Comments on: Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

By: directory

directory — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:01:16 +0000

Hey friends, Thank you !

By: Christopher Trottier

Christopher Trottier — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:24:15 +0000

Don't forget that you can turn yourself into a Roy Lichtenstein painting.

By: macmcrae

macmcrae — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:30:08 +0000

I screwed up my analogy there.
should read: pop is to dada what
new wave is to punk.

By: macmcrae

macmcrae — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:25:14 +0000

Charley Parker I agree with you about modern art.
It seems to be filled with talentless hacks and moron philosophers. Pop art is and was intended to be destructive. It is kind of like what new wave is to punk. And it is totally “anti-art”.

And the bad part about Pop art is that it was much more than a fad. Many famous pieces are worth truck loads of cash today.

I got much of my bootleg info on modernism not from art school but from lectures on post modern philosophies and critics like ts elliot. Trying to appreciate modernist word smiths is even more infuriating than groking the painters. But they give better clues to understanding modernism.

BTW your blog is packed with awesome stuff.

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:48:42 +0000

Actually, I agree with macmcrae in that Pop art was based on Dada, but I don't think Lichtenstein or any of the other Pop artists would have been quick to admit it, because it was a "been there, done that" relationship. As far as I can see, most (if not all) postwar modernism was just warmed-ever Dada with, as David pointed out, the "ism of the month" tacked on it, propped up with a ludicrous theory from a self-important critic. The difference was that the Dadaists, though they proclaimed themselves "anti-art", did it with such style, wit and imagination that they created wonderful art anyway, they couldn't help it. The modernists, on the other hand, particularly the Abstract Expressionists, were so bereft of imagination, so pompous, arrogant, lifeless and artless, that they truly did create "anti-art". What an accomplishment. I don't mind that so much, if someone wants to create soulless artworks based on obscure theories so weak-minded patrons can prove their intellectual superiority by buying them in the face of their obvious lack of visual appeal, go for it. What I do object to, and strenuously, was the deliberate and concentrated campaign by the postwar modernists to denigrate and devalue representational art, making it difficult for artists to pursue that path for over 50 years! That is unforgivable. But even the inveterate art snob patrons didn't have a strong enough stomach to deal for long with the Big Secret (that even they found it b-o-r-i-n-g), and when Pop Art critics like Steinberg "blessed" Pop as non-representational, even though it contained recognizable images, the patrons ate it up, because they really did want something they could look at after all. Oh my, I seem to be ranting again.

By: David Apatoff

David Apatoff — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:54:05 +0000

I have to say, I agree with Charley on this. I am wary of anyone who claims to be the keeper of the Master Genealogy Chart for Culture (“Pop art is the direct intellectual heir of dada. Period.”) There were at least a dozen purported schools of art between dada and pop– these fads came and went like breath on a mirror in those days– so I don’t think the lineage of Pop is quite as unambiguous as macmcrae suggests. But before we invest a lot of time mapping the genome for pop art, I think Charley asks exactly the right threshold question: is it any good? And he reaches exactly the right answer: no. Macmcrae, the notion that this truly minor, “flavor of the month” art fad could somehow “destroy the highest expression of western culture” is truly a funny joke, “postmodern” or not.

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:11:36 +0000

Interesting. I’m not a fan of RL, and seeing the superior character of the original panels makes me angry. Without the necessary historical context, I’d have to assume that RL has plagiarized from the poor to make himself rich. That he does it so badly is just salt in the wound for a person like myself, who values skill in an artist. Yes, I admit that I don’t have my art history very straight. I don’t like art for art’s sake, there must be some personal interest there for me. The funny thing is that by now, I think there are very few Lichtenstein fans who know or care what his intent was. His work is much more cliched than the comic art that he copied.

By: Charley Parker

Charley Parker — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:57:24 +0000

I doubt we’ll change one another’s opinion, but thanks, likewise.

My statements about the “goal” of Pop art, and poatwar modernism in general, reflects my own cynical observations, of course, and not the stated opinions of the artists. I absoultely agree it had nothing to do with virtuosity, it was completely anti-viturosity. I’m not.