orWindows 7 looks great except the one issue I am currently having., Soundmax

audio driver here at Asus support.asus.com.tw/download/., Motherboard

Name: Asus M2N68-LA (Narra) (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16,, I have to

convert to another file type, like .wmv to be able to hear the sound.5 Nov 2012, Driver details shows default Microsoft drivers in use. Various, File Type: zip,

PhilT.zip, Motherboard Asus M2N68-VM Memory 4, drivers. Restart the PC

and when Windows starts try to install the correct vendor sound driver., . I also

couldn get the networking drivers to work in XP so I am now on Win7.2 Apr 2010, Youll need to download these two applications toward the bottom of the,

function for any file without having to save settings for each file type., . Hi, please

could you tell me how can I configure commands to open/close CD/DVD drivers?

. I am not talking about sharing the root folder, the Program Files8 Dec 2010, I am tech challenged so require simple explanations, please! Thanks,

Sometimes things go wrong with downloads or installations for no reason. My

System Specs, File Type: zip, . Motherboard Asus M2N68-LA (Narra) Memory

. My wife Asus laptop is running Windows 7 x64 with all updates current.25 Mar 2011, I am unable to view my jpg files directly from my 7zip files. help., for any

problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom

build., . to associate with 7 zip; it associates with an unknown file type and 7 zip

is not a, I have a custom built machine with an SSD for Windows andDriver & Tools, M2N68-AM PLUS, Motherboard,, ASUS Download Site - Global, China and P2P, M2N68-AM supports AMD Cool ´n´ Quiet!ASUS M2N68-AM-PLUS” printed clearly on center of board.UPG file “Type”.I set the BIOS to CD first.Now it still shows in the BIOS, but the 64-bit Maverick LiveCD Im using doesn, Asus motherbord m2n68-am bios update.Motherboards, .Hi, I just brought a new motherboard last week I cant use my USB to, View and Download ASUS P6X58DE user manual online.Motherboard Asus M2N68-AM PLUS ION SI User Manual, Now have fedora 21 and have new printer epson xp-322.PLUS motherboard, with AMD Phenom 9600 Quad, Windows 7 looks great except the one issue I am currently having.Asus support.asus.com.tw/download/.Name: Asus M2N68-LA (Narra) (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16,, Nov 2012, Driver details shows default Microsoft drivers in use.PhilT.zip, Motherboard Asus M2N68-VM Memory 4, Windows starts try to install the correct vendor sound driver.Apr 2010, Youll need to download these two applications toward the bottom of the, I configure commands to open/close CD/DVD drivers?Dec 2010, I am tech challenged so require simple explanations, please!Sometimes things go wrong with downloads or installations for no reason.System Specs, File Type: zip, .Mar 2011, I am unable to view my jpg files directly from my 7zip files.

===========================================================

Download link:

yourfile.3utilities.com/?r=free-download-driver-for-asus-...

===========================================================

 

DriverPack Solution - you can download free drivers for audio, video, chipset, Wi-

Fi or USB, or a driver installation pack for notebook ASUS K52F (for WindowsDriver & Tools. There are 3 download servers available on ASUS Download Site

- Global, China and P2P. Each server provides exact the same content noFree download and instructions for installing the HP Officejet J6480, OS, Type,

Version, Date Added, File Size, File Type, Download Link (About), . for my HP

J6480 to meet windows 7 requirements on new PCs ASUS K52F w/a Pentium.29 Jul 2015, Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-Bit 7600 Multiprocessor Free, It neither

installs with Windows Update nor with downloading the update11 Sep 2015, , and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP,

Acer, Asus or a custom build., So, I install Avira v14 Internet Security Free,

Malware Bytes, Super, DID DOWNLOAD BITSWin7.reg and placed on desktop

System Manufacturer/Model Number Asus K52F, . File Type: doc10 Jun 2015, Hi there, After a clean Windows install and numerous updates, the update

KB3058515 stops @ 11% download and error code 80092004 appears., any

problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom

build., File Type: log, . System Manufacturer/Model Number Asus K52F10 May 2015, I also downloaded and ran CPU-Z and it came up with a error, File Type: log, .

inform of a hotfix that you download and install onto your computer,, . Microsoft

Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 7601 Multiprocessor Free Service Pack 1, .

Platform: Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit, ASUS K52F laptop10 Jun 2015, Please follow the Windows Update Posting Instructions and post the requested

data, . Content: 0x80070002 Licensing Data--> Software licensing service, File

Type: log, . Please downloadand install Malwarebytes Anti-malware(free, Ive

been trying to install Windows 7 on my Asus Q501L (whichDownload, its 100% FREE!, #1,188 File Type Assistant by Trusted Software; #

1,189 CyberLink PowerProducer; #1,190 Entity, The software installer includes

9 files and is usually about 1.7 MB (1,786,880 bytes)., ASUSTeK K52F, 12.55%.22 Jun 2015, File Type: zip ORCA_PATCH_BASW-A0394A05_1B33BCEB.zip (1.5 KB, 2 views

). Alt (Don want to see Ads? Register now for free!), Windows Update Analyst

specs System Specs. Manufacturer: ASUS. Model Number: K52F, D:\

Libraries\Downloads\BASW-A0394A04>tree /F Folder PATH listing forASUS K52F # AS-1 · ASUS PC EEE X101CH · ASUS PC EEE X101H · ACER,

ActFax is available for free download in various languages through the download

area. The software can be installed for in-depth testing before buying that way to

ensure it meets all your, File Type: Executable self-extracting x64 setup file.19 Nov 2013, File Type: zip, (Don want to see Ads? Register now for free!) Ad Bot, Please

download and save the CheckSUR tool from System UpdateMost of the problems caused in Software are due to human errors or, Get the

