commercial districts and industrial parks
View allAll Photos Tagged SpecFic
part of my guest designer stint at theartlife.typepad.com
looved this kit.
inspired by SHFH journalling class, although i didn't follow a specfic prompt. kim loves to learn.
my wife Lilian & I have begun exploring Sims (well we do that anyways), but ones specfically for Great Photo shoots ... this was Dreamworld North, a Lovely peaceful sim and we captured THIS moment ...
You can find Dreamworld North Here :
maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Dreamworld%20North/201/156/22
A 507 bus heads towards Victoria in the background whilst a new C10 bus (specfically 8864, YX16OAV) rounds the Millbank roundabout driving towards Canada Water.
Found this old photo of my father [the furthest figure] working the land after the war when he settled in Somerset. Milverton to be specfic. This is a small village some 5 miles west of Taunton, the county town of Somerset. This would have been in the 1960's.
This image may not be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted or transmitted in any forms or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying & recording without my written permission.
Awhile back I had the idea of a 'Challenge Day' for dbarronoss, **TR.iPod, and myself.
We would each pick a area of photography that woudld be their specfic challenge.
I chose to challenge dbarronoss to produce a black and white photo, which is here.
Dbarronoss challeged **TR.iPod to a photograph of people, (here.
And **TR.ipod challenged me to best use of morning light but not a sunrise.
Ok, so the Saturday before we were to leave for Banff, I went out about 6am. I drove down to Woodard park, but the flowers looked ugly.
Then I drove down to Riverside West, but the city and sky was ordinary. I walked around for a bit, when I saw this litte guy.
I popped on my quantray lens, set to macro, stepped 6 feet away, and whala.
I hope this qualifies as good use of moring light?
I hadn't even been thinking about shooting the Milky Way again until the summer, but then I saw a terrfiic capture of the Milky Way taken by Chris Cook just before sunrise Tuesday morning. The skies here were forecast to be clear, so I set my alarm to a ridiculously early hour and headed to the beach to look east across the Atlantic to see what I could capture.
Behold, part of the Milky Way, semi-visible as it rises over the horizion shortly before the sun would begin to brighten the horizon. This photo was taken at 5:46am, and even at that hour, there was a surprising (and increasing) amout of light being thrown into the sky as the Space Coast of Florida was waking up. There are, of course, a number of celestial bodies shown here, a few are identifiable by me: Altair, the bright star low to the horizon near the middle of the picture; note that it is bright enough that it is reflected on the surface of the ocean. Also, up and to the left of Altair is Vega. Saturn is visible in the cloud on the right side of the frame, and Antares is up and to the right of Saturn.
I did try for a foreground subject, specfically, me. I stood in the frame for one of the photos, but I was wearing a long overcoat...and shorts, so I just ended up looking like a flasher, stadning alone on the beach, flashing the Milky Way. (Sorry, I didn't take the coat off because it was a tad chilly this morning, at least by Florida standards.)
Specs: ISO3200, 30 seconds and f2.8, shot with a 12mm full-frame fisheye on a Canon full-frame body. All edits done in Lightroom.
Another photo from the night Alice kept an eye on the camera.
Photo wise this one was processed to a specfic size for printing at 13x19, edge to edge with no border. That meant taking a sliver off the top.
MXX 315 displayed at the Festival of Steam and Transport 2019. Historic Dockyard, Chatham, Kent.
This rather old fashioned looking bus for even the early 1950's was purpose built for a specfic need. 84 of the Guy Special's were produced from 1952 for a London Transport requirement to service outlying areas that were reach by small winding roads. The Guy Special seated 26 passengers and was one man operated at a time when there were restrictions on one man operated buses. Although by the time the last Guy Special entered service in January 1956 legislation was starting to change. The last of this model was not withdrawn until 1972.
Lovely model of bus. Good that so many are still around, over thirty I think.
Who doesn't like a delicious gold twinkie with a white creamy filling? This portector does. Armed with a twinkie cream blaster, cream canister and cream blade. Hes ready to portect the yummy bundles of obesity!
First entry for Junie's Contest. Yup first i plan on making a second one with the theme of hard candy. Jolly ranchers in specfic. Good luck to everyone!
MXX 315 displayed at the Festival of Steam and Transport 2019. Historic Dockyard, Chatham, Kent.
This rather old fashioned looking bus for even the early 1950's was purpose built for a specfic need. 84 of the Guy Special's were produced from 1952 for a London Transport requirement to service outlying areas that were reached by small winding roads. The Guy Special seated 26 passengers and was one man operated at a time when there were restrictions on one man operated buses. Although by the time the last Guy Special entered service in January 1956 legislation was starting to change. The remnants of this model were not withdrawn until 1972.
Lovely model of bus. Good that so many are still around, over thirty I think.
HMS Gannet from 1878 in the background. Although I've been told that only 5% of the ship is original.
Who doesn't like a delicious gold twinkie with a white creamy filling? This portector does. Armed with a twinkie cream blaster, cream canister and cream blade. Hes ready to portect the yummy bundles of obesity!
First entry for Junie's Contest. Yup first i plan on making a second one with the theme of hard candy. Jolly ranchers in specfic. Good luck to everyone!
If you love witty, fun horror movies, go see "Cabin in the Woods"! From the moment the title came up at an unapproriate time, I fell in love. I knew going in that I'd love it because, come on...it's from Joss Whedon and I love everything that man touches. BUT, I went in with reservations because of a certain love I have for Sam Raimi and Sam Raimi burned me with "Drag Me to Hell" so I was going in with some trepidation. I had nothing to worry about, so fun! I explained it to Duane like this, "Just saw this great horror movie, it had zombies, and um, well every horror villian you can imagine in it...um, yeah, everything was in it."
Steph, I wish we could have seen this instead of that blechy 21 Jump Street! SO FUN!!! Go see it everyone. (well, those witty horror lovers out there, anyway).
And yes, I used this photo of mine of the Hex Murder house as my cabin in the woods. The only other photo I have of a cabin is in Big Bear, CA of my brother's cabin and it's a gay man's cabin (love you!), nothing scary about it unless you are scared by well appointed rustic accessories.
The Hex Murder house? SCARY. With scary birds on the roof that appear in photos when they weren't there in person!
Don't know about the Hex Murder house? Wiki it!
ooo! I also saw the trailer for Leaper. Looks good! I'm a sucker for time travel "you're a time assassin and you have to decide whether you kill yourself" kind of movies-books.
And for your reading pleasure (and the betting pool), here are all the monsters/villians in Cabin in the Woods SPOILERS!:
Alien Beast - Floating alien creature, can be seen in background behind Dana & Marty. Generic reference: Alien. [Bet on by Bio-Med]
Alma Wade - Seen after the elevators scenes as a little girl in a white dress slowly walking towards the soldier backing away. Directly taken from the FEAR series. She possesses psychic abilities as well as space/time manipulation.
Ancient Ones - Unique god-like beings seen at the end of the film in the pit and bursting through the earth. One in every society. Apparently influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft. [Not on Betting Board]
Angry Molesting Tree - Exactly what it sounds like. Seen bursting out of elevator, more detailed scene cut from theatrical release. Specific reference: The Evil Dead. [Bet on by Wranglers]
Blob - Shapeless mass seen in elevator. Specific reference: The Blob. [Not on Betting Board]
The Bride - Bloody woman walking around in a wedding dress. Likely summoned by the wedding dress and choker. Possible reference to The Bloody Bride of 13 Curves Road. [Bet on by Digital Analysis]
Cells - multiple labyrinth of cells holding all the monsters. Generic reference: Cube
Clown - Evil clown that looks vaguely similar to Pennywise. Generic reference: It. [Bet on by Electric]
Deadites - Unknown if seen in film. Specific reference: The Evil Dead. [Bet on by Story Dept]
Demon - Larger horned demonic creatures, seen in backgrounds. Generic reference: Night of the Demons. [No Bets]
Dismemberment Goblins - Winged red creatures and green flightless ones seen attacking soldiers. Generic reference to imps and goblins. Generic reference: Labyrinth. [No Bets]
The Doctors - Evil surgeons wearing aprons and clothes sutured to their bodies. Generic reference: House on Haunted Hill. [Bet on by Accounting]
Dolls aka Babydoll Faces. Sharply dressed people wearing doll face masks, possibly summoned by matching doll face masks, Specific reference: The Strangers. [Bet on by Kitchen Staff]
Dragonbat - Large bat seen chasing people with a split vampire mouth as seen in Underworld and Blade series. Unique creation or possible reference to Underworld: Evolution. [No Bets]
Giant - Unknown if seen in film. Generic reference: Trolljegeren. [Bet on by Zoology]
Giant Snake - Giant cobra creature. Generic reference: Anaconda / King Cobra. Possibly a reference to the snake creature in Season 3 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. [Bet on by Internal Logistics]
Giant Spider - Giant spider creature seen leaping through the halls. Generic reference: Tarantula / Eight Legged Freaks. [Not on Betting Board]
Hell Lord aka Fornicus, Lord of Bondage and Pain - Buzzsaw face seen holding same orb that summons him. Specfic reference: Pinhead from Hellraiser. [Bet on by Sitterson]
The Huron - Unknown if seen in film. Described in interviews as a Native American, based on Old West settlers' fears of Indian attacks (and scalping). Generic reference: Scalps. [Bet on by Research & Development]
Jack O Lantern - Unknown if seen in film. Generic reference: (ex. Pumpkinhead). [Bet on by Security]
Kiko - The Japanese floating girl ghost. Generic reference: Yurei films (ex. The Grudge & The Ring.) [Seen in Japan]
Kevin - A normal looking man that quickly dismembers people. Scenes cut from film. In interviews, Whedon describes him as looking like "some guy who works at Best Buy." Possible reference: Sin City. [No Bets]
Killbot - Scorpion-like robot with buzzsaws. Generic reference: Hardware & Chopping Mall. [Not on Betting Board]
Kraken - Massive tentacles seen in various scenes. Generic reference: 20000 Leagues Under the Sea. [Not on Betting Board]
Merman - Hadley's beloved mercreature, summoned by the conch. Generic reference: Creature from the Black Lagoon. [Bet on by Hadley]
Mummy - Mummy creature seen briefly in background. Generic reference: The Mummy. [Bet on by Psychologists]
Mutants - Orange jump-suited humans that vomit into others. Generic reference: Wrong Turn / The Hills Have Eyes / The Toxic Avenger. A larger one could be a possible reference to a Boomer from Left 4 Dead. [Bet on by Demolition].
