Is this theft or appropriation?

[johnmiic]

Jack Kirby 1963 / Chris-Achilleos 1973

[torgospizza]

I love Cheez whiz and crackers but I'm not about to paint it on a canvas hang it in a gallery...

Honestly, I've been wanting to do something with either the Cherry Mash logo or their mascot for some time, but that's a level of dorkiness I'd probably just keep to myself.

[kingdom warrior]

Honestly, I've been wanting to do something with either the Cherry Mash logo or their mascot for some time, but that's a level of dorkiness I'd probably just keep to myself.

[samurainoir]

a couple of points to consider...

It's actually not the original artists (Byrne, Bagley, Thorne, and Swan?) that are being ripped off in the examples shown (although this fella has "appropriated/stolen" creator owned work like Tank Girl). The "creator" is actually Marvel and DC via their work for hire contracts (which gets into another discussion entirely once we go pre-70's and post 70's with the contracts and royalties).

Chip Kidd is working with DC/Warner (Alex Ross, and the estate of Charles Schulz) on his books and crediting creators (at least when it comes to the comic artwork where there is a credited artist). DC gets their cut of these books (Ross must have got a big cheque for his, and in the case of the Peanuts book, the estate of Charles Schulz). The only complaint that has some weight with Kidd's books is the fact that he did not sufficiently credit the original Bat Manga artist (on the cover).

[samurainoir]

Art Speigelman has been particularly scathing in his criticisms of Lichtenstein's work.

If I'm remembering correctly, even going so far as to "re-appropriate" Lichtenstein's work to call him out on blatant plagiarism.

Keeping in mind we are also commenting from a position of hindsight... in the context of the times, much of the work was anonymous and considered by society at large (even a majority of the comic artists themselves) to be disposable.... because it WAS. You eventually threw away the newspapers and comic books (which is why they are so valuable now). We should credit the Pop Art movement (which should include the published work of Harvey Kurtzman and the undergrounds) actually opened the window of opportunity to legitimize the artform and confront the establishment of the times.

I think you guys are absolutely right... Duchamp and many of his contemporaries fought that fight decades earlier within the galleries. Although arguably Warhol and co was as reflective of their time and place (elite vs mass culture - America) as the Dadaists (high vs low art - Europe).


A pretty comprehensive side by side of the work Lichtenstien stole/appropriated...
DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN

[Brazoo]

^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

Okay - I appreciate the difference that Kidd gives credit - but when he takes a photo of a Batman squirt gun (for example) he's not simply displaying the design of the squirt gun on it's own, which would be showing off the beauty of the original design. What he's doing is creating new images using the Batman squirt gun, and people look at that and see a Chip Kidd work - not the squirt gun designers work - credit or not. Again, I do think Chip Kidd is a good designer, I'm just a little critical of his "archive" type books, because I'd prefer to see more of the original designs and less of Kidd's comments on them.

Also, I totally disagree that Warhol thought the Batman logo was "banal" in any way. If he used something he loved it - and usually said so.

[Brazoo]

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.

We totally agree on Lichtenstein.

But I do think Warhol is an artist on a totally different level.

To me he's not saying "this can be art when I put it on a wall" - he's saying "I love the Coke bottle design, and you art elitists are missing it because you've got your noses in the air" - which is totally different to me.

He didn't take obscure images like Lichtenstein - he appropriated iconic images - and that's the key difference. Nobody thought Warhol created the Coke label, or the Campbell's Soup can, or photographed Elvis, or designed the Batman logo. His comment is about iconic imagery.

I believe he was also telling people to appreciate commercial design the way art is appreciated. That's why he didn't use paint on canvas, he used commercial methods (screenprinting) to create his work. His studio was a "factory" - he had production lines. His point was different, more complex and more interesting to me.

Maybe I am being gullible, but when Warhol talks about his subjects he lavishes high praise on them. He may not be giving the designer of the Coke bottle credit - but he's not saying "my work is better than the Coke bottle" - if anything it's the opposite. He's saying to the established art world "why do you care about this screenprint I made? it's made the same way as a Coke bottle - but instead of appreciating the Coke bottle you appreciate THIS? Why is that?"

[samurainoir]

^^^
We start to go down that slippery slope when we get into photography, but as someone who's photographic image has been Misappropriated by a condo developer on the lake-shore/Gardiner (I can regale you with that story whenever we do hook up for a drink... you going to Wizard World?), here's how I see it...

in the case of the Squirt gun, the group of people who manufactured the squirt gun were work for hire guns for the toy company... which licensed the character from DC Comics, who own the likeness/copyright/trademark of Batman (just like I own the rights to my own likeness for commercial purposes). Geoff Spear is actually the insanely talented photographer BTW who collaborates with Kidd on his books. Chronicle books publishes it, Kidd/Spear and DC all get their cut of the $$$.

