But it would have been decent of him to cite his primary sources. (But then, the world was not so anxious about intellectual property, 50 years ago.)
I say meta because the original comic art is straight-up storytelling, done in pen and ink. Lichtenstein purloined single images from the story. Took them out of context, made them HUGE, and lovingly reproduced not the original smooth pen-and-ink, but the beauty of the not-quite-successful mechanical rendition of the pen-and-ink.
I could say theft for obvious reasons.
Both are right, I think. But the truth is, he valorized (crit-speak! ta da!) the humble comic, and transposed an ephemeral art --monthlies printed on self-destructing acidic paper-- into grand-scale permanentish objects of contemplation.
I agree with the value of valorization in this instance. But I can't imagine the circumstances where I, walking into a museum and seing something I'd drawn or written or photographed blown up really big and traced or whatever (however lovingly) would not say WTF? and call a lawyer. Or maybe just my husband and cry. I don't think I'd react will if someone asked me first, either. The question would seem ludicrous
( ... )
But Velasquez could walk into a museum and see not his own portrait of Pope Innocent, but Bacon's riff on it. The graphic designer who worked at CSC in the 50s could walk into any poster shop in town and see his soup can label Warholized.
I dunno... I guess it depends on how you define "riff." Because being inspired by, and offering your own take on, another artist's work is one thing. If you're contribution was making it bigger, does that count as variation? I mean, if the "commentary" is that "all of this is art," I'd rather we valorize the stuff itself. I don't think a comic panel is art because it's plopped up on a wall in a gallery--I think it's art already. I think graphic design, while more towards the technical end of things, is art of a kind too. Was the soup can a commentary beyond "look, this is huge, it lets you know this is Important Art"? or are we better served by a realization that hey, someone designed that, and it wasn't Warhol?
My point is that musicians and novelists and yes, artists riff off each other all the time. This is unavoidable. But I don't consider a resize a riff. I consider it a false legitimazation (uh... words) of something that we should appreciate in itself.
Yeah, now that I've seen them I mostly prefer the originals. I'd love to get ginormous prints of them so I could admire them in all their crazy glory. Which is where I think Barsalou misses the boat. He's creating an audience for these comic artists, but he doesn't say who they are.
After googling around, it seems that Barsalou has taken down the bulk of his website, leaving only the link in my original post, pending the publication of his book.
Oh man, this cracks me up: "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."
The fact that someone needs to talk like that ("wonderment of the graphic formulae"... "codification of sentiment") just sounds like he's dodging the issue with jargon. And his "changes" seem legally akin to the aforementioned copyright laws which govern music and literature. Implications notwithstanding, I see no legal difference between this and that Harvard girl who copied her book.
I'm incapable of being that philosophical about art. :-D
I believe in the rightness of Making Art. Most art is only personally valuable; it makes you --individually-- glad or intrigued or "oo that's pretty". The curve of a cup handle, the poem your boyfriend wrote you, a really surprising and quirky crayon drawing by your 5-year-old niece, "Dogs Playing Poker", the Edward Hopper scene that makes you daydream.
Some art gets to be valuable on a larger scale, or even (Mayan calendar) representative of a whole culture.
Like engineering, I think, it either works or it doesn't. The relative value has to do with scale. Car engines: solid engineering, not too exciting, everybody can use one. Mars Rover, holy cow! That's a magnificent achievement. Car engine is to commercial art (say), as Mars Rover is to Sistine ceiling (say).
(The comment has been removed)
But it would have been decent of him to cite his primary sources. (But then, the world was not so anxious about intellectual property, 50 years ago.)
I say meta because the original comic art is straight-up storytelling, done in pen and ink. Lichtenstein purloined single images from the story. Took them out of context, made them HUGE, and lovingly reproduced not the original smooth pen-and-ink, but the beauty of the not-quite-successful mechanical rendition of the pen-and-ink.
I could say theft for obvious reasons.
Both are right, I think. But the truth is, he valorized (crit-speak! ta da!) the humble comic, and transposed an ephemeral art --monthlies printed on self-destructing acidic paper-- into grand-scale permanentish objects of contemplation.
Reply
Reply
But Velasquez could walk into a museum and see not his own portrait of Pope Innocent, but Bacon's riff on it. The graphic designer who worked at CSC in the 50s could walk into any poster shop in town and see his soup can label Warholized.
I think, in a way, it's all right.
Reply
My point is that musicians and novelists and yes, artists riff off each other all the time. This is unavoidable. But I don't consider a resize a riff. I consider it a false legitimazation (uh... words) of something that we should appreciate in itself.
Reply
Yeah, now that I've seen them I mostly prefer the originals. I'd love to get ginormous prints of them so I could admire them in all their crazy glory. Which is where I think Barsalou misses the boat. He's creating an audience for these comic artists, but he doesn't say who they are.
Reply
Reply
Boston Globe 18 October: Lichtenstein, Creator or Copycat?
After googling around, it seems that Barsalou has taken down the bulk of his website, leaving only the link in my original post, pending the publication of his book.
Reply
The fact that someone needs to talk like that ("wonderment of the graphic formulae"... "codification of sentiment") just sounds like he's dodging the issue with jargon. And his "changes" seem legally akin to the aforementioned copyright laws which govern music and literature. Implications notwithstanding, I see no legal difference between this and that Harvard girl who copied her book.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I believe in the rightness of Making Art. Most art is only personally valuable; it makes you --individually-- glad or intrigued or "oo that's pretty". The curve of a cup handle, the poem your boyfriend wrote you, a really surprising and quirky crayon drawing by your 5-year-old niece, "Dogs Playing Poker", the Edward Hopper scene that makes you daydream.
Some art gets to be valuable on a larger scale, or even (Mayan calendar) representative of a whole culture.
Like engineering, I think, it either works or it doesn't. The relative value has to do with scale. Car engines: solid engineering, not too exciting, everybody can use one. Mars Rover, holy cow! That's a magnificent achievement. Car engine is to commercial art (say), as Mars Rover is to Sistine ceiling (say).
Reply
Leave a comment