Is this theft or appropriation?

[samurainoir]

Erró Artworks for Sale – Erró on artnet





Precedents to consider...

[kingdom warrior]

That is FLAT OUT art theft no if ands or buts. It's one thing to do an Homage and clearly say it's an Homage and compensate the original artist when selling your art commercially ........it's quite another thing to trace it in the style of the artist and pass it off as your work. It is not your work you are a theif

Roy Lichtenstein is a Hack thief Plain and simple. he stole and copied from great american comic book artist swiping panel work and only slightly shifting it to make it appear slightly different. HE IS A THIEF made millions and NEVER shared with the artist he stole from.

So is Andy WartHOLE he is also a Hack wanna be artist who STOLE ideas and the public bought into that garbage there is nothing original or great about his work.

It is one thing to do a POP painting of Superman and do something original that you made on your own using whatever techniques......it is another to lift someone's else's idea and make it your own and NOT compensate the artist.......

[kingdom warrior]

For those who never seen How that hack Lichtenstein stole from other artist and made a career lifting from others here a great photo stream on flickr

Flickr: DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN's Photostream

[Earth 2 Chris]

I got in an argument with my college art history professor over this. He believed comics were a disposable medium with no value, but I challenged him that every artist Warhol and Lichtenstein swiped were far more talented and that they created their art with sincerity, not to thumb their noses at anyone. I kind of rallied the class against him honestly, and he caved to the fact that it was more or less theft.

Lichtenstein even had the gall to swipe from his former superior officer! He served under Irv Novick in the late 40s creating posters for the military.

Chip Kidd made a great point in his Batman Collected book. A reproduction of Warhol's Batman logo was included, and Kidd wrote that if you were to wish for one item in his book, you would be wise to make it the Warhol swipe, since it would fetch millions, even though it was an insincere jab at the subject matter.

Frank Thorne, Mark Bagley and John Byrne should be ticked. I'm sure Byrne is, although he likes to do homages, at least he gives credit where credit is due!

Chris

[kingdom warrior]

I got in an argument with my college art history professor over this. He believed comics were a disposable medium with no value, but I challenged him that every artist Warhol and Lichtenstein swiped were far more talented and that they created their art with sincerity, not to thumb their noses at anyone. I kind of rallied the class against him honestly, and he caved to the fact that it was more or less theft.

Lichtenstein even had the gall to swipe from his former superior officer! He served under Irv Novick in the late 40s creating posters for the military.

Chip Kidd made a great point in his Batman Collected book. A reproduction of Warhol's Batman logo was included, and Kidd wrote that if you were to wish for one item in his book, you would be wise to make it the Warhol swipe, since it would fetch millions, even though it was an insincere jab at the subject matter.

Frank Thorne, Mark Bagley and John Byrne should be ticked. I'm sure Byrne is, although he likes to do homages, at least he gives credit where credit is due!

Chris

See an Homage is an Homage. it is the artist in his or hers most sincerest way of paying tribute to another artist who mattered to them. I've paid homage to some of my Fav illustrators, actors and such........but the BIG difference is this. I don't expect to gain anything monetary from it. It is my way of saying to the artist or actor "Hey you mattered to me Thank you!"

If I were to gain millions off an Illustration that I did based off someone's else's Ideas composition, I think I couldn't live with myself if I couldn't compensate the original artist for their original design....but that's me.

Warhol for me was a novelty hack artist......who's time came and went he was nothing to me but a hack.

[The Toyroom]

When I was in 12th grade I took "Studio Art"....my teacher Claude Merrill didn't like when I would draw something in a "comic book style" as he put it since "real life" doesn't have black lines around everything. He went on though to praise Lichtenstein and his "work", as he apparently studied under Lichtenstein at some point, and more or less told me to give up on comic book illustration as a career as I would never be as successful as his buddy Roy

[kingdom warrior]

When I was in 12th grade I took "Studio Art"....my teacher Claude Merrill didn't like when I would draw something in a "comic book style" as he put it since "real life" doesn't have black lines around everything. He went on though to praise Lichtenstein and his "work", as he apparently studied under Lichtenstein at some point, and more or less told me to give up on comic book illustration as a career as I would never be as successful as his buddy Roy

What an ******* to tell you that......I would have put my foot up his *** for saying that.

I had a professor in college try to sell the artsy fartsy real art world crap to me. He said that guys like Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo and comic book artist weren't real artist it was disposable art. I thought he was an idiot and made my opinions known to him that he was an idiot.......

Comic books and the art of storytelling is an american original art form anyone who belittles and dismisses it as nothing does not own a clue....

[The Toyroom]

I had a professor in college try to sell the artsy fartsy real art world crap to me. He said that guys like Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo and comic book artist weren't real artist it was disposable art. I thought he was an idiot and made my opinions known to him that he was an idiot.......

I had an Art History prof in college that tried to sell me the same BS...We had to write a thesis on Modern American Artists and I went with the comic book angle...much to his annoyance. I got a fair, passing grade but he marked it up with some much red ink it was ridiculous. You could tell he had no clue as to what I was talking about...

[kingdom warrior]

I had an Art History prof in college that tried to sell me the same BS...We had to write a thesis on Modern American Artists and I went with the comic book angle...much to his annoyance. I got a fair, passing grade but he marked it up with some much red ink it was ridiculous. You could tell he had no clue as to what I was talking about...

I forgot the name of my Professor but he pretty much had that same type of attitude......I remember there was an exhibition of the Professors paintings and artwork and when I saw his art I took one look and I quickly dropped out of his art and design class and found another class still open taught by none other than Bernard Krigstein of EC Master Race fame......I remember telling Krigstein about the other Professor and he said oh yeah he's a bit full of himself....

