ARLEN SCHUMER
ARLEN SCHUMER
May 9, 2012
Arlen Schumer
Once again, for all the comic book fans who still don't "get" Roy Lichtenstein--thanx as always to the Lord of Lichtenstein, David Barsalou: www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/ma...
Henry Martinez Sorry Arlen, I don't get Lichtenstein, and the article didn't help. I will just attribute it to my not seeing his vision.
Mark Lerer Roy Lichtenstein Forever! Thanks for posting!
Arlen Schumer Delmo, that sounds totally contradictory to me; you say you "like" Roy, which i take to mean you "like" his work--then out of the other corner of your mouth you dismiss it completely, using the same tired, old canards that miss the entire point of his work, that I would've thought by now had been considered passe...
Delmo Walters Jr. I'm allowed to be contradictory. You're free to remove my comment if it displeases you.
Arlen Schumer geez, are you that sensitive? whatever happened to casual debate\, delmo? why do you think I posted this image & story in the first place? which, by the way, i doubt you've even read, did you? maybe if you read it, your opinion on RL might change...
Delmo Walters Jr. Probably not.
Arlen Schumer and also, delmo, am I not "allowed to be contradictory" when I post a response to a comment like yours? Geez, people on FB are so touchy the moment some "contradiction" rears its "ugly" head!
Delmo Walters Jr. Sure, you're allowed.
Arlen Schumer wouldn't it be nice if people actually debated their positions in a good-natured fashion? Or at least that's my goal...
Mike Hall Lichtenstein's work is derivative (in the legal sense of the word, not the critical), and that makes it original in its own right. Look at those two images: there are actually quite a few differences. Lichtenstein's doesn't serve the needs of a story; it stands alone as an image that is itself a narrative statement of the power of comic book imagery. I don't think I'd call myself a Lichtenstein fan (I'm familiar with only a few of his pieces), but I get what he was doing, and will continue to defend it as legitimate art.
Fred Schiller I wonder how folks would feel about his work if he worked in a bakery by day and painted at night for fun. Maybe he gave away his originals to friends who liked them and he did it for the joy and not the money.
Bhob Stewart With "Brushstroke" he out-popped everyone. www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/hirshorn07.htm
Rick Stromoski Lichtenstein was a plagiaristic twat
Matt Tauber I "get" that he had an interesting idea that he overused. I "get" that he couldn't draw sh*t on his own. I really don't get "Sleeping Girl," though, as Lichtenstein once said his goal was to capture a moment of emotional intensity as a static, technical drawing.
Mike Wedmer Roy would recreate the technical process of printing, more than he was ripping off a comic artist. His work looked like giant blown up versions of a panel. All the way down to the telltale dots of early coloring.
Maybe it has more to do with his work, which is comic oriented, being considered legitimate art, when other more skilled Comicers work, is not.
Bojan M. Đukić As expected, the imitated comic book art proves to be far superior in every instance compared to the 'artistic treatment' that remains inferior.
Arlen Schumer I have one word for all those who still don't get RL: "Context." If you don't know what that means in relation to RL, then you won't get RL. Period. The comments against RL on this thread prove it...sigh!
Rick Stromoski So either accept RL as an artistic genius or be a luddite.
Arlen Schumer Gee, rick, must you be that extreme? There's no middle ground with you?
Arlen Schumer And a "luddite" is anti-technology; what the heck does that have to do with art? Unless you mean a "philistine," which would be more apt.
Rick Stromoski I get it Arlen...i just don't happen to agree with your assessment of RL's contribution to art. He's an accidental success. He fell itno this success by accident after failing with conventional attempts. he did this as lark and it took off...to me he's as relevent as Julian Schnabel or Robbie Conal...meaning not very
Rick Stromoski meant to say phillistine but wrote luddite in haste...
Arlen Schumer Rick, what exactly do you "get"? You can't "get" RL and then totally dismiss his career--that NO art critic in the mid-'60s thought would last btw--with the, by now, tired ol' canards that attempt to pass off RL as some sort of mass-hypnosis that ivory tower "art critics" have successfully performed on all of us! The bottom line is, so many comic artists think all RL did was trace & copy, what you call "accidental," and are still stuck in 1965. GET OVER IT.