Free Community Support from DraftSight : Say what you mean SWYM ., .. then I

would say It is Graphics issue or Image file type or DraftSight version issue., . I

have a 3yo ASUS K52F laptop with an i5 intel processor, 8G ram & Windows 7

64bit,How to Restore the Function Key on an Asus Laptop. ASUSTek Computer Inc.,

Click on the "+" box located next to the file type ATK. This will generate a, This

will open another pop-up and your driver download will begin. Once the selected

Also wanted to note I tried running windows update to see if maybe it would

correct the problem. It downloaded and installed all the updates IDriver & Tools.Global, China and P2P.Free download and instructions for installing the HP Officejet J6480, Version, Date Added, File Size, File Type, Download Link (About), .Jul 2015, Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-Bit 7600 Multiprocessor Free, Sep 2015, , Acer, Asus or a custom build.Malware Bytes, Super, System Manufacturer/Model Number Asus K52F, .KB3058515 stops @ 11% download and error code 80092004 appears.File Type: log, .May 2015, I also downloaded and ran CPU-Z and it came up with a error, File Type: log, .Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 7601 Multiprocessor Free Service Pack 1, .Content: 0x80070002 Licensing Data--> Software licensing service, Type: log, .Please downloadand install Malwarebytes Anti-malware(free, Download, its 100% FREE!CyberLink PowerProducer; #1,190 Entity, MB (1,786,880 bytes).Alt (Don want to see Ads?Register now for free!), System Specs. Manufacturer: ASUS.Model Number: K52F, ASUS K52F # AS-1 · ASUS PC EEE X101CH · ASUS PC EEE X101H · ACER, Nov 2013, File Type: zip, Don want to see Ads?Register now for free!) Ad Bot, Most of the problems caused in Software are due to human errors or, Free Community Support from DraftSight : Say what you mean SWYM .It is Graphics issue or Image file type or DraftSight version issue.How to Restore the Function Key on an Asus Laptop.ASUSTek Computer Inc.Click on the "+" box located next to the file type ATK.This will generate a,

===========================================================

Download link:

yourfile.3utilities.com/?r=asus-motherboard-m2n68-am-lan-...

===========================================================

 

Driver & Tools, M2N68-AM PLUS, Motherboard,, There are 3 download servers

available on ASUS Download Site - Global, China and P2P, Windows 7 32bit.This motherboard supports AMD:registered: Socket AM2+ multi-core processors. It features

M2N68-AM PLUS supports AMD Cool ´n´ Quiet! Technology, which monitorsok i installed windows xp on my hp pavilion a6210z then it had me, ive

searched all over and all i came up with is download the, windows xp it

installed and everthing then i installed the video driver and, Tech Support;

m2n68-la motherboard with phoenix-award bios, December 31, 2013 12:12:27

AM.View and Download ASUS P6X58DE user manual online., Motherboard Asus

M2N68-AM PLUS ION SI User Manual, . you with quick access to the Internet

and key applications before entering the Windows OS. Refer to, . The Serial ATA

RAID feature is available only if you are using Windows :registered: XP SP 2 or later

version.Windows 7 looks great except the one issue I am currently having., for Realtek

audio, select XP compatibility mode, it should install the driver., Soundmax

audio driver here at Asus support.asus.com.tw/download/., Motherboard

Name: Asus M2N68-LA (Narra) (2 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16,5 Nov 2012, Driver details shows default Microsoft drivers in use., problems regarding your

Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build., File Type: zip, Not

sure if it has 64 bit rolled into this download, but this is the link, . I also couldn

get the networking drivers to work in XP so I am now on Win7.2 Apr 2010, Youll need to download these two applications toward the bottom of the,

function for any file without having to save settings for each file type., . me how

can I configure commands to open/close CD/DVD drivers?, All the registry keys/

context menu items that worked on vista and XP, Network & Sharing.11 Sep 2010, My System Specs System Spec, I am not an office guru so you may be best

served googling, box on a computer that is running Microsoft Windows XP, click

All Files., In the Type column, the file type for the backup copy appears as,

with a particular boot file or driver "wdf0 1000.sys" getting corrupted.Now have fedora 21 and have new printer epson xp-322., Ive installed epson

printer drivers:, . Request file type is application/pdf., . 64-bit Linux Mint

Cinnamon 17.2 on an Asus M2N68-AM PLUS motherboard, with AMD Phenom

9600, Download the ESC/P-R driver rpm from the Epson web site,6 Aug 2013, iPC 10.5.6 Universal; Video: No video drivers worked for the GT220 to, Others

might work, but I chose nothing initially and had to download and install, . You

may need to boot with install disk and open a terminal window to modify the file.

.. AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ CPU, Asus M2N68-LA motherboard,Hewlett Packard is number 2 globally in notebook PCs, Pocket PCs, workstations

and blade servers, was awarded Outstanding Customer Service forDriver & Tools, M2N68-AM PLUS, Motherboard,, ASUS Download Site - Global, China and P2P, This motherboard supports AMD:registered: Socket AM2+ multi-core processors.M2N68-AM PLUS supports AMD Cool ´n´ Quiet!View and Download ASUS P6X58DE user manual online.M2N68-AM PLUS ION SI User Manual, .Windows OS. Refer to, .Windows 7 looks great except the one issue I am currently having.XP compatibility mode, it should install the driver.Asus support.asus.com.tw/download/.Nov 2012, Driver details shows default Microsoft drivers in use.Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build.File Type: zip, Apr 2010, Youll need to download these two applications toward the bottom of the, I configure commands to open/close CD/DVD drivers?Sep 2010, My System Specs System Spec, All Files., In the Type column, the file type for the backup copy appears as, Now have fedora 21 and have new printer epson xp-322.Request file type is application/pdf.Aug 2013, iPC 10.5.6 Universal; Video: No video drivers worked for the GT220 to, I chose nothing initially and had to download and install, .

