Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein
Author: Stephen Gerding
October 12th, 2006
For as long as I’ve been aware of art, I’ve been torn by Lichtenstein’s work. On the one hand, I’m automatically drawn to his pieces due to the fact that his subject matter is so near and dear to me. On the other, he’s always seemed to be sort of a creative void whose entire career hinged on swiping and presenting the work of others. When I came across this website that listed a bunch of Lichtenstein’s works and matched them up with the original panels that “inspired” his paintings, my opinion flipped firmly into the “hack” category.
A friend of mine put it like this: “I could almost see it if he was somehow refining the “essence” of a comic into a single panel or something…
…but this is pretty clear that he was just copying up big.”
Looking at the examples posted, it’s pretty hard to argue otherwise. You get the sense that he was trying for something more, along the lines of my friend’s theory, but he just didn’t have the chops to pull it off.
- Related Articles:
24 Responses to “Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein”
October 12th, 2006 at 8:28 am
I’d have to agree that it is a bit disappointing that these are so directly taken from original panels - yet i think perhaps the point of blowing these up and looking at them as fine art (and not just popular stories) is still interesting. We are so used to seeing his imagery and we like comics so much that we take it for granted that there is more too a panel, but prior to his work was this a common sentiment to non-comic enthusiasts? I don’t know - I have never really thought about it before so I don’t know why I am defending him, but i think the kernel of idea of what to copy and blow up still has some value artistically. Making people take a closer look at something they normally gloss over….
October 12th, 2006 at 8:31 am
I don’t disagree with anything you typed, Tamm, and I’d love to see someone more talented try their hand at this sort of project. Unfortunately, I think Lichenstein’s ideas exceeded his actual artistic abilities.
October 12th, 2006 at 8:34 am
I think this guys work is really awesome. He really makes great use of pre-existing imagery, twists it and what not…
http://www.benfrostisdead.com/
October 12th, 2006 at 9:04 am
I don’t necessarily agree about Lichtenstein’s ideas exceeding his artistic abilities because he also did more abstract, non-comic insprired sculptures and paintings. But with the comic panels it’s obviously a fair point. That art is blantantly somebody elses, even if he is recontextualizing it. If he had given the original artists credit, that’s one thing — but I don’t know if he ever did…?
The other problem may be that his paintings once had a much larger context and impact that they don’t have anymore simply because of the changes in our culture that maybe he helped bring about. I’m not sure if that makes sense.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:18 am
No that makes perfect sense AF Duncan
When he was doing these the idea of what art was was really changing. While we now can apperciate art in comic books back then they were consider low brow or unculture (think reality tv on Fox)
October 12th, 2006 at 10:24 am
I would argue that Lichtenstein’s choice of depicting existing comic book images was entirely deliberate on his part. By “copying” he was saying that for his purposes, the content of the image was not what was important. Further, by slightly altering an existing comic image (by either cropping it, or by changing the captions somewhat), he made his subject generic in a sense, making a reference to all comic images, not just the one he copied. Also, comics in the 50’s and 60’s were printed using the Benday dots process—a very cheap, inexpensive process whereby colored dots (CMYK) are produced at varying distances apart to create different colors. Lichtenstein on the other hand laboriously repainted his comic enlargements using the same Benday Dots technique by hand. So a lot more is going on in his work than the subject itself—Lichtenstein’s paintings are also about the time and effort it took him to actually produce it. By manually reproducing a mechanical process, he heightened the importance of the comic in general. He was making the statement that the comic is worth spending all of this time and energy on. Take it to another level—Lichtenstein (and the other Pop Artists for that matter) was mocking his audience of high brow art collectors and museum-goers—raising the ‘what is art?” question. He made “art” that refered directly to the low brow pop culture comics that his collectors turned their noses up at—and they ate it up. Today his work is hanging in museums, and a Lichtenstein original goes for millions of dollars. I see it as a pretty powerful subversive message from a skilled artist. If you love comics, Lichtenstein should be your hero. Now real comics are hanging in museums too.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:49 am
I have to agree with Jen G — mainly because I’d be kicked out of the house if I didn’t — but also because you nail what elevates his work beyond imitation or theft. If Alan Moore can take pre-existing charcters and tell new narratives in something like Lost Girls, showing us these characters in a new way, then surely Lichtenstein can do the same with a panel.