The Reanimated - Unknown creature seen on betting board. Possible reference: Re-Animator [Bet on by Administration]
Reaver - Small Whedonverse humanoid seen during massacre.Specific reference: Firefly. [Not on Betting Board]
Reptilius - Unknown creature seen on betting board. Possible reference: Reptilicus [No Bets]
Sasquatch / Wendigo / Yeti - Folklore references to the hairy "Bigfoot" type beast. Generic reference: Abominable. [No Bets]
Scarecrow Folk - Humanoids with burlap masks. Generic reference: Scarecrows. [Bet on by Data Archives]
Sexy Witches - Unknown if seen in film. Generic reference: The Craft. [Bet on by Archives]
Snowman - Unknown reference seen on betting board. Possible reference: Jack Frost. [Bet on by Communications]
Sugar Plum Fairy aka Ballerina Dentata - Unique creation summoned by the music box. Loose cross of Black Swan as a child with the tooth fairies from Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Possible reference to El laberinto del fauno. [No Bets]
Twins aka Grady's Daughters - Disturbing looking twin girls. Specific reference: The Shining. [No Bets]
Unicorn - Magnificent horned equine. Generic reference: Supernatural: Plucky Pennywhistle's Magic Menagerie (#7.14). (Interesting, I can totally understand why this would be said, but this movie was made before that episode of Supernatural.) [Bet on by Engineering]
Vampires - Bald, gothically dressed humanoids with sharp ears. Generic reference: Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens. [Bet on by Distribution]
Werewolf - Prominently shown. Generic reference: The Wolf Man. [Bet on by Finance]
Witches - Floating witch seen zapping soldiers. Generic reference: Darkness Falls. [Bet on by Operations]
Wraiths - Various ethereal ghosts seen killing soldiers. Generic reference: 13 Ghosts. [No Bets]
Zombie Redneck Torture Family aka the Buckners - Main villains summoned by reciting a Latin incantation in the diary. A family of rednecks who adhere to a religion that worships pain. Mash-Up of zombie, torture, & killer backwood family films (ex. Wrong Turn / The Hills Have Eyes). The religious element (and the family's "Black Room") reference the Cenobites from Hellraiser. [Bet on by Maintainence & Ronald the Intern]
Zombies - Numerous creatures seen feasting on remains. Generic reference: Night of the Living Dead. [Bet on by Chem Dept]
I little mini series I've wanted to start up for a long time.
This series is inspired by people on YouTube... (more specfically some guy who did some facts on Waluigi).
Hope ya enjoy :D Maybe you'll learn something!
#10 - According to the Wario World instruction manual, Wario weighs 308 pounds (140 kilograms), although he declares it's just his clothes ("I like to layer!"). His weight is even further boasted by being the 3rd heaviest character in Mario Kart DS, weighing more than even Donkey Kong.
#9 - Wario is known for his poor hygiene, since he often picks his own nose, and forgets to brush his teeth, which can be a problem, since he has a weakness to sweets; Wario frequently gets cavities from the sweets, which is shown in WarioWare Touched!.
#8 - Wario Land: Shake it! is well known for it's colorful atmostphere and cartoonish appearance. The entire game's 2D effect is entirely hand drawn.
#7 - Wario is a creation of the late game developer and Game Boy creator Gunpei Yokoi and designed by Hiroji Kiyotake. It is said that Wario was created to represent Nintendo R&D1's frustration with having to work on another developer's series.
#6 - Wario's menacing appearance is considered "scary" by most of the residents of the Mushroom Kingdom, though not as scary a Bowser. His face is frighting enough that even King Boo commented on it in Super Mario 64 DS.
#5 - Wario is not as unintelligent as he appears to be, since he makes WarioWare games and can fly a plane. In fact, he is actually very skilled at electronics, as he made a dimensional teleporter in just a few seconds. He also constructed the Mario Kart 64 race track Wario Stadium. Among the reasons many assume he is a bonehead is that he is hot-headed, clumsy, and sometimes forgets his common sense.
#4 - Despite his pudgey and fat appearance, Wario is quite athletic and wields superhuman strength that both exceeds that of Mario's and almost rivals that of Donkey Kong and Bowser. Too further support this, a full scan of Wario's body also shows his arms and legs are all muscle. Meaning he stuffs his fat elsewhere....
#3 - Wario's relationship with his partner in crime, Waluigi, is generally unknown. A number of sources state the duo are brothers, while some say they're cousins. Charles Martinet (who voices both characters) commented in belief that they are simply "two evil guys who found each other".
#2 - Wario is very aggressive, especially in the Mario Kart series, as he pushes racers off the road if in his way. In the Mario Party series, he apparently puts his greedy nature aside to play fair. In general sports, Wario is a braggart and a sore loser, even going as far as to claim that somebody is cheating when he loses.
#1 - In The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! episode "Plumbers Academy", an unnamed, overweight plumber wearing yellow and purple can be seen as a classmate of Mario and Luigi; this character's similarity to Wario is probably coincidental, as Wario's debut came three years after The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! was produced.
Credit to the Super Mario Wiki as my main source of info.
Speaking of which, I also plan on updating Wario and Waluigi.
Another treasure from my collection of odd bits and pieces.
There is a publishing date of December 1971 inside the front cover of this guide book. These Intereurope books bridged a gap between a handbook and a workshop manual for DIY motorist wanting to do basic maintenance themselves. The content is fairly general and not too specfic to the actual model of car pictured on the cover.
Beekman Tower Apartments, buitl as the Panhellenic Hotel (or Panhellenic House), at First Avenue and East 49th (Mitchell Place), 1927-1929. This residential and recreational facility was built for sorority members launching Midtown careers, to a design by John Mead Howells. The hotel was converted in 2013 into "long-term furnished corporate apartments."
With Raymond Hood, Howells had won the 1922 Chicago Tribune competition; as others (e.g. White and Willensky, in their AIA Guide) have noted, this building has more in common with with the much-celebrated runner-up design by Eliel Saarinen. In other words, it's an Art Deco skyscraper with a strong vertical sensibility - the kind of smoothed-down Gothic Art Deco that emphasizes the solid presence of masonry rather than the Strreamlined zip of enamel and chrome. These photos are slightly out of sequence among my current uploads, but an alphabetical coincidence in my filing led me to consider this in comparison to the work of Davis & Brody three decades later (specfically, River Park Towers). Art Deco wasn't precisely undergoing a revival in the 1960s, but a renewed interest in classic skyscraper design by those a step or two removed from doctrinaire modernism (see, e.g., William Jordy) may have rekindled an interest in sculpturally composed towers, in the virtues of brick as cladding and the grouping of windows in vertical shafts rather than horizontal bands or sheer curtain walls. And I mean... check out the chamfering of this corner! Maybe I'm reaching, but I think there's something here.
So me and my family decided to have a big get together for New Years (which lasted 'till midnight btw), and gaming tournaments for both Smash Bros and BattleBlock Theater for the teens (which was basically me and my friends).
Needless to say,
I won both tourneys X3
My uncle actually made this trophy for that specfic night, many thanks to him for this. My dad also helped with designing it, so no matter what console ya had, it would be on the trophy. At least Wii U, Xbox, and Playstation anyway.