Bojan M. Đukić 'He's an accidental success'.
The Best description of Roy Lichtenstein & his 'art'. EVER. Thank you, Sir.
Arlen Schumer Misery loves company.
Hilary Barta I was just interviewed for an article on the Lichtenstein show going up at the Art Institute of Chicago. I assumed that the old bias of high and low art would be moot at this point. But the museum does not site the comic book sources, and their explanation is that his art is all about that "context", and they didn't want to distract the public from that at the show. No problem, right? Except that they DO cite his contemporaries in Abstract Impressionism when they believe the artist might be humorously referring to them. So, De Kooning is "worthy" of mention, Romita not so much. This is a bias, plain and simple, perhaps one that they are not even aware of. So it's not only the comics fans that still don't see the larger picture.
Rick Stromoski I don't think there's anything to get over Arlen...you can't force people into a false appreciation of something they consider drivel. I happen to like Laurie Anderson...my wife hates her...but at least she didn't make a career out of ripping people off.
Arlen Schumer hilary--i'm kinda surprised by what you say, because for the last dozen yrs or so, so many RL shows/books etc. have included his sources, in part, I can only assume, in order to diffuse the still-vehement attacks on the veracity of his work & career. Because once you see what RL worked from, you might understand more what he actually did, and achieved, in terms of art/context/appropriation/found-art/pop art theory and practice.
Arlen Schumer And rick, simply not liking one artist or another for personal taste reasons--but still respecting their art & craft--is very different from thinking their career is "accidental" or a "rip-off," or whatever you're complaining about RL, which, again, are the same insults that've been hurled at him since he began.
Mark Badger Love Licthenstein but some battles just ain't worth fighting
Hilary Barta Yeah, I was rather surprised myself.
Arlen Schumer hilary, i just saw a doc film 6 months ago made by 1 of his former assistants, and sanctioned by the RL estate, that went into some depth about his sources! so yeah, it doesn't make sense what you've told em...
Arlen Schumer oh, Robert, don't you know by now I purposely pose polarizing positions in my posts (alliteration!:) in order to foment a lively debate? :) why do you think I posted this RL story in the first place? geez, everyone seems to be so thin-skinned when their positions are challenged or contradicted. Lighten up, everyone!
Hilary Barta Who knows, Arlen? Like I say, they may be oblivious to what I describe as bias, or maybe they thought it was no longer necessary. And, to be fair, I previewed the as yet incomplete installation of the show. Anyway, I gotta roll.
Arlen Schumer hey Hilary, friend me! always been a fan of your work!
Arlen Schumer thanx for friending me, H--FB banned me for 30 days because I "over-friended" in a day!
James Romberger I wish I could care about the artists who make up the blue chip 1%er- favorite art of the second half of the last century and the beginning of the current one, but unfortunately, I just can't.
Arlen Schumer who does? I can't keep up with all the great artists in comics, much less the fine art world!
Michael Dooley For anyone interested in a view of Lichtenstein from someone who's actually read the Guardian piece, see the comments I just posted on Arlen's wall (above).
Delmo Walters Jr. www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/05/10/forget-li...
Arlen Schumer
March 8, 2012 ·
KIRBY COVER 1st POP ART USAGE: From David Barsalou's requisite DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN site on Flickr: "British artist Richard Hamilton, called by many as the 'Father of Pop Art.' Among Hamilton’s notable accomplishments was designing the cover for the Beatles White Album. Probably his earliest work to command attention was the 1956 collage 'Just What Is It that Makes Today’s Homes So Different, So Appealing?' The collage includes, as one of its elements, a framed 'Young Romance' cover. The cover is by Jack Kirby…."
Arlen Schumer
October 24, 2012 ·
These comparisons are absolutely ridiculous; SO WHAT if Roy Lichtenstein was inspired by these inconsequential pieces of commercial (found) art! RL recontextualized them into ART! When will all of you RL critics get your ostritch-like heads out of 1965 sand and wake up and smell the 21st century? Where you've all LOST your Lichtenstein-is-not-an-artist argument?!?!?
