# Roy Lichtenstein: Artist or Plagiarist?



## Arcopitcairn (Mar 20, 2013)

Paul Gravett | Article Detail


What do you think?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 20, 2013)

Sorry, I didn't read the article. I'll check it out at some point, but I'm guessing I've seen variations of it in one way or another. 

Otherwise, I think Lichtenstein was a competent artist who landed on a concept that was  perhaps relevant at the time -- but in my opinion he was a one hit  wonder who played variations of the same tune for 30 years. To me he's  mostly worth looking at from a historical standpoint -- and what the art  said about the attitudes of the time, but the art doesn't really hold  up all that well. 

I think his work crosses the line into  plagiarism, because his sources where relatively obscure and there were  no attributions. If he had created his own images from scratch in the  style of comic books of the time, I'd have a lot more respect for him --  but he lifted his images almost wholesale and then simply stripped them  down. From a purely aesthetic standpoint -- I prefer his simplified  versions to the originals -- they're bolder and brighter and hold up  better as single images -- and they are impressive to see hanging  because of the sheer scale and craft -- but so what? On  top of everything, it seems to me he's belittling the artists he's ripping off  instead of paying homage to them. I think most attempts to defend his  work today are just more art-speak BS. People simply don't want to admit the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Mar 21, 2013)

A couple of your points are explored quite well in the article.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 21, 2013)

His first was clever, everything after was pointless, it was like continuously repeating the same joke.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 21, 2013)

Funny thing is, the comic industry whinges about not being taken seriously.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Mar 21, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Funny thing is, the comic industry whinges about not being taken seriously.



What do you mean?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

Not sure what that means either -- because Lichtenstein didn't take comics seriously -- and his supporters don't seem to either. Of course back in his heyday, there wasn't as much reason to take them seriously -- not like today -- with graphic novels etc. "Comics" are really more of art form. One of the reasons his work is kind of dated. The paintings are no longer ironic -- the joke isn't funny any more.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 21, 2013)

With as much money as he gave back to other young artist struggling to learn the craft, especially at The Ohio State University where he had a building commissioned that I used to walk by every day, I don't see him doing anything near plagiarism.   I think he has too much respect for art itself, to do anything like that.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

So giving money to struggling artists somehow negates that he lifted other people's images without acknowledging it? He wasn't respecting the people who created the originals at all, in fact, he was deriding them. Great that he did something good with the money he made off them though. Better than nothing.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> So giving money to struggling artists somehow negates that he lifted other people's images without acknowledging it? He wasn't respecting the people who created the originals at all, in fact, he was deriding them. Great that he did something money he made off them. Better than nothing.



No, maybe you should use your reading comprehension and read that again.  I said that he has too much respect and cares about art too much to plagiarize...but then again that doesn't fit YOUR argument, so you won't recognize that.

Wait so does that mean Andy Warhol owes Campbell's soup a crap load of money?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. You've said that before -- funny that no one else on the forum or anywhere else seems to think I have problem with it.

What you're saying doesn't make a lick of sense. He ripped off the images -- that's plagiarism, no matter how you slice it.  Some people call them "found images" or suggest he simply "borrowed" them -- but that's BS. How does "caring about art" change that? I studied painting and art history in school -- including Lichtenstein -- you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Leyline (Mar 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. You've said that before -- funny that no one else on the forum or anywhere else seems think I have problem with it.
> 
> What you're saying doesn't make a lick of sense. He ripped off the images -- that's plagiarism, no matter how you slice it.  Some people call them "found images" or suggest he simply "borrowed" them -- but that's BS. How does "caring about art" change that? I studied painting and art history in school -- including Lichtenstein -- you have no idea what you're talking about.



Watch out, Joe. That looks like a viciously blunt strawman he's swinging.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. You've said that before -- funny that no one else on the forum or anywhere else seems think I have problem with it.
> 
> What you're saying doesn't make a lick of sense. He ripped off the images -- that's plagiarism not matter how you slice it.  Some people call them "found images" or suggest he simply "borrowed" them -- but that's BS. How does "caring about art" change that? I painting and art history in school -- including Lichtenstein -- you have no idea what you're talking about.



So because you can take pictures, you're also all of a sudden a copyright lawyer as well?  I stayed at a Holiday Inn express once, I now know how to split atoms.  One of these days when you fall from your high horse, maybe you'll bump your head and wake up from this dream you are living in.  

Some guy throws blots of different colors of paint on a canvas and calls it expressionistic art, so does that mean every other guy after that is ripping off Jackson Pollock?  If a painter uses squares in his paintings he is ripping off Picasso and Braque?  Why can't drawings or paintings in a comic form be a style of art?  

BTW you have no idea what education I have in the art world or art history...you know what they say about assuming don't you?  Probably not, you've more than likely made up your own saying that is much better than anyone else's.

You helped to get me banned from one forum, and here you start more trouble than most people here.  I really don't understand how you get away with so much.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 21, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> What do you mean?


They want to claim it's a proper craft, and not just some 3rd rate losers hack for those who couldn't make it elsewhere; and then they continue doing things like this.  The linked article also highlights continuing plagiarism of others work, in which the industry shrugs their shoulders at.  It simply isn't conduct asking for respect.



Lewdog said:


> Some guy throws blots of different colors of paint on a canvas and calls it expressionistic art, so does that mean every other guy after that is ripping off Jackson Pollock? If a painter uses squares in his paintings he is ripping off Picasso and Braque? Why can't drawings or paintings in a comic form be a style of art?



No; but if you take tracing paper, sketch the other person's work, and make a few alterations, that's surely ripping off their work.



Lewdog said:


> With as much money as he gave back to other young artist struggling to learn the craft, especially at The Ohio State University where he had a building commissioned that I used to walk by every day, I don't see him doing anything near plagiarism.   I think he has too much respect for art itself, to do anything like that.



Giving away money he didn't earned honestly so people think he's a good guy and don't criticise him doesn't change the fact he made his living ripping off other people's work.  In fact, using 'charity' in this way highlights how little genuine respect he had for actual artists.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 21, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> No, but if you take tracing paper, sketch the other person's work, and make a few alterations, that's surely ripping off their work.
> 
> 
> 
> Giving away money that he hasn't earned honestly so people think he's a good guy and don't criticise him doesn't change the fact he made his living ripping off other people's work.  In fact, using 'charity' in this way highlights how little genuine respect he has for actual proper artists.