Pretty cool huh? Gonna hang this on me wall sometime.
Chain and Padlock . Capper-Carrollsburg Community . SE . WDC . Sunday afternoon, 27 November 2005
Sunday Photo Walk
Elvert Xavier Barnes Photography
______________
One year ago today on Thanksgiving Monday, 29 November 2004, on a photo assignment for the Washington Spark Newsletter www.washingtonspark.org I would accompany Anu Yadav to Arthur Capper Projects in SE WDC www.washingtonspark.org/photo/thumbnails.php?album=42. She had written and was in the process of developing the one woman play 'Capers' which caught my attention because the one woman aspect and the interviewing process of her documentary was not unlike those specfics regarding my project "This Is For The Black Men Who've Contemplated Suicide When That Rainbow Was Just Too Much!"
The article was published in the December 2004 issue of the Washington Spark.
Wanting to nuture an ongoing relationship with the community I would return a few days later and deliver some of the pictures to some of the subjects www.washingtonspark.org/photo/displayimage.php?album=42&a... whom I had photographed when I would visit the area with Anu Yadav.
At which point I would realize that if I had come just a few hours or a day later the one group of subjects would no longer have been there. Having knocked on their door at 328 K Street when Brenda would open it I'd observe that she and a few others were in the process of packing. Thanking me, she said, 'We'll moving. Had you come a few hours later you would have missed us.'
Even to this day and every time since that I've revisited what was known as Arthur Capper I reflect on that moment.
Moments later when I would drop off some photos at the Recreational Center, just a block or so away, the Unit Manager would insist that, in the future, any reference to the area be Capper-Carrollusburg Community.
Over the months since and particularly since June 2005 I have revisited the area many times, photographically speaking. As was the case when during my Sunday Photo Walk on 27 November 2005 that I would commemorate my photo assignment from one year before.
In recent months and even more son in the past weeks there is evidence that now still remains will soon be demolished.
One year ago today I would capture some of the then few remaining residences who where then in the process of relocating. When, the other day, that I would comment to a close friend that I had been photographing this area for almost year, observing that the buildings are all now vacant and boarded up, rhetorically, he'd ask 'Where will all the poor people go?'
Elvert Xavier Barnes Photography
See photo at consumerist.com/2009/03/amazon-allows-publishers-to-kill-...
Photo published at finance.yahoo.com/news/theyve-finally-found-way-fix-14245...
The exhibition at the New Orleans Museum Of Art consisted of 125 rare bronzes of Indian deities - Hindu, Buddhist and Jain - some as old as 1000 years. Sorry I wasn't able to record specfic details of individual pieces, but I believe the couple above are the Hindu deities Shiva and Parvati.
DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN
BEFORE AND AFTER
EDWARD D'ANCONA
Limbering Up
circa 1940's
ROY LICHTENSTEIN
Man With Chest Expander - 1961
It would seem that Lichtenstein was even less original than many of his existing detractors had thought.
Although Lichtenstein had been using comic book imagery in his paintings since 1957, he did not do large canvases reproducing single comic strip panels featuring speech balloons until he painted Look Mickey in the summer of 1961 - four months after he had, by his own admission, seen Warhol's canvases. Warhol had been painting single comic strip panels featuring speech balloons since 1960 - a year earlier than Lichtenstein. It is possible that Lichtenstein, as Warhol suspected, had seen Warhol's paintings at Bonwit Teller, although Lichtenstein never mentioned it in interviews. In any case, Lichtenstein admitted having seen Warhol's cartoon paintings prior to doing his own single panel comic strip paintings featuring speech balloons (Look Mickey).
www.warholstars.org/warhol1/11roylichtenstein.html
Edward D'Ancona was a prolific pin-up artist who produced hundreds of enjoyable images, almost nothing is known about his background. He sometimes signed his paintings with the name "D'Amarie", but his real name appears on numerous calendar prints published from the mid 1930s through the mid 1950s, and perhaps as late as 1960.
The first company to publish D'Ancona pin-ups, about 1935 to 1937, was Louis F. Dow in St Paul. D'Ancona worked in oil on canvas and his originals from that time usually measured about 30 x 22 inches. His early work is comparable in quality to that of the young Gil Elvgren, who had begun to work for Dow in 1937. Because D'Ancona produced so much work for Dow, one might assume that he was born in Minnesota and lived and worked in the St Paul, Minneapolis area. It is known that he supplied illustrations to the Goes Company in Cincinnati and to several soft-drink firms, which capitalized on his works similarity to the Sundblom/Elvgren style, which was so identified with Coca-Cola. During the 1940s and 1950s, D'Ancona's superb use of primary colors, masterful brushstrokes, and painterly style elevated him to the ranks of the very best artist in pin-up and glamour art. His subject matter at this time resembled Elvgren's. Both enjoyed painting nudes and both employed situation poses a great deal. D'Ancona also painted a fair amount of evening-gown scenes, as did Elvgren, Frahm, and Erbit.
By 1960, D'Ancona had moved into the calendar art field. Instead of doing pin-ups and glamour images, however, he specialized in pictures on the theme of safety in which wholesorne policemen helped children across the street in suburban settings that came straight out of Norrnan Rockwell.
Arlen Schumer
These comparisons are absolutely ridiculous; SO WHAT if RL was inspired by those 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 that argument?!?!?
Darryl Alexander Moore
I LOVE Lichtenstein! As an art teacher, I just finished doing art assignments based on his works just last week.
Arlen Schumer
Darryl--invite me come to your class and do a Lichtenstein lecture! www.arlenschumer.com/visualectures
Mike Hall
I've never researched the matter enough to understand the Lichtenstein hatred. Yes, he appropriated some some comic book images...which he then re-purposed (with alterations!) into commentaries on an entire STYLE of pop art. What exactly is wrong with that? It's not much different than mixed media art which uses photos and found objects to say something entirely different than what was originally said by the photos and found objects!
Arlen Schumer
OY VEY, Mike, just scroll thru my own wall for past threads re: RL that expose the absolute virulence with which they hate RL; in fact, here's one of my own recent ri postes to their deadly combination of ignorance (they're still stuck in '65, with the same tired criticisms of tracing/stealing that you & i both thought were left behind) and arrogance (because they're comic book art fans, they think they know what they're talking about): "For the umpteenth time, if all you (and most other "comic fans" like you too, Fester?) think RL did was simply trace a comic book panel (and Mort, I'm surprised that you, an accomplished pro, would know there are worlds of difference between simply tracing an image vs. creating an entirely new work based on that reference, be it photo or illo), wake up and smell 2012--it ain't 1963 anymore, when middlebrow art critics said the same thing you're still harping on! RL proved them and you all wrong with the depth and breadth of his work over the years. If you invalidate RL, you invalidate ALL of Pop Art, not to mention the arts of sampling, appropriation and found art. Good luck with all that! Me, I will still be admiring RL's work as the great graphic designer he was, recontextualizing comic art and other commercial art into paintings that have stood the test of time--while your lame, stale canards and cavils are as dated and passe as they are pointless."
Mike Hall
It's ridiculous. Of course, these same people probably have NO IDEA how much fine art AND comic art rely on photo reference, or how widespread use of the camera obscura was in the arts before photography. As for RL, it takes a trained eye maybe 3 seconds to see the differences between what RL did and the panels he borrowed from; the differences are almost immediately apparent, and his intent is pretty clear.
Arlen Schumer
So then, Mike, explain why SO many professional (comic) artists--who, like I indicated in my previous post, SHOULD KNOW BETTER--are STILL wallowing in their own arrogant ignorance re: RL?
Mike Hall
Like I said, I have no idea. Lack of formal art education/reading on the subject? Hyper-sensitivity to the concept of sampling and how it can/should be used in art? Parroting sentiments expressed by others? It's a mystery to me. :)
Arlen Schumer
All of the above!
Coby L Cyr
wow...those two images look SO much alike! (sarcasm intended) He turned the idea into a beautiful piece. I do this a lot in my art work...I guess I'm a unimaginative wannabe illustrator also...wait...I do many more pieces that are original also, but I guess people will get stuck on reference pieces *sigh*
Arlen Schumer
Eggs Ackley, Coby!
Rick Stromoski
And James Frey was an excellent author!
Arlen Schumer
care to elaborate, rick? :) the 2 are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
Arlen Schumer
Mike Hall, Rick Stromoski is EXACTLY the artist we've been discussing! :)
Rick Stromoski
And Shepard Fairey is an amazingly original poster artist!
Arlen Schumer
stick to the subject, rick! or CAN you?
Rick Stromoski
Sorry I prefer to wallow in my arrogant ignorance
Arlen Schumer
if the shoe fits, rick, wear it!
David Edward Martin
Lichenstein is a plagiarist. Period.
If he had acknowledged the artists whose works he copied, it would not have been so bad.
If he had given those artists a share of the millions he made copying their work, it would have been great.