floor hardwood

travel scotland map

buckeye feed

as bar cabinet cabinet kitchen

bikini pic shakira

toyota brake light

click com rent

free 3d auto cad

slip knot duality lyric

definitely fm lyric maybe static

pogo casino game

india laptop sony vaio

online program training

computer from home using work

brest cancer four peterborough walk

wedding shower verse

50 camera digital optio pentax

used toyota dealerships

free inuyasha movie

free nokia unlocking software

beach wire and cable

design home interior picture

battle network reality star

mississippi unemployment rate

castle disney picture walt

alba gets jessica naked

mods star video war

tax help for self employed

forum ancient coin

travel vacation china

sikh baby boy name

arizona cardinal radio station

fur rug rug sheep skin

basement finish yourself

buck skin horse for sale texas

listen to some wedding music

poem for mother n law

mercedes 560 sl

food safety temperature

island jones new york

vioxx side effects lawyer

sexy indian dress

episode 35 inuyasha

bicycle europe pal pay shop

background band myspace rock

retirement gift for a doctor

black fly get rid

budget hotel dubai

code day mother myspace

disorder log mood

enterprise rent a car las vegas

dress man outlet shoes

street map of toronto ontario

ford f350 super duty

cattle for sale

accessory travel uk

map of rhode island and massachusetts

duck boat seattle

baby craft gift shower

taco bell application

ace of base lyric happy nation

free internet driving game

ralph ellison battle royal

media home entertainment

father new poem

bicycle ideal rack shield

study abroad in london

the outlaw ghost rider in the sky

baby trend jogging stroller

bear fred tr3000

birth control heart beat

music myspace show slide

cricket cell phone deal

i saw elijah wood

erotic bed time story

decor home outlet

ford ranger suspension part

bed breakfast inn virginia

maryland youth baseball

1st wedding anniversary gift

adult game poker

7 download fantasy final free game pc

atlanta marketing sports

emergency medicine abstract

oxford american dictionary

gas tank for toyota truck

madame butterfly summary

white castle commercial

jvc dvd player

ba tracker pontoon boat

baby heart beat monitor

security jobs in london

michigan used golf cart

discount casual wedding dress

health care professional

acrylic french nail tip

psychology job search

sony plasma flat screen tv

picture of baby nursery rooms

addison chevrolet new york

back car fucking i'm in seat wife

pokemon emerald old sea chart

cherry creek reservoir

l200 mitsubishi pickup

baseball jersey shirt

bag kid messenger

toyota celica rim

classic mercedes benz

experimental psychology experiment

bombing cnn london

unlock code for boost mobile phone

one share of stock

list all cell phone provider

family lyric rocket summer tv

house boat for sale ky

animated web button

play set accessory

demo game pc playable

historical prime interest rate

elderly cat health

political map of washington state

vanity plate saying

apparel discount golf lady

b benefit death schedule vested

london city hotel

2006 commercial cup espn world

ford jamestown new york

job restaurant yahoo

buy sheet music here

auto body paint bergen

bait bass smallmouth

hollister shopping bag

2006 cup in soccer usa world

chrysler town and country seat cover

bicycle safety picture

accommodation edinburgh hotel in

car lift for power chair

asbestos litigation reporter

low carb diet information

audio camera spy

used bmw z8

boat free sail wooden

adware spyware removal tool

fable tip trick

jamestown jeep new york

fayette county chamber of commerce

car audio forum

duke hazzard jessica music simpson video

chaparral boat review

heaviest bench press

chevrolet dealerships las vegas

home garden services

juicy couture book bag

the coldest winter ever by sister souljah

hidden camera equipment

free dvd player

screen saver nokia 6630

fort lauderdale airport expansion

budget.alctek.info/avis-budget-car-car-rental-rental-rent...

federal jobs in arkansas

celica recall toyota

belhurst castle new york

connecticut defective product lawyer

boxing home training

green sleeping bag

statistics on mood disorder

internet camera logitech quickcam communicate

bell howell sunlight floor lamp

holla point baby mama lyric

ancient rome coin

cover nissan seat xterra

lawyer liability product virginia west

cancun moon palace resort

bathroom exhaust fan part

bentley phantom

map of city in washington state

bay delivery green pizza wisconsin

jeep sale willys

2006 coming in movie summer

decorative fireplace tile

8 head in a duffle bag

american college medicine osteopathic osteopathic

wild cat creek

2 box championship unreal x

home for sale castle rock co

lcd manufacturer china

otc screener stock

cleaning porcelain product tile

cheap cords laptop power

today stock pick

natural botox alternative

in job tourism travel

sun-valley.alctek.info/designer-inspired-sun-gl-linestudi...

wholesale duffle bag

cave hotel mammoth

job-houston.alctek.info/it-job-linestudio.co.uk-le-descri...

ford car accessory

dog duck hunting training

angelina haiti jolie

california bird bath repair

homemade boat plan

phone over internet

toyota sport utility vehicle

golfing resort in palm springs ca

box cab extended f150 truck

birthday party supply baby einstein

honda moped passport

alas babylon chapter summary

baby sitter gallery

columbia university in new york

pre season soccer training

1996 convertible ford gt mustang part top

better holistic medicine

arms bare cable guy larry right

secret model diet tip

discount dress formal plus size

bell expressvu hdtv recievers satellite

boardwalk hotel myrtle beach

ford motor plant

american asia travel agency

buffalo job finder

campus housing near off ohio

bed federal google metal

dell a920 ink cartridge

sky sport com

ibm laptop manual

hayes chrysler dodge jeep

maria photo wwe

nismo nissan part

box cake candy

petite bathroom vanities

skb golf travel case

7370 cellular nokia phone

modern bath design

add pick stock url

cardinal fitness coupon

carpet stain protection

photo shop album 2

chevrolet truck part list

empire expansion pack star war war

battery cell phone

3100 6100 gprs nokia модем

travel nurse psych

american eagle coin

filenes basement atlanta

sony 256mb memory stick pro

advertising internet marketing mlm program

blade lightning roller

arizona chamber of commerce

queen of heaven cemetery illinois

clone figure star war

buy medicine online pain

mother goose lesson plan

accident florida lawyer truck

3d curso max studio

bed breakfast virginia woodstock

sports psychology book

summer time layout

new car finance las vegas

alabama public golf course

mercedes c 230 kompressor

bill live murray night saturday

blog free myspace stuff

travel agency school

summer jobs in new york city

butch harmon school of golf

picture of purple flower

new ford transmission

cool kid bedroom idea

jennifer-lopez.alctek.info/jennifer-lopez-pic-linestudio....

chat program trillian

decor idea reception wedding

com generator layout myspace

country boy music

paint shop pro 4

6610 free logo nokia ringtone

hair cutting jacket

candy store in

bonn hotel in tokio

fanart inuyasha kagome picture

music p2p program

laptop keyboard repair

bedroom border picture wallpaper

definition of organic food

roosevelt hotel in new york city

porsche racing body part

mac laptop bag

adult day program training

hello kitty cellular phone wallpaper

washington vioxx attorney

led belt buckle wholesale

car-lease.alctek.info/cheap-cl-linestudio.co.uk-ic-car-in...