Let me ask you this, in cartoons there are several artist involved in the final project depending on whether it is color artwork or just black and white, at what point is something owned by a single artist?  Don't you think, that if he actually plagiarized someone else's work, lawyers would have been chomping at the bit to represent the original artist and make several millions of dollars?  There's a reason for that, they have no claim to it.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 21, 2013)

Lichtenstein is less original than an online meme generator. At least those encourage you to insert your own text.

As far as plagiarism goes, I'd sue him for copyright infringement for every single print and would feel fine screaming _"plagiarist"_ at every art show.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 21, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Lichtenstein is less original than an online meme generator. At least those encourage you to insert your own text.
> 
> As far as plagiarism goes, I'd sue him for copyright infringement for every single print and would feel fine screaming _"plagiarist"_ at every art show.



Try making something online and selling it.  Tell me if you get anything near...

Roy Lichtenstein's 'Sleeping Girl' Sells for $44.8 Million | Hypebeast

Obviously some people enjoy his work.  In fact A LOT of people enjoy his work.  It's art, not everyone enjoys all types.  Literature is pretty much the same, where I could careless for a lot of the authors that get thrown around here.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> So because you can take pictures, you're also all of a sudden a copyright lawyer as well?  I stayed at a Holiday Inn express once, I now know how to split atoms.  One of these days when you fall from your high horse, maybe you'll bump your head and wake up from this dream you are living in.



I'm a professional creative director and designer. I create and/or buy original imagery on a daily basis. I do know a little something about plagiarism and copyright law. However, by definition plagiarism simply means taking something without crediting the source -- it's not just a legal term.



Lewdog said:


> Some guy throws blots of different colors of paint on a canvas and calls it expressionistic art, so does that mean every other guy after that is ripping off Jackson Pollock?  If a painter uses squares in his paintings he is ripping off Picasso and Braque?  Why can't drawings or paintings in a comic form be a style of art?



Projecting and tracing someone else's illustration and using it without attribution is not the same thing as creating something in the same style. Not even close.



Lewdog said:


> BTW you have no idea what education I have in the art world or art history...you know what they say about assuming don't you?  Probably not, you've more than likely made up your own saying that is much better than anyone else's.



Oh, I forgot. You walked past the building.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 21, 2013)

If Apple can sue, and win $1 Billion, that's with a "b," simply because their new Galaxy phone is square like the iPhone, then if there really was some kind of plagiarism or law broken by Lichtenstein, it would have been dealt with a LONG time ago.  Here is an excerpt from an online article arguing the exact same point as I was making.  You can't sue for plagiarism or forgery for a "style."



> Lichtenstein was putting a whole style on the wall, and it had to be impersonal and recognizable, with adjustments made not for style, but for succintness and clarity. Inevitably in this age of democratic culture, and Pop Art contributed to the dialogue that brought the change, the originators of the lifted images would have to get their due credit (they cannot be owed cash, since they owned no rights in the images), and that is now part of the story. And so it should be. However a lot of the argument that you'll find on Wikipedia looks cockeyed to me. The art world argues that Lichtenstein altered the compositions, which is irrelevant; my pal Gibbons is in there, defending the quality of the original comic books, which can only be a personal opinion; I challenge you to read the damn things all the way through. Everyone to his opinion regarding quality, but is it worth arguing about a quoted panel? Somebody says: “Some (of the comic book artists) threatened to sue him…” Wha? Where did that come from? Sue for what? The artists never owned the work, so they couldn’t be suing for damages. What for then? The theft of a ‘style’? Is there a legal precedent for that? Can any of these pictures be said to be appropriating a personal style anyway? They all look generic. And they are interesting for that very reason.



PLAGIARISM | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The comic book artist were actually doing work for a company, and therefore didn't even own the rights to the panels themselves.  

Once again JosephB, you are still making yourself look silly by trying to drag down my education on art and art history without knowing anything about me other than what you have read on here.  That's very ignorant.  Your title sounds very impressive, but then again we don't know if that is what you do in real life, or just the role you play on the internet.  For that matter, you may really hold that position, having risen to power working for a company your daddy owns.  Who knows right?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

"Quoted panel." I love it -- just another euphemism for ripped off. And  this isn't just about suing or legalities -- it's about ethics. 

As I  said previously, he could have made the exact same statements with  original compositions IN THE STYLE of comic books of the day. But he  didn't do that. He projected and traced other people's work. So it's  about lifting compositions, altering them somewhat and then not  bothering to acknowledge the original source -- it's not about style at  all.


----------



## moderan (Mar 21, 2013)

Plagiarism. And the artists that designed the original panels sued for their creators' rights, and won them (though the case(s) are still under appeal), in the wake of the formation of Image and Dark Horse comic companies. A lot of that was whitewashed by the bankruptcy of Marvel and the subsequent period of inferior product. You may feel free to google the names Scott McCloud, Neal Adams, Jim Steranko, et al, in connection with this. The Comic Book Creators bill of rights was drafted in 1988, well after Roy L.'s heyday. The estate of one Jacob Kurtzman (to name one creator) is still pursuing the case(s).
Liechtenstein donating money is tantamount to Mafiosi donating to the Holy Roman church.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Mar 21, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> With as much money as he gave back to other young artist struggling to learn the craft, especially at The Ohio State University where he had a building commissioned that I used to walk by every day, I don't see him doing anything near plagiarism.   I think he has too much respect for art itself, to do anything like that.



It's a good thing to donate money to foster art. There's no denying that at all. But what did Lichtenstein consider art? Did he consider illustrators and sequential journeymen actual artists? Or did he consider comic art a throwaway medium? I'm not sure if he ever spoke to that point, but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't think much of comics. That's forgivable, because nobody thought much of them back then. He more than likely thought that he was elevating a low, common, even maligned form of 'art' into something better. I doubt he would have even called it an 'homage', because you usually have to like or respect something to pay tribute to it. And I don't even think he had a malicious purpose when he appropriated the images he used. He saw them as worthless in their original state, artless, utilitarian illustration. Obviously, he would not think he was plagiarizing something. Something would have to be good to be plagiarized. So respect for art? I agree. Lichtenstein had respect for art. His kind of art.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

I really don't think several of you guys get the point.  First, most comic books are commissioned work through contract with comic book companies where the companies then hold the rights to all created work.  There was a great history of comic books show that was on one of the educational channels that showed that not even Stan Lee who created some of the all-time great heroes, owned the rights to some of them.