But in the end, he was just a plagiarist and a fraud.
Coby L Cyr
Hmmm, actually, if this following link is correct....that is pretty bad. I was commenting on the images posted in the original link here. This link I found IS pretty extreme and far beyond "referencing" =/ You have to agree a little bit on this Arlen...
davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
Robert Pincombe
We've come far enough in this discussion for me to say only that the particular works for which Lichtenstein is most renowned are his least artistic works with little context from him and no imagination. Forget arguing plagiarism. All artists take from the world and arts around them. So I won't worry about the whole, who's panel is in this painting and just say, his brilliance was in selling his least interesting works as his greatest. Christ, the whole Lichtenstein debates of the last thirty years are the true artistic achievement. Just as Andy Warhol was his own greatest creation, so too is Lichtenstein himself his greatest piece of work.
Coby L Cyr
And that's why I come here...to get some education and insight into others views. Love it
Pete Harrison
Roy transformed clip art into something to be hung on a wall. Given the decade, it worked and was original & refreshing; the use of benday dots on canvas was pretty clever. HOWEVER, I do appreciate David's research that lets us all know the artist that originally did the artwork.
Arlen Schumer shared a link.
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...See More
Deconstructing roy lichtenstein - before and after
DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN BEFORE AND AFTER EDWARD D'ANCONA Limbering Up circa 1940's ROY LICHTENSTEIN Man Exercising 1961 It would seem that Lichtenstein was even less original than many of his existing detractors had thought. Although Lichtenstein had been using comic book imagery in hi...
Mark Staff Brandl and 6 others like this.
Mike Hall
I've never researched the matter enough to understand the Lichtenstein hatred. Yes, he appropriated some some comic book images...which he then re-purposed (with alterations!) into commentaries on an entire STYLE of pop art. What exactly is wrong with that? It's not much different than mixed media art which uses photos and found objects to say something entirely different than what was originally said by the photos and found objects!
Arlen Schumer OY VEY, Mike, just scroll thru my own wall for past threads re: RL that expose the absolute virulence with which they hate RL; in fact, here's one of my own recent ripostes to their deadly combination of ignorance (they're still stuck in '65, with the same tired criticisms of tracing/stealing that you & i both thought were left behind) and arrogance (because they're comic book art fans, they think they know what they're talking about): "For the umpteenth time, if all you (and most other "comic fans" like you too, Fester?) think RL did was simply trace a comic book panel (and Mort, I'm surprised that you, an accomplished pro, would know there are worlds of difference between simply tracing an image vs. creating an entirely new work based on that reference, be it photo or illo), wake up and smell 2012--it ain't 1963 anymore, when middlebrow art critics said the same thing you're still harping on! RL proved them and you all wrong with the depth and breadth of his work over the years. If you invalidate RL, you invalidate ALL of Pop Art, not to mention the arts of sampling, appropriation and found art. Good luck with all that! Me, I will still be admiring RL's work as the great graphic designer he was, recontextualizing comic art and other commercial art into paintings that have stood the test of time--while your lame, stale canards and cavils are as dated and passe as they are pointless."
Mike Hall
It's ridiculous. Of course, these same people probably have NO IDEA how much fine art AND comic art rely on photo reference, or how widespread use of the camera obscura was in the arts before photography. As for RL, it takes a trained eye maybe 3 seconds to see the differences between what RL did and the panels he borrowed from; the differences are almost immediately apparent, and his intent is pretty clear.
Shelly Crowley
Good Morning Arlen you wicked Man! :)
Arlen Schumer
Sorry you're so "hurt," Rick--when 1. I started this friggin' thread; 2. I started out being GENERAL in my criticisms of RL haters; and 3. you joined the thread voluntarily and posted your predictable RL attacks--so what, i don't have the "right" to spar with you verbally (especially someone I've known over the years and spent many dinners together with)? And then you complain that you're being "personally insulted"? Jeez, Rick, how thin IS your skin?
Arlen Schumer
Can't take the "heat" of debate, then don't come in the kitchen, rick!
Arlen Schumer
Hey shelly--you've come right in the middle of some anti-sensitivity counseling! :)
Shelly Crowley I
see that .....Still Love you my Witty Friend!
Arlen Schumer
Wow, rick, for someone who works in "funny" comics, you certainly have NO sense of humor! What the hell do I have to do, put a smiley-face icon after phrases like "turn in your artist badge" and "Captain Facetious"?!?!? And every other quote of mine you've pulled to justify your "hurt" feelings? Grown the eff up, man!
Arlen Schumer
Shelly--at least SOMEONE gets my "wittiness"!!! Where have you been all my life?
Arlen Schumer
And Rick, calling your argument "facetious" is a "personal attack" in your eyes? wow...rick, I called your ARGUMENT facetious, not YOU! Man, you're something!
Shelly Crowley
Hiding in a tiny cabin deep in a forest ...Snicker*
Steve Elworth
Are people going to start attacking Andy Warhol next? RL attacks have gone from arracking him from taking comics too seriously to ripping off these great artists pf comics? Enough!!!
Rick Stromoski
And Rick, calling your argument "facetious" is a "personal attack" in your eyes?
Not so much a personal attack ...more like dismissive. If you;re going to declare something facetious you need to explain why. Otherwise it's arguing by fiat/
Arlen Schumer
Now I ned to explain to you what the word facetious means in regards to how & why I used it? Well, gee, Rick, you attempted to "dismiss" RL's work by choosing a Mondrian and then creating an exact duplicate of it, only with the colors slightly changed; the dictionary def of "facetious" is: "treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant." Sorry, but if you couldn't figure that out for yourself, that's your problem--it's not my "job" to explain every step of a debate/discussion/argument to you--it's YOUR job to figure that out.
Fester Faceplant
I'm going to copy all of Bruce Springsteen's songs , just re-record them slightly, and call them my own. I'll make millions of dollars and people will call me brilliant and an artist!
Arlen Schumer
Fester, do I need to explain" facetious" to you as well?
Fester Faceplant
Of course not, Arlen. My vocabulary is quite impeccable. My point is that by your own standards of what "art" is, anyone can copy anything else and call it their own. The truth is that RL never had an original thought in his brain...he was a hack who and a thief.Nothing anyone can say will ever be able to justify his blatant rip-offs.
Arlen Schumer
Fester, guess you (and Rick) didn't really read my opening thread post: "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?!?!?"
Fester Faceplant
I read it. In fact I read it yesterday. RL may have been an "artist"....but he was certainly a thief.
Arlen Schumer
And therefore so was Duchamp, who created the idea of "found art" and called them "ready mades," because CONTEXT is everything, which you & Rick et al still don't grasp. And you invalidate Andy Warhol's entire body of work, and jeez, he's only considered the most influential artist of the 2nd half of the 20th century (after Picasso being the 1st half's). And you invalidate the entire genres of sampling and artistic appropriation. Other than that, Fester, how's the air down there under the sand? Give Rick Stromoski my best!
David Chelsea Fester's idea doesn't sound that different from bob dylan's self portrait or linda ronstadt's what's new, or Joe jackson's jumping jive. Lichtenstein was a cover artist.
Sean Moylan
Arlen, in general, many people either do not understand or do not accept the basic concepts behind Pop Art. The more you try to explain it to them the more confused or annoyed they'll become. Sometimes, you have to pick your battles and just let people like what they like.
Arlen Schumer
Eggs Ackly, Sean! My problem is, I never initiate these defenses of RL; as you can see from this opening thread, my gander gets up when I read OTHERS' attempted dismissals of RL, and I just can't resist doling out some artistic reprimands! :)
Rick Stromoski
Perhaps if I type slowly you'll understand my point Arlen...
I do know the definition of facetious.
What I was asking you was for you to to explain how my comparing RL's direct lifting of existing imagery, altering it and then calling it his own is any different than what I demonstrated with the Mondrian. Just declaring such a comparison as "facetious" and leaving it at that isn't an argument that bolsters you opinion in any way. Those who think RL is a thief and plagerist at least give reasons why we think so.
Rick Stromoski
And you invalidate Andy Warhol's entire body of work, and jeez, he's only considered the most influential artist of the 2nd half of the 20th century
There's a huge difference between Duchamp and Warhols work with found objects and RL's out right lifting of other artists imagery.
Rick Stromoski
Fester's idea doesn't sound that different from bob dylan's self portrait or linda ronstadt's what's new, or Joe jackson's jumping jive. Lichtenstein was a cover artist.
The difference being that these artist paid royalties to the original creators of those works. RL couldn't be bothered with that.
Rick Stromoski
Arlen, in general, many people either do not understand or do not accept the basic concepts behind Pop Art.