[Earth 2 Chris]

Just to clarify, I wasn't bashing the homage at all. I've done it myself numerous times. As long as the original creator is credited, or it's very obvious it's a homage and not meant to be an unknown swipe, they are usually a lot of fun.

My computer art professor in college found I did my best work when I took on comic-related subjects, so he encouraged me to do so. When I took an independent study under him he suggested I stay with comics as my theme! What a great guy.

Chris

[Brazoo]

I've never heard an argument for the concept of "high" and "low" art that made any sense to me. In University my first year Art Theory class consisted of a lecture explaining that "true art" was an advent of the 20th century - basically coming from the angle that art up till that point was a craft instead of a genuine form of expression. As far as I know this is how art is still commonly taught in university and college. like others on here - it's all nonsense to me.

Lichtenstein at least was the first to use comics this way - and does select very interesting graphic elements to exploit. Those other samples samurainoir posted just look like poop to me anyway you slice it. One thing that's always really irritated me about Lichtenstein though, is how poorly he ends up rendering his copies, and how much his lettering stinks. It's as if he's pawning his poor skills off on the fact that the comics weren't well done when it's really his skills that are lacking. Just look at the lettering in the originals he took the images from - the original panels are always much better illustrations.

I totally disagree with kingdom warrior about Warhol though. I think appropriation that he was doing was much better conceptually - and I think he really did recontextualize the images he appropriated. Included in his process was taking commercial forms of mass production, like screenprinting, to create his work - so to me there's a lot more interplay between the medium and the images. He really was (as far as I know) the first to show screenprinted images in galleries - and I love screenprinting - so I admire Warhol for that too.

Warhol never feels like he's mocking the subjects he's appropriating for their quaintness or being ironic or insincere to me (like Lichtenstein), he always seems like he's celebrating the beauty and meaning of things we overlook - which is different.

For example - Warhol grew up very poor - and was raised on Campbell's soup. It was a cheap and nutritious meal, and he was thankful that he had it. Supposedly he even ate it once a day when he was rolling in dough. Also, he started out as a graphic artist - he appreciated the art of commercial design - so the appropriation of the Campbell's soup cans label is a celebration of something he admired - as were most of his subjects.

[torgospizza]

I think a true homage is fine, but theft is something different. I have no problem with someone imitating a style in order to practice, either; however, portraying it as something other than what it is? Anyone can transpose art using a grid, as well--it really doesn't say anything for your skill if you swipe.

[Brazoo]

I agree with that point too, homage is different then theft.

I am able to like art made from appropriated or recontextualized images too though. One of my favorite artists is Marcel Duchamp - and I love his Readymades - so another problem I have with Lichtenstein is that he's really only restating the point Duchamp made decades earlier. "I put this thing I found in a gallery and NOW for some reason it's art". But Duchamp did it better, funnier and a lot earlier.

Chip Kidd made a great point in his Batman Collected book. A reproduction of Warhol's Batman logo was included, and Kidd wrote that if you were to wish for one item in his book, you would be wise to make it the Warhol swipe, since it would fetch millions, even though it was an insincere jab at the subject matter.

Again, Warhol to me is doing something completely different. If anything he's asking why there's a difference between "high" and "low" art in the first place, and I agree with questioning that idea too. I also don't think he's being insincere - if anything I think he's saying "why does it take me doing this to this image to get it on the wall of a museum?" - because he always seems to genuinely love his subjects. Plus I don't think anyone looking at that Warhol Batman logo is going to question if he created the Batman Logo - so I don't have the same problem with him using that famous icon and Litchenstein taking some obscure comic panel and mucking it up.

I like some of Chip Kidd's work (especially the "Plastic Man" book he did with Art Spiegleman) and he can be very creative with design, so I hate to sound critical of him (I also met him once years ago at a comic convention and he was a REALLY REALLY REALLY nice guy) but what is the difference between what he does and what Lichtenstein did?

It seems to me they're not too different. Litchenstein took images of pop culture artifacts, put them on a canvas and framed them - and sold them for a lot of money. Kidd takes images of pop culture artifacts, puts them in an expensive hard cover books - and sells them for a lot of money.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^I think the difference is Kidd gives credit where he can, and he reveres the source material, celebrating Batman's place in pop culture. Whereas Warhol took the Batman logo (probably designed by Ira Schnapp), gave no credit to the original artist and "recreated" it, to make a statement about the banality of pop culture.

Lichtenstein even took the theft further by stealing not only the art but the composition from comic panels. He made millions off of others works, with not even a thanks to the creators.

Chris

[kingdom warrior]

See the thing with Warhol is how original was he really?? He was a commercial artist and used his graphic skills to enter the so called "real art world" which is really made up of RICH people seeking the next picasso. every artist wants clients with endless spending cash to BUY their work to put in galleries and create hype.

Which is what Warhol did to perfection he created his own hype. By borrowing other people's pictures then silk screening it onto canvas and putting it in Galleries and selling the hype that this is different this is new. sold the IDEA to those who were speculators and collectors. were Warhol and Lichtenstein really artist? or just really good at selling ideas or in lichtenstein stealing ideas.

For me they both found easy ways to fortune found their sugar mommas and daddies to buy their hype and keep them in the money for years to come......I think they showed that people are gullable and will buy into anything as long as you keep a straight face
I love Cheez whiz and crackers but I'm not about to paint it on a canvas hang it in a gallery and call it or my self a real artist keeping it real......no I would call myself a fame seeker trying to invent hype for myself.