The second point to make, is that if it did actually make it to court, what can the guys suing prove as far as value of their pieces of work, BEFORE Lichtenstein painted them.  The value of the larger paintings was not based on the drawings, it was based on the fact that Lichtenstein painted them.  They can sue him for HIS value of work.

As far as pop art, and comments such as Arcopitcairn's comments, so you didn't like it?  You have a right to opinion, but just because you don't like it, doesn't mean he is all of a sudden a selfish narcissist.  In fact in his later works past the early 80's he moved away from pop art to do traditional works.  Why is no one giving Warhol grief in this discussion?  All he did was 'plagiarize' some pictures right???  $71 Million for a picture of a can of soup?

$71 Million Can’t Be Wrong! ‘Andy Warhol Colored Campbell

Pop art was more than just comic book art by the way.  Also Lichtenstein didn't just donate money and his time to teach art students who only did his kind of art.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Try making something online and selling it.  Tell me if you get anything near...
> 
> Roy Lichtenstein's 'Sleeping Girl' Sells for $44.8 Million | Hypebeast
> 
> Obviously some people enjoy his work.  In fact A LOT of people enjoy his work.  It's art, not everyone enjoys all types.  Literature is pretty much the same, where I could careless for a lot of the authors that get thrown around here.



Awesome! 

You know, I have a great idea! Let's go buy up a copy each of the last ten blockbuster movies. Then, we'll invest a few thousand dollars in a large-run DVD burner. I've got several good inkjet printers and could even get access to some industrial graphics machines. (I know somebody...) So, here's the plan - We burn thousands of cheap DVDs with copies of all these billion-dollar productions. Then, get this - WE SELL THEM!

We'll make a fortune! And, we didn't have to do anything but just copy someone else's hard work. We didn't have to think up anything, on our own, or invest all that silly money into publishing it! We could just ride on the backs of the original creators! WOOHOO! We'll be famous!

Who's with me?


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

The situation with comic book creators is vastly more complex than you have it. I don't base my words on some Discovery Channel documentary, but on things like Jim Steranko's History of Comics, on Comic Wars:Marvel's Battle for Survival, which treats with that issue extensively, on Marvel Comics:The Untold Story (likewise), and on the testimony of Todd McFarlane and Neal Adams in the case which granted a large number of creators the rights to their work.
Whether or not Stan Lee created many of those characters is in question also. There's no doubt that he wrote the dialogue, but Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby created the visuals and in some part the storyboards and dialogue. Kirby in particular disputed Lee's account, and in view of his later work, was probably correct.
That has little bearing on the question of whether Liechtenstein deliberately copied and then disseminated work that was not his as "his work". He did that-it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter whether the creators of that art held the rights or the company that employed them held those rights. The point is that Liechtenstein did not, and was not the originator of the work.
Moving the goalposts to Warhol's side or expanding the discussion to popart in general doesn't change those facts.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Awesome!
> 
> You know, I have a great idea! Let's go buy up a copy each of the last ten blockbuster movies. Then, we'll invest a few thousand dollars in a large-run DVD burner. I've got several good inkjet printers and could even get access to some industrial graphics machines. (I know somebody...) So, here's the plan - We burn thousands of cheap DVDs with copies of all these billion-dollar productions. Then, get this - WE SELL THEM!
> 
> ...




That's hardly the same.  In fact, not even the same ballpark.  How about you do it, let me know where you plan to set up so I can do some advertising for you, and then we'll see if you know anyone with a long job title that can come bail you out of jail.  

Do you not realize that the paintings are only worth what they are because Lichtenstein painted them?  He took something that was a boring, unassuming cell from a comic board, and brought ti to life.  It became something else.  It 'popped.'  It spurred a whole style of art, and instead of appreciating it for what he did, in true new millennium fashion people would rather try to tear down what he did.  No wonder Warhol was so skeptical of the media and the conceit of society.  One minute you stand on the shoulders of giants, the next they are asking for your head in a basket.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Do you not realize that he copied someone else's work as passed it off as his own?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> The situation with comic book creators is vastly more complex than you have it. I don't base my words on some Discovery Channel documentary, but on things like Jim Steranko's History of Comics, on Comic Wars:Marvel's Battle for Survival, which treats with that issue extensively, on Marvel Comics:The Untold Story (likewise), and on the testimony of Todd McFarlane and Neal Adams in the case which granted a large number of creators the rights to their work.
> Whether or not Stan Lee created many of those characters is in question also. There's no doubt that he wrote the dialogue, but Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby created the visuals and in some part the storyboards and dialogue. Kirby in particular disputed Lee's account, and in view of his later work, was probably correct.
> That has little bearing on the question of whether Liechtenstein deliberately copied and then disseminated work that was not his as "his work". He did that-it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter whether the creators of that art held the rights or the company that employed them held those rights. The point is that Liechtenstein did not, and was not the originator of the work.
> Moving the goalposts to Warhol's side or expanding the discussion to popart in general doesn't change those facts.



No, and beyond those points, the wheel was an ingenious idea, but without an axle and a second wheel it wasn't quite worth the same.  It WAS his PAINTING, and that is what sold the pieces.  He took what otherwise had zero to no value, made it life size and gave it the vivid colors that breathed life into it.

When it comes to the comics you are simply arguing the other side of the argument that has yet to be resolved.  How does that make yours any better than mine?  It was a simple premise.  Comic book publishers brought in these young bright artist who were full of ideas.  They didn't just buy the work off of them, they hired them to create the work for the publisher and gave away their intellectual and copyrights to the actual work in exchange for the money they were paid.  Now that comic books are as famous as they are today, and making billions of dollars, artist and families of relatives from that time are bellyaching that they were done wrong.  No, they took a calculated risk thinking comic books were just a penny item for kids and were happy just to feed their families, they messed up!  People need to think twice before just signing away your thoughts, it could back to haunt you later on.



> Jack Kirby, on the other hand, was a contractor. You could sink a continent in the amount of ink that's been spilled on the question of whether it was Stan's voice or Jack's visuals that ultimately made Marvel what it was, but it's hard to argue that any of this would have happened had Kirby been hit by a bus in 1960. Yet like most comics creators back then, he was paid by the page and retained no rights to any of the work he did for the company or the characters he helped create; by cashing his paychecks, he signed those rights over to the company. It took him decades just to persuade Marvel to give him back some of his original art, much of which was lost or given away or stolen in the meantime; there are horror stories about original Kirby pages being gifted to the water-delivery guy.
> Kirby never sued Marvel, over the art or anything else. But as the years wore on he blasted the company in interviews. He blasted Lee, its avatar. Compared him to Sammy Glick. Referred to him as a mere "office worker" who'd grabbed credit from true idea men. "It wasn't possible for a man like Stan Lee to come up with new things — or old things, for that matter," Kirby told the _Comics Journal in an infamous 1990 interview. "Stan Lee wasn't a guy that read or that told stories. Stan Lee was a guy that knew where the papers were or who was coming to visit that day."_



The surprisingly complicated legacy of Marvel Comics legend Stan Lee - Grantland

So are you trying to argue who created the comics or who made them popular and worthwhile?  It's quite obvious who CREATED them, but Stan Lee doesn't deny that he didn't DRAW them.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That's hardly the same.  In fact, not even the same ballpark.