Bullshit...one can appreciate pop art without appreciating RL. Talk about sweeping generalities
Arlen Schumer
Jeez, Rick, you gonna give me a chance to respond to your first post in this last bunch? The facts are, i did NOT just declare your Mondrian straw man "facetious" (or do I have to explain "straw man" to you too?) and "leave it at that"; I went ON to say: "why don't you actually examine David Barsalou's great "Deconstructing RL" site--which (inadvertabntly?) makes a case for RL as a totally legitimate artist of recontextualization (i.e., "Pop Art")--and see how much RL, like the great graphic designer he was, altered/changed/redrew/rescaled/reinterpreted his well of commercial imagery (i.e., makes "art" out of it), versus your reductive, reactionary dismissal of "...he just lifted existing work and barely altered it in any way." To which, of course, YOU did ZNZOT respond to--instead you gave me YOUR "facetious" retort: "There are an infinite number of ways one can describe or "interpret" the excrement that descends out the south end of a steer....but no matter how you pretty it up, it's still bullshit."
Arlen Schumer
And lastly, Rick, I love how you qualify your RL dismissals with wishy-washy phrases like, "...he just lifted existing work and barely altered it in any way." The vague adjective "barely" goes unexplained. To you and your fellow ostriches, all RL does is trace comic panels "directly" (another one of your fallacies) and "blow them up and paint them in oils." To which, AGAIN I answered without a proper, non-facetious response, "If you think that RL's paintings are DIRECT copies of their source reference as your facetious Mondrian/RL comparison, then you have either, a. not really looked at Barsalou's before/after comparisons, or b. have your anti-RL blinders on. Either way, turn in your artist badge, rick!" I stand by that response, and your lack of one as well.
Arlen Schumer OK, not "lastly"--because I really love this whopper of yours: "...one can appreciate pop art without appreciating RL." I would really love for you to take the time to "appreciate" another Pop Artist--why not start with the greatest, warhol?--and watch how you dig your ostrich hole deeper, as every "appreciation" of Warhol will be de facto appreciations of RL too, as if you can just insert RL's name every time you use Warhol's. Good luck!
Rick Stromoski
So if I actually "painted the lines I borrowed from Mondrians work, made them a tad thinner let's say and THEN flipped it and changed the colors, THEN it would be genius and historically cutting edge?
If anything the link bolsters mine and other RL critics argument that he was an unoriginal plagiarist.
this quote is quite telling from your article you linked to
SO WHAT if RL was inspired by those 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 that argument?!?!?
Inconsequential pieces of commercial ( found) art by inconsequential artists like Jack Kirby, Harvey Kurtzman, Joe Kubert, Gil Kane, Milton Caniff, John Romita, Bud Sagendorf and William Overgard?
Fuck off
Arlen Schumer
"Fuck off," Rick? You've resorted/reduced to swearing now? Ooh, am I supposed to now run away in tears with the same "personal attack" whining of yours that you attempted to do when i dared to declare your Mondrian straw man "facetious"? The fact that I wasn't even referring to those great comic artists--who are STILL great, as is RL himself, despite appropriating their, indeed, naive "commercial" art (thought of as such in those great artists' own opinions, btw)--in my opening thread post exposes you as not only ignoring each and every one of my specfic responses, but your pithy "fuck off," in print, to a friend in real life, makes you just a crybaby whose ego can't stand losing an argument.
David Chelsea
I'm with Arlen here, and I'll try not to swear. One doesn't have to say Bobby Freeman was a hack to say Bette Midler was an artist, or vice-versa. And it's not a moral issue. FW Murnau's Nosferatu blatantly ripped off Bram Stoker's Dracula, (without paying royalties) but film historians definitely consider Murnau an artist.
David Edward Martin
Gheez, is this still going on?
Film historians consider Murnau both an artists AND someone who ripped off Stoker. Art critics/historians need to show similar honesty and admit both Lichenstein and Warhol ripped off other's works while they are praising these people.
Rick Stromoski
You've resorted/reduced to swearing now?
I've said fuck off the the sentiment that the works of those artists were incosequential, which goes to the heart of RL's work...that comic artists are to be mocked ...now who's being sensitive?
I've said fuck off the the sentiment that the works of those artists were incosequential, which goes to the heart of RL's work...that comic artists are to be mocked ...now who's being sensitive?
And I don't concede that I've "lost" any arument...in such discussions there aren't any clear" winners"
You think that RL's work is brilliant. You side with gallery owners and the synchphantic art community that RL was a major pop artist... which is your perogative
I side with a very large group of people who make their living at creating art that feels RL was a plageristic hack in the vein of Shepard Fairey and Rob Granito, who stumbled upon a career that encompassed ripping off other people's work at the same time demeaning what they do.
Mike Peterson I think Barnum did a great job of recontextualizing General Tom Thumb, Chang and Eng and the Feejee Mermaid. He was a true artist ... of the bunco variety.
Arlen Schumer
Rick, you wrote, "I've said fuck off the the sentiment that the works of those artists were inconsequential..." even tho I've already pointed out that you didn't even read my opening thread post which indicates I was talking about the anonymous (at the time) commercial artist whose work i felt bore zero relation to RL's. So your overheated "fuck off" was misplaced to begin with. But please, Rick, don't let the facts get in the way of your emotions!
Arlen Schumer
And then you go on to justify your "fuck off" with this: "...which goes to the heart of RL's work...that comic artists are to be mocked." Well, only by you and your fellow ostriches. The rest of us with our heads above ground in the real world of comics AND art don't see it your absurdo reducto way. The dictionary definition (on my Apple desktop) of Pop Art is "art based on modern popular culture and the mass media, esp. as a critical or ironic comment on traditional fine art values." If you can read THAT as RL "mocking" the works of Abruzzo/Kubert/Romita/Novick et al, and not making "critical or ironic comment" on the original usage and "meaning" of those works--i.e., recontextualizing --i.e., Pop Art itself: making fine art out of commercial art--then Rick, as some comedian once said, you can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think!
Andrew Farago
My biggest issue with Lichtenstein comes up in your initial post, which talks about his comic book reference as "found art." Drawing inspiration from other artists is fine; lifting their compositions, dialogue, and palettes and just treating their works as raw materials for your own paintings just doesn't sit right with me. It's not Lichtenstein's fault that his work caught on, and I give him credit for moving on to other variations on the pop art/ben-day thing, but it will always stick in my crawl that artists like Russ Heath whose compositions have sold for literally millions of dollars are living on fixed incomes and probably never got so much as a postcard from Lichtenstein.
Arlen Schumer
Andrew, I also heard the bridges that Monet painted fell into disrepair and were torn down, while Monet's paintings of them made millions. And the western landscapes that Ansel Adams "stole" for his photographs don't get a fraction of the money for their upkeep that Adams' estate still makes off his photos. And let's see, what other totally "facetious" comparison can i make because a series should be three exampless? Oh, yeah, Warhol's Cambell soup paintings actually have made more money over time than the Campbells' company itself has made in its entire history, and Campbells is suing the Warhol Foundation for reparations!
Arlen Schumer
And as to the question of whether or not RL was morally/ethically/legally obligated to pay those comic artists fees to artistically appropriate their works, like recording artists have to pay for their samplings, has nothing and everything to do with said works' critical merits as Pop Art, i.e. commercial art transformed into fine art, which was the point of my opening thread in the first place, that has been reduced to the same tired, passe canards and cavils hurled by "artists" who can't tell the difference, it seems, between a literal tracing and the graphic-designed transformation going on in each and every Lichtenstein. i guess they don't actually visit David Barsalou's Deconstructing Lichtenstein site!
Arlen Schumer
And Rick, try directing your misplaced "fuck off" anger not at Lichtenstein (or me), but at the comic book companies themselves for not taking better financial care of their own, who sweated blood and tears for them. Why don't you write an open letter to DC and Marvel, for example, and tell them THEY should "fuck off" for not taking care of guys like Russ Heath that Andrew mentioned, since it obviously upsets you so much? I DARE YOU, Mr. Tough Guy!
Norman Felchle
Here's a link a friend of mine put up. I think it sheds a little light on both sides of this argument. Though.....I still come down more on Rick's side (I know Arlen....you had hopes for me...)
15 hours ago · Like
Norman Felchle superitch.com/?p=36
Super I.T.C.H » Blog Archive » Mort Pop Art Productions
superitch.com
Mort Walker, of Beetle Bailey fame, just sent me this photo of a YOUNG Pop Artis...See More
Arlen Schumer
And lastly, Rick (i hope!), you said that I "...side with gallery owners and the synchphantic (sic) art community that RL was a major pop artist." Calling me a sycophant? I guess only someone who doesn't know me on a personal level, who's never spent time with me on numerous social occassions over the years would call me that, or say "fuck off" to in print. I guess I must have you confused with a different rick stromoski!
Andrew Farago
Do bridges or soup cans have to worry about medical expenses or not having a 401(k) to fall back on in their old age? That's not really a direct comparison. Lichtenstein was a struggling artist who made good (and that's an understatement), and I've never read anything indicating that he gave a second thought to the artists who supplied him with the "found objects" that made his fortune. (Mort Walker's story about Lichtenstein meeting strip cartoonists is all well and good, but those weren't the guys whose works he'd copied, so they didn't have much reason to be upset.)