October 12th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Although didn’t Lost Girls run into problems getting sold in the UK because a hospital holds the rights to JM Barrie’s Peter Pan…?
Anyway, I think it’s probably also telling that none of the comic book artists Lichtenstein cribbed from sued him. I also didn’t know Lichtenstein used the dots technique on those gigantical canvases. Nice one, JG.
October 12th, 2006 at 11:48 am
So if i went out and made a 15′ tall sculpture of the exhaust system of a Pontiac Aztec…I’d somehow be commenting on the downfall of Detroit, of the plight of the American factory worker, and the loss of the craft of blacksmithing in the face of automated production? I didn’t know I was so “deep”. I appreciate that people pay millions for Lichtenstien’s…but I feel that only demonstrates the gulf between art and the art market.
October 12th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I still think it all comes down to execution. I completely respect and appreciate what I think Lichtenstein’s theories and goals were, but the execution is so ham-handed it kills his work for me. An artist can have the greatest idea in the world for a painting, book, movie, etc., but if they don’t execute it well, you’re left with a mess. Tammy points out an artist working today that seems to use similar concepts in his work to Lichtenstein’s, but the finished product is much more successful.
As for the amount of work that L put into his paintings, that doesn’t impress me. I’ve worked with artists that put days and weeks into projects that end up looking like they whipped them together in hours, and artists that whip out a design in minutes that look like they spent days on them. It’s the final product that matters, not the time put into it. Back in my art school days, some of my best work was done the night before a project was due.
At the same time, I’m a huge fan of Warhol’s. I look at his work and see not only what he was trying to do, but that he completely succeeds more often than not.
October 12th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
>>So if i went out and made a 15′ tall sculpture of the exhaust system of a Pontiac Aztec…I’d somehow be commenting on the downfall of Detroit, of the plight of the American factory worker, and the loss of the craft of blacksmithing in the face of automated production?<<
You could be. That’s art for ya!
October 12th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
>> but the execution is so ham-handed it kills his work for me.< <
I disagree here. I think his finished work is quite stunning.
>>As for the amount of work that L put into his paintings, that doesn’t impress me.<<
But it’s certainly something to take into account when appreciating what he’s doing and trying to say. Repainting those dots is integral to the work.
October 12th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
>>Anyway, I think it’s probably also telling that none of the comic book artists Lichtenstein cribbed from sued him.<<
Getting art rights is a pain.
October 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
“Repainting those dots is integral to the work.”
I agree that the benday reproduction is a big part of his work, but let’s not kid ourselves - that was the easiest part of his paitings. He didn’t paint each dot by hand, he used a stencil of some sort.
Not that there’s anything wrong with using a stencil, silkscreen or any sort of mechanical means to create a painting. But let’s not misinterpret “detail” in and of itself for “good art.” That way you’d have Liefeld listed right up there with Brian Bolland when talking about top comic book artists, for example.
October 12th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Am I the only one who prefers the originals 90% of the time?
October 13th, 2006 at 5:21 am
I’m sure you aren’t the only one! It all depends on your aesthetic/opinion. JG’s concise breakdown of why Lichtenstein is an important figure in 20th c. art may convince you why people enjoy and honor his work, and it may even change your mind, which is fine. But if it doesn’t, that’s fine too. The trick is figuring out why you don’t like it, I guess.
Also, SG, I think detail can certainly mean good art if it’s pleasing to your eye and executed well. It depends on yourself and how you perceive the work of the artist, and I suppose the artist’s skill. Yes, ok, Liefeld is terrible. But then you can’t tell me that Geoff Darrow or Chuck Close’s attention to detail isn’t a part of what makes them great, you know?