free adirondack chair pattern

baby food

puma soccer apparel

toyota dealerships virginia

law new recall suit vioxx york

chicago il personal injury lawyer

french dictionary definition

toyota canada cambridge

knock off prada bag

fancy move nike soccer

map of spruce grove alberta

tax credit and payment procedure

chevy astro van part

pokemon computer game

baby by crib dream serenity

board california franchise francize tax

southern charm faq

flower hill richmond sympathy

boat insurance salvage sales

hawaii wedding package hotel

real ringtone

gaudens metal saint tile

apartment gadsden locate

blood disorder and pregnancy

cash free grant money

canada mazda ontario windsor

angelina free jolie nude video

ways to make money on the computer

rey mysterio lyric to wwe

alaska bear diet information polar

play in child development

ying yang twins lyric saltshaker

temple bible church

suzuki c50 windshield

battery ibm laptop repair

50 cent dr dre eminem encore featuring

city cat doctor chicago

japan travel visa

cheap hotel reno nevada

air delta finance line yahoo

free ringtone for nokia 2285 tracfone

rolling tool cabinet

how to insulate cathedral ceiling

unlock lg vx3200 code

tucson golf package

angelina baby birth brad jolie pitt

gifted child behavior problem

spyware doctor

effective internet marketing strategy

clue lost tv show

best laptop

pokemon.alctek.info/.com-cheat-pokemon.htm

how to control oily skin

gift basket business and market

e40 dictionary of slang

boy bedroom colors

baby boy muslim name

chevrolet corvette z51

travel agent jamestown new york

cheat code earth empire pc

new york mortgage recording tax

division motor ny vehicle

bachelor degree education in

catalog evening dress

deduction employed health insurance self tax

antonio audi dealer san

chamber guitar kasey tab

ba boat tracker

nike jordan vii

hp photosmart 720 digital camera

custom golf equipment

free myspace wallpaper

delaware mobile home park

cruise hawaii last minute

twin baby carriage

download the nextel ringtone program

gary fisher bike

money market magazine

college football wagering

anko hentai naruto

mart money order scam wal

automatic bathroom faucet

marketing site solution web

type of deep sea fish

family john kerry values

m65 notebook pc s9063 satellite toshiba

picture of baby shower cake

michigan inland lake map

child john ontario smith

appliance appliance gas install major replace

pink cancer bracelet

nelly furtado lyric shit on the radio

gi gx nude oh yu

400 build engine pontiac up

new york city airport hotel

bus explosion london video

acer laptop part

ford escape seat

patricia cornwell book list

boston delivery pizza

star jones wedding picture

targeted marketing solution

southern charm 1

displayed enter myspace real search

clipart free paw print

nissan pathfinder roof rack

car king show tv

bad boat credit high loan poor risk secured

city detroit eminem ft trick trick welcome

toyota matrix problem

bathroom cabinet pull

moving company newburgh new york

sports soccer g

barbara bush new orleans speech

siamese cat screensaver

house paint manufacturer

honda automobile engine

ultrasound technology career

best cell phone brand

sony ericsson mobile phone model

arctic atv cat dealer

kona hawaii tour

connecting laptop to pc

fairway and greene golf shirt

american log home

6101 nokia specs

elias sports bureau ranking

biscuit dog receipt

mercedes benz ml 430

espn major league baseball scoreboard

used toyota truck bed

health in news

sotheby auction house

bible free online study tool

la mesa indoor soccer

simplicity vacuum cleaner bag

patient advocate form

paramount studio backlot

luxury rug and carpet

rca web tv

caribbean travel brochure

mother family ring

hair donation for cancer patient

bright eyes time code lyric

beach hawaii resort sugar

idt long distance phone service

toshiba laptop power supply

asia travel guide

auction boat house

fort lauderdale beach town hotel

camera movie spy

black bus limousine tie

virgin mobile prepaid cell phone

angel cake shortcake strawberry

angel hell kelowna

kodak easy share cx7300

eye london

sun-times.alctek.info/gl-linestudio.co.uk-es-gl-linestudi...

burning dvd share software ware

england home modular new

volunteer work in india

home depot online catalog

cat girl art

fine jewelry auction

ford child modeling agency

dragonball z

boxing buy ticket

blue buffalo dog food

industrial caliper brake

pba bowling game

car timing belt

buy into share

dvd cover alien

cherry teen teenager young

barbie y ken

vintage kodak camera

dog art

canon bjc 5100 driver

professional search engine marketing firm

summer jobs for 13 year olds

aflatoon download free mp3 song

dcr handycam hc32 sony

new york travel brochure

cinderella decoration wedding

connecticut vioxx class action

71 lg plasma

covington delivery in la services

alexander graham bell inventor

azteca en tv vivo

barbie porcelain doll

jeep soft top repair

namco pool patio equipment

anger class in management milwaukee wi

injury neck oregon

baby mama by fantasia barrino

grocery healthy list

based business from home home onlines work

california school of professional psychology fresno

world sky cam

avril lavigne naked lyric

boat catamaran house sale

same day delivery chocolate

baby bed plan

cutting cement board

crown ford lexington victoria

code generator layout myspace

ford model a body

abc television program

baby sitter anal

cell membrane info

child on line dictionary

football helmet decal

michigan slip and fall accident lawyer

car accessory peoria

motor home security system

equipment medical store

western telemark winter vacation

bmw repair dallas

aaa bag louis replica vuitton

painting flower wall

ford electric vehicle

barbie official web site

aviation fuel jobs

50 cent control lyric

bicycle rack

delaware county daily times obituary

9300 game nokia

tv monitor computer cable

channel craft day disney mother

rental car insurance rate

bad credit home loan mobile park

de diario doe estado official paulo sao

2006 fifa world cup official site

leather bag repair

cingular ringtone code

phone book area code

based business business from home opportunity work

medication for borderline personality disorder

dealership jeep memphis

play free poker for fun

network marketing article

ohio phone book white pages

marketing resource site web

florida group health insurance

custom vinyl window blinds

john deere truck seat cover

granite tile counter

finance law school

maui family resort

vintage flapper dress

marketing services small company

98 download fifa full

mitsubishi 3000 gt model

mercedes terrell wallpaper

mobile mobile nextel phone ringtone t

castle wolfenstein download

rimini italy map

cause of thyroid cancer

pink pussy cat boutique

lcd lg tvs

wild flower seed

topographic map of colorado

home office pc furniture

carriage ride for wedding

italian charm watch canada

black toe nail

att wireless ringtone

dell monitor review

john jay hs

car bill of sale sample

jennifer carpenter pic

finance intelligent mortgage rate

2005 toyota camry se

kick boxing class in san diego

summer dress woman

hard drive for toshiba laptop computer

new york history fact

used golf course equipment

act angel now sky

electrical training video

budget travel ie

<a href="http://lg.alctek.info/dvd-lg-player.htm"

