Roy Lichtenstein
|
By Roy
Posted on: Oct 29th 2008 at 10:55 AM |
Replies: 5
|
Come on Don, don't be coy. What do you really think of him?
Login to reply to this topic
Comments:
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2008-10-30 at 07:28:43 AM
|
I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I trust, nobody here has a problem with what I said on the subject.
Quack, Don
Quack, Don
|
Posted by: RedFive
Posted on: 2008-10-30 at 03:27:22 PM
|
With that in mind, what do you think of Warhol?
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2008-10-31 at 06:23:51 AM
|
Warhol was a more "honest" charlatan. He openly admitted he was duping people, and if they called him on it, would say something like "but that's the point, isn't it?" It's easy to have contempt for both of them, but of the two, Warhol at least deserves grudging admiration for his amazingly brazen chutzpah. From me, at least, Lichtenstein gets only the contempt.
The entire Pop Art movement was nothing but phonies and poseurs, but Lichtenstein was the worst.
Quack, Don
The entire Pop Art movement was nothing but phonies and poseurs, but Lichtenstein was the worst.
Quack, Don
|
Posted by: Cheryl Hanna
Posted on: 2008-11-03 at 05:39:57 AM
|
Fascinating. The stuff about his CO was priceless. I'm an artist with a foot in both the commercial and fine art worlds and a baby boomer. I've always disliked Lichtenstein without quite knowing why. Innocent that I am, I always assumed that he was creating works in the style of, not copying actual panels!
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2008-11-03 at 08:10:15 AM
|
The info about Lichtenstein's Army connections came from Les Daniel, comic book historian, in his excellent 1995 book on DC's first 60 years. I've always thought the man was scum for stealing the work of more creative artists (and the fact that you thought he was merely copying the style attests to the fact that he tried to hide his sources), but learning that, amazingly enough, made me think even less of him.
Quack, Don
Quack, Don