Absurdity is a very powerful instructional tool.



> Do you not realize that the paintings are only worth what they are because Lichtenstein painted them?



I don't care if he came down from a mountain with them carved in stone. The fact is that he plagiarized them. It has absolutely nothing to do with how he may have induced an art revolution. The thread is about plagiarism, which is an ethical subject, not a legal one. (Copyright Infringement is a matter of Law. Plagiarism is a matter of professional ethics and can't be pursued under the Law, at this time, in the United States. Dunno about anywhere else, though.)

He stole the work of others and then reproduced it in a different format. There was minimal effort taken to modify or alter it so that it was drastically different from the original presentation. As far as I know, there was little or no attempt on his part to obtain the permission of the creators or legal owners of the original artwork. I don't even know how much he acknowledged the source material, if at all.

But, that he took someone else's hard work, altered it slightly, and then slapped it up on a wall and called it his should be considered plagiarism, in my opinion.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

It _wasn't_ a calculated risk-it was the only way that was done, then. Take a look at your own quote:





> Yet like most  comics creators back then, he was paid by the page and retained no  rights to any of the work he did for the company or the characters he  helped create; by cashing his paychecks, he signed those rights over to  the company


.
The only people that didn't apply to were the syndicated cartoonists like Chet Gould and Johnny Hart and Al Capp, who owned their characters lock, stock, and barrel.

It_ isn't _obvious who created them. That's disputable, as above. Plenty of the characters were unfamiliar to Lee when he was presented with them. Ever heard of the Watcher? The Silver Surfer? They're from one panel of one magazine. How about the Inhumans? I'm familiar with Kirby's work. I'm familiar with Lee's too.
Go goalposts, go. Outdistance that strawman!
And Liechtenstein was still a plagiarist, and that's the real argument.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Absurdity is a very powerful instructional tool.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If he didn't need to ask to use the images, because he wasn't infringing any copyright laws, then why would he ask?  "Altered slightly?"  That's what you are going to go with?  He blew up inch...maybe inch and a half squared cell and blew it up to wall size and painted it with a vibrant and astonishing paint scheme and then added a fitting subtitle to it so that it told a one picture story.  "Slightly altered?"  

How much was the original cell drawn in the comic book valued prior to being "slightly altered?"  

It's funny to hear some of you guys call him a hack when these pieces were only a part of his work.  Like I said earlier, after the early 80's he quit doing pop art and went to traditional art until he died in 1997.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Go goalposts, go. We're not talking about Roy Liechtenstein's entire ouevre or the whole of pop art, but simply about a few paintings that were copied from extant art by an artist that was not the originator, that were then passed off as his own work and as an arch comment on the state of pop art.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> It _wasn't_ a calculated risk-it was the only way that was done, then. Take a look at your own quote:.[/FONT][/COLOR]
> The only people that didn't apply to were the syndicated cartoonists like Chet Gould and Johnny Hart and Al Capp, who owned their characters lock, stock, and barrel.
> 
> It_ isn't _obvious who created them. That's disputable, as above. Plenty of the characters were unfamiliar to Lee when he was presented with them. Ever heard of the Watcher? The Silver Surfer? They're from one panel of one magazine. How about the Inhumans? I'm familiar with Kirby's work. I'm familiar with Lee's too.
> ...



I disagree, and that's about all I can tell you.  You have your opinion based on what facts you have read, and I have mine based on what I have read and seen.  Liechtenstein wasn't a plagiarist for the same reasons I made in the post in response to Morkonan.  How much would it be to pay to use the rights of something that is worthless?  Why would you pay for the rights to something that you don't have to ask or pay for?  Fact is, people didn't buy the paintings because of the drawing underneath, they paid for the painting and how each picture told it's own story.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

You just can't admit when you're wrong, and that's all. Your arguments don't hold water.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> You just can't admit when you're wrong, and that's all. Your arguments don't hold water.



No one will answer my questions.  You all are avoiding the points.  

A.  Did any of the artist own rights to the drawings?

B.  Is there any kind of law that defines what Lichtenstein did as forgery or plagiarism?

C.  What was the worth of each comic book cell prior to the work of Lichtenstein?

D.  Why is Lichtenstein being singled out on this when it's obvious he did nothing more or less that fellow pop artists?

E.  Did people pay ungodly sums of money for Lichtenstein's paintings because of the drawings they were based on?

F.  Would the artists who did the original drawings BEFORE Lichtenstein turned them into national treasures deserve to cash in on HIS work?

I could go on and on, but all you guys do is keep deflecting the argument and won't answer the questions that matter.  How can you plagiarize something that no one holds rights to???


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> No one will answer my questions.  You all are avoiding the points.


 Ok, I'll address them.



> A.  Did any of the artist own rights to the drawings?


No. And that isn't material to the issue.



> B.  Is there any kind of law that defines what Lichtenstein did as forgery or plagiarism?


Yes. International copyright law.


> C.  What was the worth of each comic book cell prior to the work of Lichtenstein?


Don't know, don't care. Is not material to the case.



> D.  Why is Lichtenstein being singled out on this when it's obvious he did nothing more or less that fellow pop artists?


He's the subject of the OP.



> E.  Did people pay ungodly sums of money for Lichtenstein's paintings because of the drawings they were based on?


No, they paid for them because of his network and reputation. Most of them were unlikely to have perused the pulp books that the paintings were based on and did not know that they were copied;they were new to the audience.



> F.  Would the artists who did the original drawings BEFORE Lichtenstein turned them into national treasures deserve to cash in on HIS work?


If his work was directly derived from theirs, yes.



> I could go on and on, but all you guys do is keep deflecting the argument and won't answer the questions that matter.  How can you plagiarize something that no one holds rights to???