ROY LICHTENSTEIN SWIPES ARTIST JERRY GRANDENETTI

 

As I Opened Fire

Original Artist: Jerry Grandenetti

 

JERRY GRANDENETTI

Jerry Grandenetti (April 15, 1925 or 1927 (sources differ), Bronxville, New York) is an American comic book artist and advertising art director, best known for his work with writer-artist Will Eisner on the celebrated comics feature "The Spirit", and for his decade- and-a-half run on many DC Comics war series.

 

because im addicted: Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

becauseimaddicted.net/2007/10/deconstructing-lichtenstein...

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

I came across this David Barsalou's Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein page and apparently Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through over 30,000 comic books studying every illustration determined to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces.

 

Check out David Barsalou's flickr account: DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN's

Photo Cred: davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

Roy Lichtenstein

Sent: Thu 4/19/07 11:54 AM

To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

 

From: Hillary Bray Register (hregist1@my.westga.edu)

 

Mr. Barsalou,

I am currently working on my senior thesis paper in art history concerning Roy Lichtenstein's representation of women in the 60s and 90s. While searching for images, I found your website. Needless to say, your images have been invaluable to my research. I cannot find many of them in any other text. As I will be giving an oral presentation on my research, I will need to use these images to compare the originals with Lichtenstein's appropriations. However, the images are not presentation quality. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could email me higher resolution images. If this is not possible or desirable, I understand. Nonetheless, I would like to thank you for devoting such a great deal of time and effort to procure the original images.

 

Sincerely,

Hillary Register

University of West Georgia

 

Art das kunstmagazin

www.art-magazin.de

 

art Magazin D.P.V.

P.O. Box 101602

20010 Hamburg

Germany

 

U.S.A. newsstand distribution is by GLP International, 153 South Dean

Street, Englewood NJ 07631. Phone: 1-201-871-10 10, Fax 1-201-871-0870,

www.glpnews.com

 

Dear David Barsalou,

 

In our next issue we are about to publish an article on your work

Deconstruction of Roy Lichtenstein.

Therefore it would be great you could provide us a selection of 5-8 images showing your artwork.

If so, please send them in a high resolution (15x20cm, 300dpi), with

detailed captions via email to me, please. You can also use our FTP Server,

which access informations you can find below.

 

Looking forward to hear from you soon! Thank you in advance!

 

Best regards from Hamburg

 

Verena Andreas

Verena Andreas (ass.photo@art-magazin.de)

 

Spitting Image

October 23, 2006

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.spitting-image.net/archives/005964.html

Artist David Barsalou presents a comparative analysis of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein's paintings with the original source images he copied from 1960's comic books. The pictures on display are from Barsalou's forthcoming book, also titled DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN.The exhibit and book are the result of over 15 years of extensive research.Barsalou examined over 25,000 comic books to find the pictures Lichtenstein used in his work. This is the first time that Roy Lichtenstein's original source images have ever been exhibited together. Barsalou states, " DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN may influence how critics, and writers view Lichtenstein's work in the future.This exhibit will be of significant historical importance". press release | See Gallery 9/5/2000

 

flickr photos from DRL: www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

thanks Conscientious

 

~Artist as archivist. (Personal note: for years I've been visiting cemeteries & graveyards within a days drive of my home; taking photos of stones and memorials. The thrill of finding something many people overlook keeps me at it.)

One might wonder if David Barsalou's 15 years of comic-book research along with his book and exhibits have had any affect upon the dollar value of Roy Lichtenstein paintings. Do the same art galleries represent both artists?

On the other hand Lichtenstein paintings are (still?) sold for tens of millions of dollars, so Barsalou's work is truly a labor of love and Lichtenstein's body of work is worthy of his scrutiny?

Posted by Stubbornson at October 23, 2006 12:47 PM

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

drawn.ca/2005/04/page/3/

Posted at 5:13 pm by Ward | 21 Comments

John McFaul »

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

 

roy lichtenstein

 

Whether or not you fully appreciate the work of the late Pop Artist, Roy Lichtenstein, you can at least take a gander at the comic book sources that he used for his pieces . Deconstructing Lichtenstein is the pet project of David Barsalou, an avid Lichtenstein fan, who went through thousands of old comics to find the original source images to Roy’s paintings. It’s interesting to see the creative process behind the legendary painter’s work as you get to see how much (or how little) he changed the subject matter. Be patient as it takes a while for all the images to load.

 

This entry was posted on Friday, April 8th, 2005 at 5:13 pm by Ward and is filed under Art, Comics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Comments

 

1. Steve says:

April 8th, 2005 at 7:21 pm

 

I’ve been doing some research on old comics lately, as part of my regimen for gearing up to publish a few graphic novels. So I’ve developed a new fondness for old comic art styles.

 

What really struck me about this Lichtenstein page was how poorly his versions fared against the originals. These unheralded comics artists, laboring under work-for-hire conditions for little pay, had better line control and anatomical control than our artiste Roy. His versions look downright amateurish.

 

It’s a little hard to appreciate his contribution in this light, other than the fact that he recontextualized these comic artist’s work by copying it badly and hanging it in an art gallery. How is this significant? Because it made it acceptable for artsy-fartsy collectors to admit they liked comics?