October 13th, 2006 at 6:57 am
Oddly enough, I would never argue against Lichtenstein being an important artistic figure. Not just because I actually happen to like his sculptures, but because despite the fact that I pretty much dismiss his skill in the comic book recreations, I do respect the concept and appreciate that he managed to get people talking.
As for detail = good art, I cannot agree. When added skillfully, it can raise a piece of art up to the next level, but in and of itself, it means little. If you were to erase all the detail from a Bolland or Darrow piece, it would still look nice due to the composition and shapes. Erase it from Liefeld, and you still have a holy mess. Bolland, Darrow and other accomplished artists use the detail to raise their art up a level, not to hide the blah-ness that’s underneath it.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:02 am
True, but if you take the detail away from their work, then it\’s not really a \”Bolland\” or a \”Darrow\” piece anymore — not in comic book terms. It\’s what makes their style. I don\’t think the \”composition and shapes\” would make their work satisfactory at all — as you said, often times it\’s the execution that we respond to, and the detailed pencils are what make it.
Liefeld is Liefeld. I don\’t know if it\’s fair to compare their styles to him — people like to put Liefeld down, and I\’m not a fan of his, but he was at the center of a new movement in comics and had a positive impact — until the backlash.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:36 am
It’s fair to compare because Liefeld is, in his own way, an accomplished, high-profile comic book artist. He does use detail, but, to a lot of people, not in the most aesthetically attractive way. Although what’s weird about Liefeld is he seems to be something of a guilty pleasure. The Toto or “Showgirls” of comics, if you will.
Did Liefeld really have a positive impact? Eh, I’m not so sure about that.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
I’d argue that he had a positive effect in the sense that he sold comics, and his art was very much of the time. Speaking as someone who was around 11 at the time of X-Force #1, me and my friends really loved his art. For us, it was Lee/McFarlane/Liefeld, all the time. As I got older, I came to appreciate his work less and less, but I think there are lots of people my age who read comics now because they were initially drawn in by Liefeld and other artists like him from that era.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Man, has this suffered from serious thread drift!
Liefeld’s impact on the industry…
Good - Captured the imaginations of countless kids and gained a huge following.
Bad - Unleashed hordes of bad artists upon the industry.
- Contributed in a HUGE way to the proliferation of variant covers and speculator mentality.
- Helped kill many smaller comic shops by soliciting loads of product that the stores had to order to sate his fans, then never shipped the titles, destroying the bottom line.
- Lack of shipments caused many budding readers to get tired of the wait and walk away from comics altogether before they had a chance to grow beyond the Extreme/Maximum/Awesome universes.
- IIRC, he put one printing company out of business, or very close to it, through non-payment on his extended credit.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Why is everything suddenly in itals? Classy!
October 13th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
I always thought Roy (I won’t try to spell that last name) had a great idea- if done ONCE. Repeating the gimmick again and again cheapened it. UNLESS… if he had created a “continuity” between the paintings- really turned them into an actual on-going STORY- that would have taken it to the next level.(It would also have been the ultimate comment on comics collecting- just TRY and get the complete set, suckers!!)
July 24th, 2008 at 6:14 am
What do you think that pop art is? Example #1 The silk screen prints of Andy Warhol??? Campbell Soup cans… the list goes on practically everything that he did. Come on… Although he is considered brilliant. Or do you not like him either? Example #2 Richard Hamilton defined Pop in 1957 as: ‘Popular (designed for a mass audience); Transient (short term solution); Expendable (easily forgotten); Low Cost; Mass Produced; Young (aimed at Youth); Witty; Sexy; Gimmicky; Glamorous; and Big Business’.
The list could go on but I do not have the time. Whe I read that I thought it was crazy. Lichtenstien is one of my greatest inspirations!!