The companies that produced the comics held the rights. Timely and DC. Martin Goodman and the syndicate that owned DC.
The question that matters is whether Roy Liechtenstein deliberately copied others' work and then passed it off as his own. That's the real question, and the answer is yes, he did. That makes it plagiarism.
You _have_ been going on and on, and round and round, tiptoeing around that with these silly counterarguments that are not germane to the central issue. Quit obfuscating.

Refer to this. I wasn't kidding-I know as much about comics as I do science fiction. You're not going to win any arguments on that front.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> If he didn't need to ask to use the images, because he wasn't infringing any copyright laws, then why would he ask?



This isn't about Copyright Infringement. I tried to make that clear in my last post. But, since I'm a horrible writer, I'll try to make up for it here:

Copyright Infringement is a legal term. There are various international treatise and national laws regarding the subject of Copyright Infringement. For the most part, it's pretty well defined. But, there are cases where it's not as clear, especially when it concerns new forms of media, which have not yet been specifically targeted by lawmakers. (Usually, because the Law is several years behind the Courts.)

Plagiarism is an ethical term and is outside of the bounds of Law. You can not "sue" someone for plagiarism, but there are plenty of organizations that have ethical standards and they try to act to police their membership, in whatever limited way they can. A college can kick you out for plagiarism, but can't sue you for Copyright Infringement unless they're the copy-holder and have a clear license.

In my opinion, what he did with some of his artwork is a clear case of plagiarism. That's just my opinion. I am not buying a plane ticket so I can go pee on his grave or anything. But, the act still stands - He plagiarized someone else's work. Did he make up for that? I dunno, maybe he did. Was he contrite for what he did? I don't know, that's a question of character and I didn't know him nor have I see evidence presented that he was.



> "Altered slightly?"  That's what you are going to go with?  He blew up inch...maybe inch and a half squared cell and blew it up to wall size and painted it with a vibrant and astonishing paint scheme and then added a fitting subtitle to it so that it told a one picture story.  "Slightly altered?"
> 
> How much was the original cell drawn in the comic book valued prior to being "slightly altered?"



He blew them up with a projector then traced the lines... I mean, come on! It's virtually the same piece of art, same subject, same objects, same point of view, same just-about-everything except size and some colors. How long would I last if I did something like that to a cell from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? Disney would send out assassins before I even got started! Yes, that's a copyright issue and Disney protects their copyright with bazookas and guys with square chins named "Vinnie." But, let's say they didn't. How long would I last on someplace like "Deviantart" before people started pointing out that I was a plagiarist?



> It's funny to hear some of you guys call him a hack when these pieces were only a part of his work.  Like I said earlier, after the early 80's he quit doing pop art and went to traditional art until he died in 1997.



I don't think that I've called him a hack. He may have produced plenty of great art. But, in these cases, it's clear he didn't actually "produce" much of anything that he "created." I have a high respect for Art and I can accept plenty of things being called "Art" that others wouldn't. I'll even call his stuff "Art." But, he also plagiarized some of it. (Or, if that exact term isn't appropriate, due to the medium, I can only say it's as close a term that is available to describe his acts.)


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

I'm dancing around anything.  Once again, if he broke copyright law, he would have been sued and lost a long time ago, long before he died in 1997.  Fact of the matter is he made something that was virtually worthless into something that helped define a generations and create an entirely new style of art.  People are jealous creatures, there is a reason envy is one of the deadly sins.  It's quit obvious that success breeds more and more envious people, and when success gets to the level of Lichtenstein's it holds no bonds.  Yet, even in the cloud of fist and fury of those that who have no dog in the fight continue to try and tear down his legacy, there are still impartial people like myself and the article I quoted that say he did nothing wrong.

It's sad to say, but I would almost hate to see anyone on this board go on to do something great and become someone famous, as all the people they once called friends here, would be quick to grab their pick axes and sledgehammers to try and tear them down to nothingness.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Impartial? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Seriously?


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> No one will answer my questions.  You all are avoiding the points.



I'll answer your questions, to the best of my ability.

*A.  Did any of the artist own rights to the drawings?*

This isn't a case of arguing Copyright Law.

*B.  Is there any kind of law that defines what Lichtenstein did as forgery or plagiarism?*

I don't know that Forgery laws would apply here. That's a good point, though. "Forgery" isn't exactly a backwards-compatible term in the way it's normally presented. He didn't create something and then try to pass it off as someone else's work. He did the opposite. There is no Law that I am aware of that deals directly with the subject of "plagiarism." It's an ethical standard.

_*C.  What was the worth of each comic book cell prior to the work of Lichtenstein?*_

That has no bearing on anything at all. Plagiarism doesn't have anything to do with the material value of the work in question.

_*D.  Why is Lichtenstein being singled out on this when it's obvious he did nothing more or less that fellow pop artists?*_

That doesn't matter, either. Just because other artists were not pursued does not somehow mean that he wasn't a plagiarist. It just means that they can run faster...

_*E.  Did people pay ungodly sums of money for Lichtenstein's paintings because of the drawings they were based on?*_

That has nothing to do with plagiarism. People play lots of money for term papers and will pay people to take exams for them. That doesn't make their actions legitimate.

_*F.  Would the artists who did the original drawings BEFORE Lichtenstein turned them into national treasures deserve to cash in on HIS work?*_

If it were a case where damages were being considered, if someone could manage to make a Copyright Violation stick, then the answer would be "Yes." But, Plagiarism is not a legal term and one can't enforce monetary fines directed against it unless some other document governs the ethics of Plagiarism. For instance, a school can punish a student who engages in plagiarism and may refuse to refund their lost tuition, should they be expelled. That would be a form of secondary and monetary punishment. But, unless the admissions paperwork also included some sort of fine, like for funding the investigation into the offense, then they couldn't levy a fine against the offender.



> I could go on and on, but all you guys do is keep deflecting the argument and won't answer the questions that matter.  How can you plagiarize something that no one holds rights to???



You keep deflecting the argument because you insist that this has something to do with Copyright Law. It has nothing do to with Copyright Law. It has to do with Plagiarism, which is an ethical consideration and not a legal one. That is the subject of this thread, by the way. In my opinion, by the standards of plagiarism, as they're commonly defined, he's guilty. However, his work is also outside of the normal bounds of the commonly accepted definition of Plagiarism, so there's going to be some subjective judgement going on, here. Still, in my opinion, regardless of any of his personal manipulations of the original art that I have seen, his presentation isn't sufficiently remote from the original to avoid an ethical charge of "Plagiarism." If, on the other hand, he had managed to develop a good relationship wit the original artists and was ethical about crediting them for the original work and shared the resulting proceeds, I would be fine with that and would simply judge it as a collective effort. As far as I know, he didn't do any of that - Thus, the charge of plagiarism.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> Impartial? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
> Seriously?




