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.
Comments 9
(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
Leave a comment