By all means the unknown squirt gun creator SHOULD get credited in a perfect world, but again here is an artform (toy sculpting) exactly where comics were in the sixties. It is/was considered a trade skill in the process of manufacturing. Hopefully things are changing given the fact that you have movements like the Four Horsemen that are going to be the game changer so that one day we can elevate the names and works of toy makers into the art galleries... which is where Urban Vinyl is waaay ahead of the game if that is what we want to see.

[Brazoo]

Just to clarify - are you guys talking about the TV show Batman logo?



This image was for a poster he did for a movie he made, not a fine art piece - a movie/parody he did of the 60s tv show. Which is totally fair game to me - since the show was heavily influenced by pop art. The whole thing is a snake eating it's own head to me.

Here's Andy Warhol as Robin, and Nico as Batman:



Also, I think this photo is very funny and cool - I'll be surprised if you guys can't appreciate this on some level.



EDIT: I've been looking more online, and this doesn't even seem like a project Warhol even profited from. It's more like him and his buddies messing around with a silly idea about Batman being a vampire. It was screened at art exhibits - but it's not like the movie was sold commercially or anything: Batman Dracula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[torgospizza]

"I kind of do the drawing with the painting in mind, but it's very hard to guess at a size or a color and all the colors around it and what it will really look like." --Roy Lichtenstein

That's kind of a funny thing to say, considering he was swiping panels. It's like Will to Power saying "We're working on this great song, and have no idea how it'll turn out!"

[Brazoo]

^^^
We start to go down that slippery slope when we get into photography, but as someone who's photographic image has been Misappropriated by a condo developer on the lake-shore/Gardiner (I can regale you with that story whenever we do hook up for a drink... you going to Wizard World?), here's how I see it...

in the case of the Squirt gun, the group of people who manufactured the squirt gun were work for hire guns for the toy company... which licensed the character from DC Comics, who own the likeness/copyright/trademark of Batman (just like I own the rights to my own likeness for commercial purposes). Geoff Spear is actually the insanely talented photographer BTW who collaborates with Kidd on his books. Chronicle books publishes it, Kidd/Spear and DC all get their cut of the $$$.

By all means the unknown squirt gun creator SHOULD get credited in a perfect world, but again here is an artform (toy sculpting) exactly where comics were in the sixties. It was considered a trade skill in the process of manufacturing. Hopefully things are changing given the fact that you have movements like the Four Horsemen that are going to be the game changer so that one day we can elevate the names and works of toy makers into the art galleries... which is where Urban Vinyl is waaay ahead of the game if that is what we want to see.

samurainoir - well, I see the authorship issue and legal copyright issue as being two slightly different things.

Using a photo for commercial use - and using the image for a work of art - two different things.

Copyright infringement for art and parody can be legally defendable using "fair use" arguments.

What I'm questioning isn't what's legal in any of this - because that's a whole other can of worms. I'm saying Warhol (in my opinion) was less of a dink because he used iconic images that everyone understood weren't his originally. Litchenstein didn't do that.

Kidd is also taking these beautiful pop culture objects and making "art" out of them. So my criticism isn't dealing with ownership of the objects - it's authorship - I guess. Does that make sense?

P.S. We should grab a beer SOON!

[Brazoo]

Just to clarify my stance on Kidd regarding his archival style books:

It's not just that he made a book using the objects he didn't create - it's that he can't leave well enough alone. The book of objects would look great to me, I don't need him to try and make the illustrations and objects more interesting then they were originally. To me it's just not as cool as seeing the stuff unobscured.

I also think (on some level) by manipulating the original images he really is creating his art from other people's art like Litchenstein did. Taking a 'disposable object' and making something of 'artistic value' out of it.

What I'm asking is whether or not cropping a comic panel on a huge canvas is different than cropping a comic panel on a really expensive high-gloss sheet of paper in a hard cover book?

As Earth 2 Chris pointed out - credit is at least one difference that makes Kidd more likable. As samurainoir pointed out, Kidd is legally licensing the images. But I'm still wondering if artistically it's the same thing as what Litchenstein did?

Again, I do think he's very talented - so I'm just questioning his archival books specifically.

[Brazoo]

"I kind of do the drawing with the painting in mind, but it's very hard to guess at a size or a color and all the colors around it and what it will really look like." --Roy Lichtenstein

That's kind of a funny thing to say, considering he was swiping panels. It's like Will to Power saying "We're working on this great song, and have no idea how it'll turn out!"

That's pretty hilarious!