Quite.  I don't own any of the man's work.  The only tie I have with him is we went to the same university.  The only thing that would make me impartial at all is the fact he was a self made man.  His family had some money, but they weren't 'artists' by any sense of the imagination.  From 12-years-old he began he chose his own line of education and stuck with it.  He also served his country during war time.  That doesn't sound much like a selfish narcissist does it?


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Sure sounds like partiality to me. I don't remember calling him a selfish narcissist. Must be confusing me with some other poster. Happens all the time.
And it looks like there _is_ a case, however tenuous, for a violation of copyright law.


> From
> Plagiarism is defined as quoting or paraphrasing text from another author without both (1) the indicia of a quotation and (2) a proper bibliographic citation. The indicia of a quotation is either (1) enclosing the text in quotation marks or (2)  formatting the text as an indented, single-spaced block. Information about the form(s) of a bibliographic citation is given in academic style manuals (e.g., _The Chicago Manual of Style_).   At a minimum, a proper citation must contain the author's name and enough information about the source of the quotation, so that the reader can easily find the quotation in the original.  For quotations from a webpage, the author's name and the URL of the webpage must be given.


This doesn't mention anything about visual representations;however, I think that the interpretation is clear. Especially as the cited article goes on to say:


> As an example, _Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures_, 663 F.Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)  held that a Columbia Pictures' promotional poster for a movie infringed the copyright  of an illustration on the cover of a _New Yorker_ magazine, although the details in the movie poster had been changed from the magazine cover (only the words "Hudson River" were the same in both items), the judge ruled that the movie poster was "substantially similar" to the magazine cover.


That site has any number of external links and citations to follow up on if one is so inclined.
Now I grant that I have never heard of Martin Goodman, Timely, or any other company actually suing Liechtenstein.
And you do realize that I've been intentionally misspelling the man's name for post after post? That was my little change, which means that his name is now mine, right?


----------



## NathanBrazil (Mar 22, 2013)

I'm curious Lewdog.  Why in your opinion didn't he credit the other artists?  If he did take something that "was virtually worthless into something that helped define a generations", what harm would it do him to credit the artist?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> Sure sounds like partiality to me. I don't remember calling him a selfish narcissist. Must be confusing me with some other poster. Happens all the time.
> And it looks like there _is_ a case, however tenuous, for a violation of copyright law.
> This doesn't mention anything about visual representations;however, I think that the interpretation is clear. Especially as the cited article goes on to say:
> 
> ...




I find it quite humorous to see so many amateur lawyers on this site trying to prove if a law or civil suit was verifiable, and if it was, it would have been taken care of eons ago.  Fact is, things in all fields of the world, whether it is art, law, sports, television, censorship, etc. have changed.  What was seen as a worthless single cell out of a .25 cent comic book in the 60's, no one was even worried about it.  So then Lichtenstein took it and made it into something special.  People should revel in it, instead of trying to be so petty about something like that.  Are you guys serious?  The only reason this is even an issue is because of Lichtenstein's success, what's the guy that drew the original cells doing these days?  More than likely Lichtenstein's paintings brought him more fame vicariously than he would have had without it.  It's so easy to judge people after the fact, and when someone hits the type of success Lichtenstein got, you times that by about a million.


----------



## ppsage (Mar 22, 2013)

Is it true that Lichtenstein actually claimed to be the originator of the images? That sort of seems kind of counter to the usual idea of this sort of "artistic selection" deal. The idea is to take something ordinary and put it in a frame to change the way it's viewed. There seems to be a long history of this in the twentieth century, at least back to Dada. One might say that Duchamp plagiarized Crapper. 

Probably the situation is a bit complicated by the fact that, to some at least, the thing selected is considered already art, not so much like the toilet or the soup label. Although, as has been pointed out, it wasn't generated in a manner then popularly associated with the act of creating visual art, a consciousness challenged in the Lichtenstein work. 

A thing might be both a valid artistic statement and an act of plagiarism and, with good timing, the money and the legal wrangling can become part of the work as well. Not to mention the immorality, which, when I stop to think about it, is actually all about who gets to share the profit. No one can seriously argue that these pieces damage the comics artists ability to profit from the work they actually do, just that they maybe can force their way into the additional filthy lucre he figured out a way to generate. Maybe they can and maybe lawyers are artists too. In any case, it seems to me, that the work those people do is now more valued, both artistically and financially, than before he stole it. Not to mention the article and book writers who profit from the contraversy. And don't forget the entertainment we're stealing from it.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I find it quite humorous to see so many amateur lawyers on this site trying to prove if a law or civil suit was verifiable, and if it was, it would have been taken care of eons ago.  Fact is, things in all fields of the world, whether it is art, law, sports, television, censorship, etc. have changed.  What was seen as a worthless single cell out of a .25 cent comic book in the 60's, no one was even worried about it.  So then Lichtenstein took it and made it into something special.  People should revel in it, instead of trying to be so petty about something like that.  Are you guys serious?  The only reason this is even an issue is because of Lichtenstein's success, what's the guy that drew the original cells doing these days?  More than likely Lichtenstein's paintings brought him more fame vicariously than he would have had without it.  It's so easy to judge people after the fact, and when someone hits the type of success Lichtenstein got, you times that by about a million.



I don't know much about law. But I do know, or at least have a a strong idea, about what is unseemly or not. You call the original comic panels worthless. Do you think the original work itself is useless as well? I don't know if you are or not, but let's say you are an artist, yes? Let's say you drew a picture of a dog and posted it on the site here in the art section. Is your picture of a dog that you drew worthless? Let's say that it is. Worthless to you? I don't know. Worthless to me? Sure.

I take your dog picture and create an oil painting of it. I take your original picture and maybe I change the color of the dog and put a fez on him. I then sell the painting for a million dollars. I do not credit you for your original dog picture. I certainly don't think you deserve any of the money, because I took your worthless picture and made it into something better.

But you liked your picture, didn't you? Did you work hard on it? Were you proud of it? Worthless, though, right?

Is what I did legally wrong? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know much about law. But let's set that aside. Let's set aside the money too. Is what I did to you, one artist to another, morally and ethically wrong? Yes. I took what was yours and I made it mine. And I don't care about you at all, and I don't care what you think about it, because I believe your 'art' is worthless.