Norman Felchle
Personally, the Mort Walker story makes me wince. Lichtenstein may have been a genial guy and likeable....but how much can be excused by "he's just making a living, like us" I think it's interesting he didn't defend his work using any of Arlen's arguments. Was he being disingenuous here...or later? I'm tempted to believe this story. He may have been clever enough to find/sell a deeper concept behind the work....and it may have even become true in time. But he was just a guy like other guys. He had strong points...and weaknesses.
Andrew Farago
M.C. Hammer sold hundreds of thousands of records in the early 1990s on the strength of sampling Rick James's song Superfreak, but he didn't give him proper credit, got sued, and lost millions of dollars in the process. The Verve used an obscure symphonic version of The Rolling Stones' Sympathy for the Devil in their massive hit Bittersweet Symphony, but they didn't give proper credit, got sued, and basically lost all their earnings for that album. I guess the fact that publishers didn't see this as copyright infringement and didn't pursue any claims against Lichtenstein puts him legally in the clear, and the artists whose works he referenced didn't go after him either...but I can't get over the fact that he, an artist himself, didn't treat the comic books he copied as anything other than found objects. Cutting checks to Russ Heath, William Overgard, John Romita, et al. would've gone a long way toward getting rid of the animosity that cartoonists have toward him and his work today.
Norman Felchle
Yeah...artists have to trade in what we've got. Our ideas and our work. When someone takes it , it hurts. It feels like cheating. It smacks of dishonesty. I feel the same way when I see James Cameron take Roger Dean's work and make a bazillion dollars with Avatar. I hope he quietly gave him a little something ....but, I doubt it.
Norman Felchle
I'll also admit we all look at other artists and get inspired....or maybe even cross the line into swiping. It's not like Lichtenstein was a lone villian in a world of pure creative souls.....but still, fair's fair.....isn't it?
David Chelsea
We live in a more litigious age than Lichtenstein did. If Lichtenstein tried to build a career today from reworked comics panels he'd be hearing from Russ Heath or Jack Kirby's lawyers, if Shepard Fairey's experience is any guide.
Norman Felchle
David....I'm afraid he'd have been hearing from Marvel/Disney's lawyers. I doubt Kirby would've seen a thing from it.
Arlen Schumer
Hey Rick (and Robert P, if you weren't joking)--if you think you're above me...b'low me!
Arlen Schumer
And Rick, try directing your misplaced "fuck off" anger not at Lichtenstein (or me), but at the comic book companies themselves for not taking better financial care of their own, who sweated blood and tears for them. Why don't you write an open letter to DC and Marvel, for example, and tell them THEY should "fuck off" for not taking care of guys like Russ Heath that Andrew mentioned, since it obviously upsets you so much? I DARE YOU, Mr. Tough Guy!
Arlen Schumer
Rick Stromoski=Paper Tiger!
Pete Harrison
Roy transformed clip art into something to be hung on a wall. Given the decade, it worked and was original & refreshing; the use of benday dots on canvas was pretty clever. HOWEVER, I do appreciate David's research that lets us all know the artist that originally did the artwork.
Bitt Faulk
Arlen: Pop art was about using pop culture iconography in high art. There is seldom anything iconographic about the images that RL stole (with some notable exceptions). They are quite clearly incompetent reproductions. Had RL decided that the iconographic element of comics was the outline/contour-line style, the flat shading, the word balloons, and the technical printing artifacts like halftoning, he could have made some really interesting "ART", putting those elements in the context of high art. Reproducing classic art pieces in that style, for example, while not exactly a mind-boggling premise, would have shown us that he at least had the idea that there were *ideas* worth exploring. As it is, though, all he did was reproduce existing images while often destroying many of the iconographic details that are supposed to be the hallmark of pop art, like mutilating the calligraphy to the point where it's no longer recognizable as comics lettering, removing differences in line thickness, etc.
Tom Orzechowski
Bravo~!
Bitt Faulk
Thanks, Tom. Despite my distaste for Claremont X-Men, I've always considered you to be in the ranks of the comics world's best letterers. Thanks for all your hard work.
Arlen Schumer
Bitt, I thought the crux of your well-reasoned anti-RL post came down to your conclusion: "...his point was 'look how bad this low art is,' when it was RL himself who made it low." I think there's a lot of truth there, but in the end, it becomes subjective once again, only if you think RL's "incompetent reproductions" are indeed "incompetent"-looking! If one looks at an RL and thinks it looks like "low"/"bad") they'll agree with your dismissive assessment of RL; but, if they're like me, who looks at an RL and sees his graphically-designed recontextualizations of his found commercial art beautiful in their RL-ness, then they'll agree with my assessment of RL as the purest of Pop Artists. Because i find much of the "commercial art" RL used as subject matter as "ugly" as you find RL's works, and RL transformed them into works of art in my book--and that includes a lot of the comic book panels he used as well.
Bitt Faulk
Art is certainly always subjective, but, while I can understand the fondness people feel towards some things that I personally find uncompelling, there really is *nothing* positive I can see in RL's work. I'm not saying that I don't believe that you feel that way, but I certainly feel that — well — you're wrong.
Arlen Schumer
Funny how you can begin your post with a "certainty" that art is subjective--and then, after assuring me you "believe" that I know what I am "feeling," out of the other side of your mouth at the end of the post, you tell me I (and the larger art world that agrees with me) am "wrong"?
Bitt Faulk
I said I *feel* you're wrong.
Arlen Schumer
No, Bitt--you said you "believe" I know what I'm "feeling" about RL--thanx for that condescension too!
Bitt Faulk
All I meant is that I didn't think you were playing devil's advocate: that you really do have a fondness for RL. All I'm saying is (and I admit that this is a frequent cop-out) "I don't get it," and that I fail to understand what it is that you're seeing that makes you like what he's done.
Arlen Schumer
That's what you're saying NOW--a subjective "I don't get it" (which has been said about how many great artists, bitt? Let's see, off the top o' my head, Van Gogh, Duchamps, Warhol, etc?), versus what I called you out on, which was telling me i was "wro...See More
Bitt Faulk
(On a different note, about the bodybuilder RL sketch above, it would have been nice if the medical world would have taken notice of his prescient warning about thalidomide babies.)
Bitt Faulk
Wow, you're really taking this personally. I'm not intending to be condescending or antagonistic to you. (RL: yes; you: no.) I believe RL is a plagiarist and produced crap. You don't. That's fine. Never the twain shall meet. (BTW, I'm not sure how me claiming you are fond of RL is condescending, other than presupposing that you like an artist you're defending. But whatever. This is going nowhere.)
Arlen Schumer I'm NOT "taking it personally," Britt--remember, there's no tone of voice on the 'net, so you don't know that, trust me--but YOU made it "personal" by telling me i was "wrong"--I was just standing up for my intellectual points and parried you, as in any discussion/debate. Jeez, everyone's so sensitive on Facebook!
Arlen Schumer
It seems like all most people want to do on Facebook threads is agree with one another, like in a big circle-jerk; and when one voices an opinion that's contrary, and one engages in intellectal discussion/debate, the other gets all testy and emotional, instead of sticking to the point.
Tom Orzechowski
Lichtenstein was a serial plagiarist. There's no other way to describe his actions. He stole the work of others, provided no attribution, and did it repeatedly. The fact that he had no finesse in his approach is its own topic. The fact that the arts community lionizes him tells us too much about the arts community.
Bitt Faulk
Arlen: I'm not being testy. I believe that the art community is completely wrong in their assessment of RL. I have explained why I feel that way. I haven't seen you explain your point any more than "recontextualize!". That is the reason that this is g...See More
Tom Orzechowski
Clearly, I've blocked the person you're talking with, Bitt. He will accept no criticism of Lichtenstein under any circumstances. You're being a gentleman about this, but, indeed, the conversation will go nowhere except in semantic circles.
David Barsalou
This Quote is Disgraceful and Insulting
“Lichtenstein Borrowed ‘ Low Culture Imagery ’ Such As Comic Books To Make Art”.
Time Magazine
12/17/12
Arlen Schumer
Bitt, I love the way you've twisted this around to where you're the "injured party," so to speak--and i have already parried your original dismissal here of RL as just bad, poorly executed artwork as a purely subjective judgment on your part. What more do you want to hear?
A smug tedium reigns as Lichtenstein moves in at the Tate Modern and the artefacts of Pompeii and Herculaneum receive yet another airing at the British Museum. But at least George Bellows' arrival at the Royal Academy is something to salute.
A meanness of spirit made manifest by an intellectually benumbed public, quick to delight their under-developed palates for reasons they cannot articulate, has become the enemy of art.
