Pop art is a pretty divisive subject. Some people think it's lazy, easy, and meaningless. Some people think it is iconic, beautiful, and bold. But I think it's safe to say that the cliche image of the movement is fairly widespread. You either think of Cambell's soup or a comic strip...and I think that's it's first major hurdle.
The Roy Lichtenstein Retrospective at the Art Institute of Chicago is a great first step in removing those cliched images and revealing to the world the depth and variety of the pop art movement...
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/08/entertainment/la-et-knight-lichtenstein-20120608
Pop art is not my favorite movement, but there's far more to it than the main images that come to mind and the Lichtenstein Retrospective really proved that to me. I was stunned by the variety of images, concepts, and theories being discussed in the work. I was amazed to see the development of early to later, unknown to world-famous...It was simply eye-opening.
As we walked through the exhibit we could over hear questions and critiques; "This is not what I know," "This is so different," "Lichtenstein did this?" and the sentiment was carried throughout the show. One of pop art's biggest hurdles is getting past the initial reaction to it's most famous images and convincing people that it is as varied as other movements, and this is really the first proof I have ever experienced first-hand. I felt like an artist I've known of for so long was simply erased and re-written, and this new narrative is fascinating. Instead of a static career of cliche gun blasts, crying women, and cartoon dialogue, the artist bloomed into a full-figured master of his craft, changing the way I look at some of most iconic work of the last 40 years, and changing my understanding of the pop art movement as an ever-evolving pursuit.
Even if you don't like the pop art movement or Lichtenstein's most famous work, I'd suggest taking a look. At the very least you can breeze through one of the largest collections of Lichtenstein work ever assembled, and, maybe, you'll find a whole new respect for a movement often defined by its cliches rather than its diversity.
The "Real Artists" Lichtenstein copied ...
ReplyDeleteDECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN ™ © 2000
David Barsalou MFA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/
http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEIN
http://www.facebook.com/groups/230408213304/
I don't think it's any surprise that Lichtenstein copied other artists work...that was kind of a large part of pop art. Furthermore, Warhol doing comic strips does not bar another artist from adopting the idea, especially if the other artist abandons the idea....and especially if that artist is Warhol, who's entire career was built on re-appropriating other's images.
DeleteWhile I don't give Lichtenstein credit for coming up with the original imagery, He did apply a greater social commentary to the work and gave it greater meaning than it ever would have had in the original art, and that's really what makes it great..., not to mention the work you are talking about is about 1/6 of the retrospect, which is the point of this post.
And even further, each of those comic images was originally penciled, then inked, then colored...and each step was usually done by a different artist, all based off of a writer and illustrators notes and sketches....who then is the real artist?
It's a good thing to note...he didn't create the original imagery...however, due to all of the things that change from comic book to 8-foot canvas, I don't think it degrades it's worth or constitutes him as a con.