You asked what the guy that drew the original panels is doing these days? He's dead. He died poor. And he is forgotten. Because his art was worthless.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> I don't know much about law. But I do know, or at least have a a strong idea, about what is unseemly or not. You call the original comic panels worthless. Do you think the original work itself is useless as well? I don't know if you are or not, but let's say you are an artist, yes? Let's say you drew a picture of a dog and posted it on the site here in the art section. Is your picture of a dog that you drew worthless? Let's say that it is. Worthless to you? I don't know. Worthless to me? Sure.
> 
> I take your dog picture and create an oil painting of it. I take your original picture and maybe I change the color of the dog and put a fez on him. I then sell the painting for a million dollars. I do not credit you for your original dog picture. I certainly don't think you deserve any of the money, because I took your worthless picture and made it into something better.
> 
> ...



Facts are facts.  When an artist of the time got paid a certain fee per page of drawings they did for a comic, yes in reality the single cell was "in value," basically worthless.  Sentimental value doesn't make an item anymore valuable than if it is owned by someone with absolutely no connection to it.  Beside the point, like I said, and PP piggy backed on, if not for Lichtenstein's paintings, the artist probably would have been worse off than he already was.  Do you think we would have been talking about his drawings in this thread today had Lichtenstein not done his work?  So that pretty much shoots a hole in your idea that he is forgotten doesn't it?  

Irv Novick was a friend of Lichtenstein whom used one of his drawings, he didn't die poor or forgotten, he worked 60 years in the comic industry.

So try again?

Russ Heath was hardly a forgotten nobody.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Heath

Jerry Grandenetti, died after becoming rich as an art director along with other work.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Grandenetti


----------



## JosephB (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Facts are facts.  When an artist of the time got paid a certain fee per page of drawings they did for a comic, yes in reality the single cell was "in value," basically worthless.



Really? What about an illustration in children's book? Or how about a photograph or illustration from a coffee table book? Are those images worthless? Someone paid for those images, owns them and can then decide who uses them and how. The same goes for a 25 cent comic book. It's not up to you or anyone else to determine if they are worthless.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Really? What about an illustration in children's book? Or how about a photograph or illustration from a coffee table book? Are those images worthless? Someone paid for those images, owns them and can then decide who uses them and how. The same goes for a 25 cent comic book. It's not up to you or anyone else to determine if they are worthless.



It's not?  Do you think there is a reason why a _Detective Comics #27 _sold for over a million dollars, yet a _Girls' Romance_ comic and _Secret Hearts_ comic whom Tony Abruzzo was an artist for and Lichtenstein's "Drowning Girl" and "Sleeping Girl" came from is worth... between .95 cents and $40 today.  So what do you think their value was in the 1960's?


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Facts are facts.  When an artist of the time got paid a certain fee per page of drawings they did for a comic, yes in reality the single cell was "in value," basically worthless.  Sentimental value doesn't make an item anymore valuable than if it is owned by someone with absolutely no connection to it.  Beside the point, like I said, and PP piggy backed on, if not for Lichtenstein's paintings, the artist probably would have been worse off than he already was.  Do you think we would have been talking about his drawings in this thread today had Lichtenstein not done his work?  So that pretty much shoots a hole in your idea that he is forgotten doesn't it?
> 
> Irv Novick was a friend of Lichtenstein whom used one of his drawings, he didn't die poor or forgotten, he worked 60 years in the comic industry.
> 
> So try again?



What do _you _value Novick's 60 years in the comic book field? Novick knew Lichtenstein, but there's no evidence that they were good friends. If they were friends, would Lichtenstein devalue Novick's work to such a degree that he figured it was fine and dandy to just take it? He valued Novick's 60 years in the comic field as much as one might value the work of someone who paints billboards or street signs in my opinion.

What I guess I'm asking is, setting money concerns and legality aside, was Lichtenstein morally in the clear using another artist's work without asking or crediting that artist? Was it alright that he did that, ethically? Yes or no?

_Try again_. That sort of comment is a disgusting twist on an interesting conversation. Can there be no honest exchange of opinion without chest-beating?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> What do _you _value Novick's 60 years in the comic book field? Novick knew Lichtenstein, but there's no evidence that they were good friends. If they were friends, would Lichtenstein devalue Novick's work to such a degree that he figured it was fine and dandy to just take it? He valued Novick's 60 years in the comic field as much as one might value the work of someone who paints billboards or street signs in my opinion.
> 
> What I guess I'm asking is, setting money concerns and legality aside, was Lichtenstein morally in the clear using another artist's work without asking or crediting that artist? Was it alright that he did that, ethically? Yes or no?
> 
> _Try again_. That sort of comment is a disgusting twist on an interesting conversation. Can there be no honest exchange of opinion without chest-beating?



The Try again was because you made a generalized comment about guys that died neither poor or forgotten.  I assume you didn't think I would look them up and just except defeat?  I didn't even include Dave Gibbons who did quite well for himself without any recognition from Lichtenstein.  

Dave Gibbons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So why would you do what you did?

What Lichtenstein did is nothing different than what happens in the corporate world all the time.  If a company makes a drug and puts a copyright on it, that copyright only last so long before the formula becomes public and other companies can make a generic form of it.  Yet the same company can take the formula they had already, add something else, and patent a whole new "Improved" formula.  I have a cousin that is a mechanical engineer and he works for a company making blue prints and working auto-cad programs.  He said that sometimes he was given the blue prints of a companies already designed product, and told to make an improvement on it so that they could then copyright it.

If you look at what Lichtenstein did, it was no different.  He re-sized it, he made changes, he painted it, and he changed the text on it.  They are not the same.  He improved them.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> It's not?  Do you think there is a reason why a _Detective Comics #27 _sold for over a million dollars, yet a _Girls' Romance_ comic and _Secret Hearts_ comic whom Tony Abruzzo was an artist for and Lichtenstein's "Drowning Girl" and "Sleeping Girl" came from is worth... between .95 cents and $40 today.  So what do you think their value was in the 1960's?



The market value of the comic book, now or then is irrelevant. At the time Lichtenstein appropriated the images, it would have been up to the owner of the original artwork to assign a value and to give him permission to use it.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

Here, this article explains implicitly how I feel.  It mentions a lot of the things I have been saying throughout this entire thread.

Lichtenstein Retrospective: Artist or copyist, it’s a spot-acularly good show | The Daily Norm


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

JosephB said:


> The market value of the comic book, now or then is irrelevant. At the time Lichtenstein appropriated the images, it would have been up to the owner of the original artwork to assign a value and to give him permission to use it.