- Jason Holmes 4/18/2013
October 27, 2017
To shine more light on the source material behind Roy Lichtenstein's work, comics enthusiast David Barsalou has spent more than three decades painstakingly tracking down the original strips that the artist painted after in a project called ” Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein".
Andy Uhrich
12 December 2008
Copyright, Legal Issues, and Policy
H72.1804
Prof. Rina Pantalony
Now We All Live in Negativland: The Normalization of Copyright Tomfoolery
In many ways both legally and culturally 1991 was a different world. Most obviously and essentially, it was before the rise of the World Wide Web and its transformative revolution in how information, creative expression and commercial products are distributed, experienced and sold. This was an economic world then, before the rise of Napster and file sharing with its, to say the least, shattering effects on the business model for the content industry. It was a legal environment before the 1998 expansions of copyright in the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Term Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which brought copyright into the on-rushing digital world, but in a way designed to benefit commerce at the expense of fair use. However, by then there were a steadily growing number of artists and musicians who were creating new works based on appropriated sounds and images. Not surprisingly this got a number of them sued for copyright infringement. In the fall of 1991 sound art pranksters Negativland were sued by U2’s record and publishing companies over the uncleared samples and allegedly deceptive packaging of Negativland’s single called, provocatively, U2. Re-examining, from the viewpoint of our current digital impasse, these entertaining but dishearteningly complicated legal wranglings allows for a critique of the content industries legal response to the digital culture, a study of the origins of the counter-response by the advocates of free culture and fair use, and a reinforcement of the virtue of a purposefully imprecise copyright law.
It might be tempting for some to look at this pre-Information Superhighway era with a glint of nostalgia, almost as a simpler fin de siècle time where copyright infringement was easy to enforce, record labels where free to charge whatever they wanted for their product, and they didn’t need to sue grandmothers and teenagers for illegal downloading. Copyright law mainly had the regulatory role of promoting a free economy by preventing content providers from ripping off each other’s protected materials. It essentially required the economic and technological base of the entertainment industry to create a copy that was exact enough to infringe and that was distributable on a mass scale. Consumers could only consume.
To be sure there had been some earlier disruptions in this one way, top down commercial model of distributing culture. While these new technologies afforded the public some ability to control how and when they experienced pre-packaged culture, through time shifting or creating a mix-tape for a friend for example, the imperfect nature of analogue reproducibility limited the extent of the impact of the use. The content industry was either forced to accept and eventually reap huge profits from them, i.e. home videotape recorders, or while widely complaining about the effects – the British Phonographic Industry’s easily ridiculed “Home Taping is Killing Music” ad campaign – rather easily absorbing the minor market effects. It took digital technologies, with their stunning ease of perfect reproduction, alteration, and immediate and widespread dissemination, to truly upset the balance between content provider and consumer. This has had the by now well documented , contradictory effect of turning the wider public into felonious pirates plundering the wealth of the unexpecting entertainment industry and into activated and creative producers of a new digital folk culture. It has also brought copyright out of the purely economic sphere into our day-to-day lives regulating how we interact and experience the world around us.
Over the last century artists have played the role of the canary in the coalmine on this issue both in conceptually locating the human impulse to manipulate the increasingly mediated cultural environment and through the development of the actual methods of doing so. For the former the obvious touchstone is Marcel Duchamp’s concept of the readymade. Duchamp asserted that the true artistic act was not the previously conceived of final artwork such as a painting or a sculpture, but the mental decision of calling something “art”. The artist makes an artwork from appropriating images, objects and ideas from the world around them and it’s the conceptual gesture of doing so that transforms them from the prosaic and the natural into the aesthetic. As Duchamp showed, it didn’t matter if the original object was a urinal, a bottle rack, or the Mona Lisa suggestively detourned with an added moustache. Everything is fodder: high art, popular culture and the utilitarian.
In 1972 artist, musician and provocateur Genesis P-Orridge took Duchamp’s concept of the readymade into the realm of the copyright with his performance and related book entitled Copyright Breeches. Besides creating a punningly humorous pair of oversized trousers emblazoned with dozens of copyright symbols, instead of merely declaring already existing objects art as per Duchamp, P-Orridge asserted his copyright over them in a declaratory act of peremptory claiming . While it was obviously farcical for P-Orridge to claim copyright over things which he has no proper and legal ownership, his piece criticizes the acquisitive nature of the artists and the way the business world exploits the creative works of others. Astutely, P-Orridge highlights how the concept of what has become to be known as intellectual property undergirds and conjoins both worlds. Further, whether purposefully or not, it augurs the clashes to come between free expression and copyright control.
Until the ease of digital technologies it required the skill and drive of the artist to create a work that would irritate a copyright holder enough to claim infringement. One couldn’t just cut and paste an image of Mickey Mouse to raise the legal wrath of Disney, but you had to be a talented enough cartoonist to draw and publish a satirical and patently offensive underground comic involving trademarked and copyright protected cartoon characters as the Air Pirates did in 1971 . Or you had to have the ability to paint like Roy Lichtenstein who subtly repurposed copyrighted images from trashy pulp comic books into intentionally vague but incredibly valuable pop art objects .
Similarly, new recording technologies like videotape recorders and samplers were originally expensive enough and required enough training to limit the possibility of copyright infringement by the wider public. But with each new technology artists were immediately devising new methods of capturing the world around them, subverting and transforming the images and sounds they appropriated in manners that could not avoid infringing copyrights. According to the apocryphal origin myth of video art, in the fall of 1965 Nam June Paik purchased one of the first home video recorders – the Sony TCV-2100. Right away Paik set about recording televised images of politicians, popular figures and rock stars off the air that he manipulated and distorted . He did this as a comment on the media landscape with its emerging cult of the celebrity and as raw material for creating his cathode tube paintings where the TV screen became a new electronic canvas.
In the music world, the release of digital samplers in the late 1980s transformed the ease with which artists and musicians could use previously recorded sound as a raw element for new compositions. DJs in the hip hop world used the new technology to dramatically expand on the previously turntable-based musical form into the creatively dense soundscapes such as Public Enemy’s It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back . In an example presaging the troubles of Negativland, in 1989 composer John Oswald was forced to destroy the copies of his Plunderphonics CD. The CD, which featured a cheeky collage of Michael Jackson’s head on the nude body of a woman which certainly played a part in the actions against Oswald, was a cut-up clashing jumble of samples from musicians such as Dolly Parton, Metallica, the Beatles, James Brown and Michael Jackson. Oswald’s composition is clearly an act of musical critique and commentary in the way it collapsed previously held critical notions on the differences in musical genres and styles. Oswald, who distributed the CD for free, was threatened by the Canadian Recording Industry Association to turn over the existing copies and master tapes or face criminal proceedings. Lacking the financial means to battle the CRIA in court, Oswald complied . In a manner which builds on P-Orridge’s concept of the interwoven nature of art and commerce in relation to copyright, after the Plunderphonics debacle Oswald was hired twice by the music industry to create remix CDs: one celebrating the 40th anniversary of Elektra records (label to Metallica, one of the artists on Plunderphonics) and a double disc re-imagining of the Grateful Dead’s psychedelic freak out jam “Dark Star” . This suggests that the underlying issue is not the act of manipulation of the copyright protected work that disturbs the content industry, but doing it without their permission.
Negativland used a similar technology to create the two songs on their U2 single. They sampled U2’s hit song “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” and mixed it with clandestine outtakes of a furious Casey Kasem swearing during an un-aired dedication to the very same U2 song. Packaged in a cover emblazoned with the letter U and number 2 and an image of the spy plane, Negativland released the single as a conceptual goof on the music industry, the nature of appropriation (does the band U2 owns the phrase U2 with its Cold War connotations?) and the not so deeply veiled insincerity of an industry predicated on the commoditization of emotional connections.
Within weeks of the single’s release, on storied underground record label SST, lawyers representing U2’s label and publishing company – but not the band themselves – filed a lawsuit requesting an ex parte temporary restraining order to halt Negativland’s “exploitation” of their record. The lawsuit alleges that the single constitutes “nothing less than consumer fraud” due to the cover’s oversized U and 2 “which is so deceptive as to create the false impression that the recording of is a genuine U2 record”. The lawyers accuse Negativland of violating §43(a) of the Lanham Trademark Act and of “attempt[ing] to usurp the anticipated profits and goodwill to which plaintiffs are entitled from the exploitation of recordings and musical compositions by U2” . Once again, the lawyers were protecting the profits of the label and publishing company, not the musicians in U2.
The second part of the complaint focused on Negativland’s unauthorized use of the song “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For.” The lawyers called it a “blatant case of copyright infringement” under §101 of the Copyright Act justifying the request for the restraining order and compensation . The judge agreed with the request and issued the temporary restraining order to SST and Negativland on September 5th with a hearing set for the 15th of October.