ARLEN SCHUMER
ARLEN SCHUMER
May 9, 2012
Arlen Schumer
Once again, for all the comic book fans who still don't "get" Roy Lichtenstein--thanx as always to the Lord of Lichtenstein, David Barsalou: www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/ma...
Henry Martinez Sorry Arlen, I don't get Lichtenstein, and the article didn't help. I will just attribute it to my not seeing his vision.
Mark Lerer Roy Lichtenstein Forever! Thanks for posting!
Arlen Schumer Delmo, that sounds totally contradictory to me; you say you "like" Roy, which i take to mean you "like" his work--then out of the other corner of your mouth you dismiss it completely, using the same tired, old canards that miss the entire point of his work, that I would've thought by now had been considered passe...
Delmo Walters Jr. I'm allowed to be contradictory. You're free to remove my comment if it displeases you.
Arlen Schumer geez, are you that sensitive? whatever happened to casual debate\, delmo? why do you think I posted this image & story in the first place? which, by the way, i doubt you've even read, did you? maybe if you read it, your opinion on RL might change...
Delmo Walters Jr. Probably not.
Arlen Schumer and also, delmo, am I not "allowed to be contradictory" when I post a response to a comment like yours? Geez, people on FB are so touchy the moment some "contradiction" rears its "ugly" head!
Delmo Walters Jr. Sure, you're allowed.
Arlen Schumer wouldn't it be nice if people actually debated their positions in a good-natured fashion? Or at least that's my goal...
Mike Hall Lichtenstein's work is derivative (in the legal sense of the word, not the critical), and that makes it original in its own right. Look at those two images: there are actually quite a few differences. Lichtenstein's doesn't serve the needs of a story; it stands alone as an image that is itself a narrative statement of the power of comic book imagery. I don't think I'd call myself a Lichtenstein fan (I'm familiar with only a few of his pieces), but I get what he was doing, and will continue to defend it as legitimate art.
Fred Schiller I wonder how folks would feel about his work if he worked in a bakery by day and painted at night for fun. Maybe he gave away his originals to friends who liked them and he did it for the joy and not the money.
Bhob Stewart With "Brushstroke" he out-popped everyone. www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/hirshorn07.htm
Rick Stromoski Lichtenstein was a plagiaristic twat
Matt Tauber I "get" that he had an interesting idea that he overused. I "get" that he couldn't draw sh*t on his own. I really don't get "Sleeping Girl," though, as Lichtenstein once said his goal was to capture a moment of emotional intensity as a static, technical drawing.
Mike Wedmer Roy would recreate the technical process of printing, more than he was ripping off a comic artist. His work looked like giant blown up versions of a panel. All the way down to the telltale dots of early coloring.
Maybe it has more to do with his work, which is comic oriented, being considered legitimate art, when other more skilled Comicers work, is not.
Bojan M. Đukić As expected, the imitated comic book art proves to be far superior in every instance compared to the 'artistic treatment' that remains inferior.
Arlen Schumer I have one word for all those who still don't get RL: "Context." If you don't know what that means in relation to RL, then you won't get RL. Period. The comments against RL on this thread prove it...sigh!
Rick Stromoski So either accept RL as an artistic genius or be a luddite.
Arlen Schumer Gee, rick, must you be that extreme? There's no middle ground with you?
Arlen Schumer And a "luddite" is anti-technology; what the heck does that have to do with art? Unless you mean a "philistine," which would be more apt.
Rick Stromoski I get it Arlen...i just don't happen to agree with your assessment of RL's contribution to art. He's an accidental success. He fell itno this success by accident after failing with conventional attempts. he did this as lark and it took off...to me he's as relevent as Julian Schnabel or Robbie Conal...meaning not very
Rick Stromoski meant to say phillistine but wrote luddite in haste...
Arlen Schumer Rick, what exactly do you "get"? You can't "get" RL and then totally dismiss his career--that NO art critic in the mid-'60s thought would last btw--with the, by now, tired ol' canards that attempt to pass off RL as some sort of mass-hypnosis that ivory tower "art critics" have successfully performed on all of us! The bottom line is, so many comic artists think all RL did was trace & copy, what you call "accidental," and are still stuck in 1965. GET OVER IT.