Yes, and if you read more articles about it, you will see that DC comics didn't care if he used their stuff or not.  It was a sentiment shared by almost all the artists at the time.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> The Try again was because you made a generalized comment about guys that died neither poor or forgotten.  I assume you didn't think I would look them up and just except defeat?  I didn't even include Dave Gibbons who did quite well for himself without any recognition from Lichtenstein.
> 
> Dave Gibbons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



I'm not trying to defeat you. I want to understand you. The question interests me.

It's a simple question. Yes or no. Do you personally believe that it was morally fine for Lichtenstein to use the image in question without permission or credit? I say no. What do you say?


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

I bet Arcopitcairn's question never gets directly answered.


Lewdog said:


> Here, this article explains implicitly how I feel.   It mentions a lot of the things I have been saying throughout this  entire thread.
> 
> Lichtenstein Retrospective: Artist or copyist, it’s a spot-acularly good show | The Daily Norm


But the things that you have been saying throughout this thread are at a tangent to the premise of the OP. You're presenting a larger argument instead of addressing the original point.



Lewdog said:


> Yes, and if you read more articles about it, you  will see that DC comics didn't care if he used their stuff or not.  It  was a sentiment shared by almost all the artists at the time.



That's immaterial. Whether they cared or not has absolutely nothing to do with the moral rectitude involving in taking somebody else's work and presenting it as your own.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> If you look at what Lichtenstein did, it was no different.  He re-sized it, he made changes, he painted it, and he changed the text on it.  They are not the same.  He improved them.



OK -- so if I steal something, it's OK as long as I improve it?  So I can take a photographer's image without his permission and without paying, take it into Photoshop, crop it a little, alter the contrast and color balance etc. -- and no problem? And if everyone is doing it in the "corporate world" -- that bastion of morality -- it's all good? This is going to save my clients a fortune! Thank you.



Lewdog said:


> Yes, and if you read more articles about it, you  will see that DC  comics didn't care if he used their stuff or not.  It  was a sentiment  shared by almost all the artists at the time.



I get it. So if you steal something, but then the person you stole it from later gives you a pass -- for whatever reason -- it wasn't really stealing in the first place. Fantastsic.

Interesting statements on your values and ethics, Lewdog.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 22, 2013)

You have no idea about my ethics, you are about to cross a line that you shouldn't, end of story.  I think it's pretty obvious what my answer is as to whether Lichtenstein did anything wrong here, no I do not.  I'm done with this thread because I fear it will be the last one I would ever post in on this message board.  I just hope that some day moderators wake up and see JosephB for what he really is.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 22, 2013)

It's either a statement about your ethics -- or it's about a lack of understanding of what plagiarism is. Maybe both. I can only go by what you say here -- and you really haven't come up with a better rational than he improved it, and everyone does it. It's interesting to see that, especially from a writer on a site devoted to creating art and developing intellectual property. Oh well.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> You have no idea about my ethics, you are about to cross a line that you shouldn't, end of story.  I think it's pretty obvious what my answer is as to whether Lichtenstein did anything wrong here, no I do not.  I'm done with this thread because I fear it will be the last one I would ever post in on this message board.  I just hope that some day moderators wake up and see JosephB for what he really is.



There are people here talking about ethics. You're talking about price-tags, as if the monetary value of something can excuse how it was created. If I slaughter a child and then use their blood to paint their own portrait and it sells for a bajillion dollars, am I absolved of a mortal crime?

I'm not questioning your personal ethics, but I do question your rationalization of ethical standards as it applies to someone else. However, you must understand something about web forums and social interactions:

You offered your comments. People have disagreed with them. It is as much a right of yours, as a member, to offer your opinions on a topic as it is for someone else to respond to them and offer their own. Provided all stay within the TOS, all share that privilege. Perhaps there's some sort of argument going on between you and others, I don't know. For myself, it's nothing personal - This is about discussing differing views on the subject of the OP. It's not personal unless someone chooses to make it that way. And then, well... It's "teh internetz." Is it worth getting bent out of shape about? If you want to convince others of your point of view, construct your argument effectively. If it is valid and you do a good job of presenting it, rational people will acknowledge that. But, if either of those qualifiers is not true, they will not.

Calm down, take a break and distance yourself a little bit. This is a discussion about some dude who threw some paint on canvas and it got called "Art" by some people. Don't make it out to somehow mean more than that.

And now, a story... 

A writer once went to visit her friend, an artist. He was a particularly talented artist and was well regarded, at the top of his profession. Galleries competed for his work and he was free to pursue his desires, painting whatever he wished. In his studio was his latest work, a particularly beautiful painting. The writer was astounded at his skill, at his ability to capture mood and expression, at the precision with which he worked and overcome with his professionalism as she watched him labor. Later, the artist showed her many of his works that he had yet to send to the galleries. As they walked around his studio, she couldn't contain herself any longer.

"I don't know how you can do it," she said. "I've tried, myself, to create works of art in my writing. I've worked hard over the years to perfect my skill. But, upon seeing your work, your masterpieces, I know I could never equal them."

The artist understood her awe. Perhaps because he shared her creative spirit or perhaps because he was truly an accomplished master, he gave her an insight that spanned the boundaries between their professions.

"Look around you," he said. "There is great beauty here and people will pay a great deal of money to own some of them. I am lucky - My skill has enabled me to pursue my dreams. I can paint wonderful paintings and can speak through them. I can show the beauty in life, the tragedy in death. I can make people laugh and can brighten their day with a smile or a pleasant memory. I can even make them think and question the world around them. But, for all that, I have failed. My skill, no matter how well regarded by galleries and the public, is worthless."

"That's impossible," she exclaimed. "You're a master of your craft! You can do all these things, you can communicate so much and, yet, you think you have failed? Why?"

"I can not make them cry," he answered. "Only you can do that."

You're a writer, or wish to be one. You have more power in your hands than Lichtenstein or da Vinci. Artists are wonderful, truly they are. But, only a competent writer is able to communicate exactly what they wanted to say to their audience. No artist, no composer, no musician, no dancer or artistic performer can do that. Only a writer, directly communicating to their audience can do that. There are timeless paintings, timeless symphonies and sonnets, but only a writer can truly speak through time.

(Now you can be mad at me for going off-topic and posting a silly story, adapted from a book on writing that I can't remember at the moment, but will credit for inspiration as soon as I can find it, wherever it is...  )


----------