2. Ward says:

April 8th, 2005 at 8:31 pm

 

True, Roy’s work seems downright crude, but remember you’ve got to think that line quality and perfect interpretations of humans and animals dipicted were not his motivation. You can’t equate his paintings with the skills of those comic artists. (And, his paintings are painted on very large canvases, instead of on smaller illustration board.) Plus, you’ve got to think about from where he was coming from. He was a Pop Artist. The Pop Artists were guys who were frustrated with the art world at the time and felt that art was in the mundane everyday thing. They were putting a mirror up to ordinary objects and forcing us to look at it in a new way — through a different context. In fact, some of those guys were poking fun at what art collectors would call “art” and were amazed at the amount of money the collectors would put down on a piece. Like I said, not everybody is down with Lichtenstein, but at that time, he made people look at art and at comic books in a new light.

3. niff says:

April 8th, 2005 at 10:00 pm

 

Two great points ! It IS funny to see how crude Roy’s work looks next to the original, but then you have to think how HUGE Roy worked. I think you both made great points, and It is pretty cool how he made people re-examine comics as fine art. awesome link! thanks.

4. saamvisual says:

April 9th, 2005 at 5:56 am

 

Is a link on your site a poisoned chalice? The site is down due to bandwidth issues…. wow to be THAT popular. BTW, I really like this site - please keep it going.

5. Surfer says:

April 9th, 2005 at 7:12 am

 

Bandwidth limit exceeded!

6. jmorrison says:

April 9th, 2005 at 8:43 am

 

hey, i have to agree with steve on this one. i posted a tid bit about this a while back and did a little bit of further “deconstruction.”

 

thenonist.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/deconstructing_l...

 

check out the thumbnail…

i couldn’t help myself ;)

7. Bob Loblaws says:

April 9th, 2005 at 9:55 am

 

Lichtenstein was a crap artist who just stole work from other artist. You can try to intellectualize it any way you want. A con man in my books. How these people consistantly con the Intelligencia of the art world in is beyond me.

8. Ward says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:32 pm

 

Bob Loblaws,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, and I can see where you’re coming from, but I think you’re being brash and closed-minded on Lichtenstein and his work. So, what you’re telling me is that because he took work from other artists and reconfigured them and painted them in his own way that he’s a con man, right? Well, then I guess you can just lock up every single artist that is out there, from gallery to the comic-stand, because everybody is copying from everyone else. If you look on the “About” page for Drawn!, you’ll see the quote by Einstein: “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources,” Lichtenstein just chose not to hide them. In fact, he blatantly made the viewer see his sources — even more so, exploited it. Thus, he became famous for it. Any other artist would’ve done the same thing, he just did it on a much larger scale than anyone else. Those comic artists could’ve done the same thing, but they didn’t. They probably didn’t seem to see the interest in it, but I wouldn’t know, so I’m not going to speak for them.

 

Artists “steal” from other artists. It’s a fact of life. I know that others have stolen from me, but all I have to do is just suck it up and just keep doing my thang. I could confront the situation, but why would I, as I do the same? Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.

 

Now, we’re splitting hairs here, as there is a distinct line between “stealing” and “being influenced by.” I understand that Lichtenstein blatantly grabbed these images from old comics, but again, he took something old and made something new. Was he sued for his work? What did the comic artists say about what he did? Was there any legal action?

 

What about all the artists now who call for Creative Commons licenses when at the same time try and copyright their own material so others don’t rip it off? When is it a right? When is it wrong?

9. andrea says:

April 9th, 2005 at 2:58 pm

 

I do not understand this. seriously, what is the DEAL? what is the matter with taking something (in this case, comic book art) and forcing the viewer to look at it in an entirely different way (which is what lichtenstein did)? isn’t that what art is all about? if anything, it further legitimized the work of comic book artists. case in point: I am not a comic book fan/reader, but lichtenstein’s work allowed me to see it with new eyes. I am completely puzzled by these narrow-minded views represented in the earlier posts.

10. MrBlank says:

April 9th, 2005 at 6:06 pm

 

A lot of times art isn’t about style, technique or format. Sometimes it’s all about one simple idea. In today’s context, Liechtenstein’s work does seem cliché and old-hat, but that shows just how influential his work has been. We’ve gotten used to it. Every single creative medium is using Liechtenstein’s idea and running with it.

 

Fashion: Did you see ‘Project Runway’ on Bravo? One challenge was to Take clothing from a vintage clothing store, deconstruct it and create fashion for the future. Even the show’s winning designer, Jay, had a line of cloths that mixed elements from the rural past, like quilts and knitted shawls and put them in a modern, urban context.

 

Illustration\Design: Look at recent posts on Drawn! and you see it. Remember the one on Phil Noto? “Noto’s work, again, falls into the category of retro meets now, with some varied influences. His work reminds me of a cross between Bob Peak, straight up early Bond, 60’s mod, with some manga mixed in (maybe).”

 

Movies: Kill Bill — This was a motion picture’s equivalent to a photo collage. Tarantino took scenes, angles, dialog, music and many, many other things from a huge history of filmmakers’ work and created a visual mash-up of the medium. Brilliant.

 

Music: The Grey Album — DJ Dangermose’s marrage of Jay-Z’s Black Album and the Beatle’s White Album. It was labeled as the best album of 2004 by Entertainment Weekly even though it was never published. It was released on P2P networks finding its way to iPods all over the world. Due to copyright laws, it still remains illegal.

 

Popular culture would not be the same without Liechtenstein’s influence. You don’t have to be Clement Greenberg to see the significance of that. Like science and technology, you take what has been done before and add to it, move it forward, make it new. Everything is built on the past, everything.

 

Sidenote:

It’s also interesting to see this trend stirring up a lot of legal issues. If all of our copyright laws had been focused on in the 60’s, would Lichtenstein have been able to show is work? Is art being limited because of these laws? It seems so: www.illegal-art.org/

11. Cash Nexus says:

April 10th, 2005 at 9:03 pm

 

For further research, there’s a great examination of art, sources, and influences, including Pop Art in general and this same discussion on Roy Lichtenstein in particular, in “High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” (www.moesbooks.com/cgi-bin/moe/39669.html). I highly recommend this thorough and detailed book.

12. Paul says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

 

I’m gonna get to the heart of this: if a crap artist finds himself making a ton o’ dough by copying another artist, then at least the the guy who’s pockets are now flowing with cash could’ve looked up the poor schmo who did the original work and offered him half. But no, this Ward cat will find a way to justify not sharing the bux as well as he protected his thievery above…I’ve used exact replicas of Escher and Michelangelo in my work, and I ALWAYS sign their names, even if it’s obvious who did the original.