Bojan M. Đukić 'He's an accidental success'.
The Best description of Roy Lichtenstein & his 'art'. EVER. Thank you, Sir.
Arlen Schumer Misery loves company.
Hilary Barta I was just interviewed for an article on the Lichtenstein show going up at the Art Institute of Chicago. I assumed that the old bias of high and low art would be moot at this point. But the museum does not site the comic book sources, and their explanation is that his art is all about that "context", and they didn't want to distract the public from that at the show. No problem, right? Except that they DO cite his contemporaries in Abstract Impressionism when they believe the artist might be humorously referring to them. So, De Kooning is "worthy" of mention, Romita not so much. This is a bias, plain and simple, perhaps one that they are not even aware of. So it's not only the comics fans that still don't see the larger picture.
Rick Stromoski I don't think there's anything to get over Arlen...you can't force people into a false appreciation of something they consider drivel. I happen to like Laurie Anderson...my wife hates her...but at least she didn't make a career out of ripping people off.
Arlen Schumer hilary--i'm kinda surprised by what you say, because for the last dozen yrs or so, so many RL shows/books etc. have included his sources, in part, I can only assume, in order to diffuse the still-vehement attacks on the veracity of his work & career. Because once you see what RL worked from, you might understand more what he actually did, and achieved, in terms of art/context/appropriation/found-art/pop art theory and practice.
Arlen Schumer And rick, simply not liking one artist or another for personal taste reasons--but still respecting their art & craft--is very different from thinking their career is "accidental" or a "rip-off," or whatever you're complaining about RL, which, again, are the same insults that've been hurled at him since he began.
Mark Badger Love Licthenstein but some battles just ain't worth fighting
Hilary Barta Yeah, I was rather surprised myself.
Arlen Schumer hilary, i just saw a doc film 6 months ago made by 1 of his former assistants, and sanctioned by the RL estate, that went into some depth about his sources! so yeah, it doesn't make sense what you've told em...
Arlen Schumer oh, Robert, don't you know by now I purposely pose polarizing positions in my posts (alliteration!:) in order to foment a lively debate? :) why do you think I posted this RL story in the first place? geez, everyone seems to be so thin-skinned when their positions are challenged or contradicted. Lighten up, everyone!
Hilary Barta Who knows, Arlen? Like I say, they may be oblivious to what I describe as bias, or maybe they thought it was no longer necessary. And, to be fair, I previewed the as yet incomplete installation of the show. Anyway, I gotta roll.
Arlen Schumer hey Hilary, friend me! always been a fan of your work!
Arlen Schumer thanx for friending me, H--FB banned me for 30 days because I "over-friended" in a day!
James Romberger I wish I could care about the artists who make up the blue chip 1%er- favorite art of the second half of the last century and the beginning of the current one, but unfortunately, I just can't.
Arlen Schumer who does? I can't keep up with all the great artists in comics, much less the fine art world!
Michael Dooley For anyone interested in a view of Lichtenstein from someone who's actually read the Guardian piece, see the comments I just posted on Arlen's wall (above).
Delmo Walters Jr. www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/05/10/forget-li...
Arlen Schumer
March 8, 2012 ·
KIRBY COVER 1st POP ART USAGE: From David Barsalou's requisite DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN site on Flickr: "British artist Richard Hamilton, called by many as the 'Father of Pop Art.' Among Hamilton’s notable accomplishments was designing the cover for the Beatles White Album. Probably his earliest work to command attention was the 1956 collage 'Just What Is It that Makes Today’s Homes So Different, So Appealing?' The collage includes, as one of its elements, a framed 'Young Romance' cover. The cover is by Jack Kirby…."
Arlen Schumer
October 24, 2012 ·
These comparisons are absolutely ridiculous; SO WHAT if Roy Lichtenstein was inspired by these inconsequential pieces of commercial (found) art! RL recontextualized them into ART! When will all of you RL critics get your ostritch-like heads out of 1965 sand and wake up and smell the 21st century? Where you've all LOST your Lichtenstein-is-not-an-artist argument?!?!?