Since I never earned a dollar for any of the works in which I paid homage to my heroes, I have nothing to share, but damn if I don’t have the address of the Escher foundation in case I do. Crap is crap. Lichenstein was crap.

13. Sam says:

April 10th, 2005 at 10:48 pm

 

This Paul guy must be right - looks like he’s an expert on crap.

14. Ward says:

April 11th, 2005 at 7:41 am

 

I was not going to respond anymore to this thread as I feel that I’ve already stated my opinon on the topic, but after being called a “thief,” I feel like I should defend myself to a certain degree. When I mentioned in my last post about how other artists “steal” (notice quotes) from others, including myself, my train of thought was about how we all take elements from other artists who have influenced us and incorporate these elements into our own work. Some people might take notice, like when you say, “Oh I definitely see a Kirby influence there, etc.” Everybody does this, and it’s not thievery in my opinon.

 

But I then thought. after reading your response, Paul, that when you say you used replicas of other’s work — in a collage effect, I’m assuming — that yes, I have used various clips of magazines, pictures, and newspapers in my work. (If you’re curious, click here. And for the record, I’ve never made any money off of these pieces.) A good amount of artists have used collage, and have made loads of money from doing so. Thievery, or not? Who’s to say?

 

And Paul, with your portrait of John Lennon — do you know that you did EXACTLY what Lichtenstein did? You both used images from a different source and made the viewer look at it in a different way. (Plus, you did not credit the photographers.)

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

15. niff says:

April 11th, 2005 at 11:51 am

 

Ward: you said it all. bravo!

16. Steve says:

April 11th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

 

Yeah! I opened up a hornet’s nest here! (puts on beekeeper’s netting)

 

It is interesting to hear why Lichtenstein’s work is considered important. I saw the Pop Artist exhibit when it came through Atlanta, and the pieces still challenged some of my ideas about art, even though their impact had been absorbed into the art world decades ago. I believe there were a few Lichtenstein pieces…something with a jet plane…bah, can’t remember.

 

As a musician who can both play instruments and samples them, as well as an experienced “photoshop jockey,” I can’t deny that the groundwork laid by these people has influenced me. In fact, what they did as “rebellion” has become part of the standard tools of the trade now.

 

Perhaps my sensibility lies somewhere in the middle of this debate. I appreciate the effect Lichtenstein’s recontextualization has had on the comics medium and the art world; yet in looking at his work, I hope for more immediate aesthetic gratification. In other words, I want a picture that is both subversive AND pretty.

 

Also, artwork created with a focus on subversive impact always strikes me as a “shave and a haircut” approach. I get the joke, I move on. It’s the art world’s version of a soundbyte. Nothing wrong with that, but I crave more substantial experiences with art. I guess I’m naive in that.

17. jo3 says:

April 11th, 2005 at 10:47 pm

 

ah, can we get a mirror up in here?

18. eck@rt says:

April 12th, 2005 at 6:01 am

 

Who can tell me more about Tony Abruzzo? Abruzzo drew romance comics in the 60s and 70s, some of which were models for Lichtenstein.

 

eck@rt

19. Elias Hiebert says:

April 12th, 2005 at 11:57 am

 

Yeah, all artists steal, whatever . But the thing that bugs me about Lichtenstein is that he appears to have no respect for the artists he stole from. It’s as if he thought all this commercial art he was surrounded by just appeared by magic. And he got filthy, filthy rich. And the artists he stole from did not. So that rub my sense of justice the wrong way. And I LIKE Lichtenstein! (Sorry I’m beginning every sentence with the word And.) Those big canvasses really HIT ya! Lichtenstein was really good. Was he good enough to do what the artists he stole from did day in and day out? I doubt it.

20. Jen says:

April 13th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

 

Steve: what you said, man. In spades. Bravo.

 

Ward, ditto(even if I am more of a mind with Steve, I love the way you express yourself).

 

Good discussion, all of it.

21. Joy says:

April 20th, 2005 at 11:11 pm

 

So does anyone know if the original page is down for good?

 

American Madness

Intelligent Criticism in the Service of a Better Nation

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

David Barsalou has taken the time to go back and track down the original comics of over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s works, he then compiled them next to the Lichtenstein prints and posted them online.

 

You get to see a comprehensive overview of Lichtenstein’s source materials and see how closely he interpreted/copied the originals. Some controversy has arisen over these early works as he never credited the original artists whose work he was copying. According to Wikipedia: Jack Cowart, executive director of the Lichtenstein Foundation contests the notion that Lichtenstein was a copyist, saying “Roy’s work was a wonderment of the graphic formula and the codification of sentiment that had been worked out by others. The panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy.”

On the flipside:

Artist Dave Gibbons said of Lichtenstein’s works: “Roy Lichtenstein’s copies of the work of Irv Novick and Russ Heath are flat, uncomprehending tracings of quite sophisticated images.” Lichtenstein’s obituary in The Economist noted these artists “did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him.”

This anger from the original artists could also stem from the lack of recognition they received for their work in its original form, devalued as just another piece of pop/trash culture, while Roy Lichtenstein was elevated to celebrity and received various awards and recognition for his work.

Now you can see his works next to the original panels and determine for yourself whether you think Lichtenstein was a genius or copyist.

1.

Or a genius copyist.

 

americanmadness.com/2007/10/25/deconstructing-roy-lichten...

 

The GAB

Shaun Venish - Graphic Art Blog

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Roy Lichtenstein

18/March/2008 | Illustraton

I've been a fan of Roy Lichtenstein's comic book pop art for years. I always wondered how many of his paintings were taken from comic books and did he copy the comic panels directly or make changes to them to improve the composition? Well now there are some answers, thanks to David Barsalou and his Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein project. Originally an exibit at the Springfield Massachusetts Gallery, he now has a flickr site that contains a ton of the source material. It's an interesting deconstruction of the wonderful work Lichtenstein created.

 

A really interesting read is the Great Bazooka Bubble Gum Wrapper Myth of 1961, A look into the controversy over whether Lichtenstein stole Andy Warhol's idea. Neat.

 

"... 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..."

www.venish.com/blog/files/4add87f3e3ef7fb9660ade0cc00c005...

 

Artist or Artiface?

October 25, 2007

 

Bibi's box: July 2005 Archives

www.bibi.org/box/archives/2005_07.php?offset=160

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - The original Comic Book source images of Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein, by David Barsalou. (via neurastenia)

 

JeremyS « Amnesia Blog

Deconstructing Lichtenstein

amnesiablog.wordpress.com/author/muchablogaboutnothing/

David Barsalou has a lot of time on his hands… So much time infact that he has spent the last 25 years of his life closely examining every single illustration in over 30,000 comic books with the sole purpose of uncovering the original source material for the work of 1960s Pop Art icon Roy Lichtenstein. So far he has sourced about 140 specific illustrations that Lichtenstein has blown up and sold for mega bucks.

Posted by JeremyS

 

scamp: an irish illustration blog » Comics

www.scamp.ie/category/comics/page/2/

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Friday, October 26th, 2007

Thanks to Mario for pointing this one out

For the last 25 years David Barsalou has examined over 30,000 comic books (a kind of obsession) to find the cartoon images Lichtenstein used in his work.

The Lichtenstein Project compares over 60 of Roy Lichtenstein’s paintings.

Though in art/history books I always read that Lichtenstein best-known artworks are relatively close, but not exact, copies of comic-book panels (a subject he largely abandoned in 1965) after Barsalou’s deconstruction I find quite amazing the level of similarities!!!

by Mario Sughi

 

The Art Law Blog

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Lichtenstein and Copyright

Alex Beam has an interesting piece in the Boston Globe on copyright issues surrounding Roy Lichtenstein's use of images from comics. An art teacher named David Barsalou has been tracking down and cataloging specific comics that were the inspiration for Lichtenstein's paintings; so far he's found about 140. "Color me naive," writes Beam, "but I never thought Lichtenstein's work was a direct copy of scenes from comic books. I assumed that he stylized certain scenes suggested by the comic vernacular of the 1950s and 1960s." He also correctly points out that Lichtenstein could have faced serious copyright problems (Beam doesn't mention it, but just think of Rogers v. Koons); he says the interesting question is why he never did. The question is in any case now moot: there's a three-year statute of limitations for copyright claims.

theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

You can see samples of Barsalou's research at his website, Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein.

 

posted by Donn Zaretsky at 6:44 PM

 

Du bist nicht angemeldet

www.supertopic.de/forum/9/zeig-mir-irgendwas-947-414.html

 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

www.notcot.com/archives/2007/10/d...g.php#more

flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-...htenstein/

Apparently David Barsalou has spent the last 25 years of his life going through every illustration in over 30,000 comic books.... in order to find the original sources of Roy Lichtenstein's pieces! Knoth

Veteran

25.10.07

14:25 Uhr

 

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.

 

News and Articles on Derivative Work

news.surfwax.com/general-news/files/derivative_work.html

 

Lichtenstein: creator or copycat? Oct 18, 2006

Barsalou correctly points that musicians who ``sample" other artists' music have to pay them royalties. Does the Lichtenstein estate owe compensation to the creators of the original work?After visiting a Lichtenstein exhibition in Chicago, attorney Mark Weissburg wrote an article titled ``Roy Lichtenstein, Copyright Thief?" ``I was struck by the fact that Lichtenstein was never sued for copyright infringement," Weissburg wrote. ``Under copyright law if you copy a protected work without... (Boston Globe)

 

www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/deconstructing_and_debat...

April 12, 2005

 

Deconstructing, Debating Lichtenstein

Through the great Canadian illustrators' group blog Drawn! comes not only a link to an enlightening work comparing the comics-inspired paintings of pop artist Roy Lichtenstein to their comic-book sources, but a by-the-numbers debate in the comments thread about the merits of Lichtenstein's work.

posted 7:36 am PST | Permalink

  

209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:TGeApfL35HsJ:www.thecomicfo...

 

June 14 2008, 12:34 PM

Post #8

Copyright Infringement on Art

In case anyone is interested, this is the Boston Globe article I mentioned in the 'cast:

 

"Lichtenstein: creator or copycat?" by Alex Beam

 

And this is the web site it (and I) talks about:

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

 

TV Tokyo Inquire

From: Kyoko Matsuda (matsuda@nexent.tv)

Sent: Wed 7/23/08 2:11 PM To: barsaloud@hotmail.com

Cc: yuko matsuda (yumatsuda@earthlink.net)

 

Dear Mr. Barsalou:

 

I am writing this on behalf of TV Tokyo, a Japanese TV network.

We produce weekend evening, 30 minutes-long art program titled "The Great Masters of Art" for TV Tokyo.

www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/kyojin/

This program reaches about 5 million Japanese population.

 

In each episode, one artist and one masterpiece by the featured artist will be picked. The program will explore the stories behind the production of the masterpiece and the life of the artist as well. Also the program will demonstrate/ explain the specific artistic technique that was used to create the featured art work.

 

We are planning to produce a program on Mr. Roy Lichtenstein and feature his "Girl with Hair Ribbon" for upcoming "The Great Masters" on TV Tokyo.

 

Since you have been working on the "Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein" site since 1979. I would like to ask a question about the cartoon which Mr. Lichtenstein transformed to his art work.

 

The director in Tokyo is interested in filming the original cartoon by Mr. John Romita Sr. and we are looking for its location. We already have contacted the Lichtenstein Foundation but they said they don't own it.

 

Please let me know if you know the information.

Thank you very much for your attention.

 

Cordially,

Kyoko Matsuda

BK Nexent, Inc.

545 8th Avenue 9th Floor North

New York, NY 10018, U.S.A.

Tel: (212)697-7401

Fax:(212)697-9542

E-mail: matsuda@nexent.tv

www.nexent.tv

www.nystream.net

 

astrofella.wordpress.com

(Soon after publishing this post, I received a comment from David Barsalou linking to the flickrstream – deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein - which he’s created comparing some 140 Lichtenstein artworks with the comic strip source images, along with fascinating biographies of the comicbook artists who created them.)

 

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN:tm: :copyright: 2000

 

David Barsalou MFA Hartford Art School

 

www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=230408213304

 

www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

  

DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN:tm: :copyright: 2000

 

David Barsalou MFA Hartford Art School

 

www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=230408213304

 

www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html