Reading the lawsuit now – from a non-legal standpoint it must be emphasized – reveals the absurdity of presenting the U2 trademark as one easily damaged. In fact, in the narrative that the lawyers furnish to establish Island and Warner-Chappell’s as legal exclusive rights holders to sell and publish U2’s music constantly mentions the overwhelming success of U2. They state that for 11 years Island records has been “manufacturing, marketing, promoting, advertising and selling millions of records by the enormously popular recording group known as ‘U2’” . They go on to recall that U2’s The Joshua Tree album, which included the song that Negativland sampled, sold over 5 million copies alone in the United States and that album was made even more important by its winning a Grammy . The lawyers relayed an account where one of the world’s most popular bands and brands, that has sold millions and millions of records, can be usurped by a band who has pressed ten thousand copies of an album that if not stopped would “flood the shelves of record stores with the infringing recording […] creating massive confusion among the record buying public” . “Thus, some unwitting consumers, upon purchasing and listening to the ‘U2 Negativland’ recording, might well conclude that U2 has made a poor quality and offensive recording, thus further unlawfully tarnishing the band’s reputation and image, and the enormously valuable “U2” name and mark” .
Clearly, this is a hyperbolic legal form of writing designed to make an overwhelmingly convincing point in court. The point of bringing this up is not to suggest that there is some cut off point of damages under which pirates and bootleggers can operate outside of the law or that the plaintiffs were outside of their right as copyright holders. Instead it is to highlight that the lawyers, who were not required to prove damages or that any unwitting customers actually purchased the Negativland record thinking it was the new U2 record to request compensation, developed a legal case that might prevail in court but in the public arena ended up making U2 the heavy and Negativland the aggrieved party. This tin ear for judging the public opinion would return in their policy of litigation that the recording industry levied on individuals accused of illegal downloading a decade later .
Similarly to the Oswald case, SST settled with Island and Warner-Chappell stating at the time that the $90,000 of losses and fines incurred by settling out of court would be significantly less than the expected $250,000 in legal fees that a defense would cost, regardless of whether they were successful or not . The label agreed to hand over all copies of the recording and refrain from in any way infringing on U2’s trademark or copyright. The settlement effectively gave Island Records the rights to Negativland’s recording.
Instead of what should have been the end of a rather unfortunate audio prank became even more tortuous as Negative decided to continue fighting for their cause in the public arena. First, they parted ways with their label as SST was insisting the band was responsible for all of the damages. They kept their case on the media radar via attempts to convince Island founder Chris Blackwell to release the record as a b-side to a U2 record since “interest in the single is higher than ever” , entreaties to Casey Kasem, and ambushing U2’s the Edge in an interview where they hit him up for a loan to pay off their legal fees and release a new record .
In August of 1992 they released a magazine which compiled all the documents of the case – the original lawsuit, settlement, press clippings, letters and faxes between the parties, and the interview with the Edge – and a CD of an audio collage mixing together purposefully infringed copyright protected material and a treatise on fair use. SST immediately sued them for copyright infringement based on unauthorized publication of internal SST documents. The band and SST eventually settled out of court by allowing the label to release an essentially unauthorized live recording of Negativland and any parodies of Negativland if it so desired. Through a combination of relentlessly irritating Island records, appealing to U2’s better artistic impulses, and garnering the Irish band bad press over the suit Negativland had by the summer of 1994 convinced Island and U2 to return the offending recordings back to Negativland. While insisting that any contract indemnify U2 and Island from any legal actions that Kasem might take, according to U2’s manager Paul McGuinness the main condition for the return was “that you [Negativland] stop writing us” .
In 1995, Negativland released an expanding book version of the magazine that had earlier got them into legal trouble with SST. The book, Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2 includes paper records that document the events after the earlier magazine and an appendix with essays on fair use, artistic appropriation, and the Supreme Court ruling on the 2 Live Crew Case. The book, with its in-depth paper trail of records from all sides, allows for a fascinating study of the legal and economic issues that result from copyright suits. Further, read from the vantage of the digital now, the book is a legal and cultural time capsule of a transitional era where just emerging technologies, which as the Negativland case shows were already roiling the legal waters, were on the cusp of completely transforming the relationship between producer and consumer.
Negativland and the book have played no small role in that transformation given their role in the free culture and fair use advocate groups that have arisen to counter what they see as the overreaching power grab by the content industry. Through the course of the book it is interesting to see Negativland adopting the tenets and cause of fair use whereas their original response was one of the freedom of artistic appropriation and first rights amendments. At some point after the lawsuits they became acquainted with Lawrence Lessig and the legal decision on the 2 Live Crew case ; both of which seems to have catalyzed their thinking on fair use and copyright. Without overplaying them or the books importance, it should be noted that their advocacy for fair use and their legal problems brought the issue to the underground independent culture, many of whom later became strong proponents of the freedom of artistic expression. An example of this would be someone like Carrie McLaren who at the time of the 1991 U2 Negativland lawsuit was a college radio music director and in 2002 curated the Illegal Art exhibit which featured work by Negativland and other artists stretching the boundaries of copyright . Negativland have continued their crusade against corporate control of expression; in 2003 they developed the sampling license for Creative Commons and just this fall Negativland member Mark Hosler lobbied members of Congress for copyright law revisions for the Digital Freedom Campaign .
In addition the book offers an opportunity to study a pre-Internet case of copyright infringement for the purposes of charting the origins and transformations of the current legal response by the music industry to the overwhelming flood of peer-to-peer copyright violations. One point that becomes quickly obvious regards whose benefits the lawsuits are designed to protect. As discussed earlier the lawsuit against Negativland was filed by U2’s record label and publishing company. Obviously, it is the norm in the industry for musicians to assign their label and publishing company the right of representation in legal matters, but seeing the business relationship laid out so starkly as it is in the lawsuit is revelatory. According to Eric Levine of Island Records: "record companies' primary assets are rights - copyrights, exclusive rights for recording services, names, trademarks etc” . So it’s not the actual songs or musicians that the music industry are selling, but the right to access and use them.
In both the Negativland case and the current lawsuits the goal of the content industry is to use its legal power to tamp down on behavior that it deems economically threatening. The content industry has the financial advantage of being able to pay for lawyers that Negativland didn’t and most defendants still don’t. Since the vast majority of these cases are settled out of court , this has the incredibly dangerous effect of limiting the discourse of copyright to one that favors corporate interests, as most cases do not reach the level of adjudication that might rule on issues such as fair use. This has the effect of criminalizing behavior that has not been proven so in court; it diminishes the presumption of innocence that the legal system is predicated on .
The entertainment industry’s campaign, while in no means effective , certainly shocks those on the receiving end of a lawsuit. When asked in 1995 if the lawsuit has forced Negativland to consider legal issues in a way that might limit their creativity, Hosler responds “Yeah, to some degree we probably will. It's just hellish to get sued” . In 2008, the mother of a college student who was sued for copyright infringement and was chastened by the $220,000 court ruling against Jamie Thomas said “I'm just so scared. I think we're just probably going to settle. I don't even want to go to court” . Stephanie Lenz, whose case is discussed below, states:
“[When recording home videos] I’m constantly thinking about what’s going on in the background, what’s on the TV, what’s on the CD player, the characters on my kid’s clothes, the characters on the toys they are playing with. I’m cognizant of what’s going of what’s going on at every step, instead of focusing on my kids, which is where my attention should be” .
One important lesson from the Negativland case is that while they were crushed into complying with the original lawsuit’s demands, in the end they essentially won. Through pleading their case in the media and doggedly pursuing U2 and Island Records Negativland got their supposedly illicit recordings returned to them. The results of that return contradict the lawsuit’s hysterical claims that allowing Negativland’s recording to be distributed would cause irreparable harm to U2’s image and record sale; clearly no such thing has happened. Negativland re-released the recordings in an expanded form in 2001 and has had absolutely no effect on U2’s market share or trademark.
While this example does not necessarily pertain to the lawsuits against peer-to-peer file sharing, it is directly germane to the industry’s response of re-used and re-mixed copyright protected content that shows up, among other places, on YouTube. Yes, such behavior is unauthorized, but not only is there no proof of actual economic harm, but in this era of splintering audiences the content industry should instead take advantage of this new form of marketing. In the case of the Stephanie Lenz video where her infant son dances to “Let’s Go Crazy”, Prince and Universal instead of issuing a take down notice to YouTube could have leveraged the video and its audience by placing an ad for a new Prince album or a link to a site with a discounted mp3 of the now 24 year old song . Lenz, who is being represented by the Electronic Freedom Frontier, may not win her countersuit against Universal, but her case has resulted in a potentially significant ruling dictating that copyright holders must take into account issues of fair use and market impact before issuing take down notices .
That the economic and legal power resides with the content industry, but the social and moral power is with the public is just one of the ironies that the Negativland case unveils. Another is the fact that, as mentioned, the recordings were eventually returned to Negativland implying a fluid subjective nature to ascribing copyright infringement. These recordings are now available for free from Negativland’s website with a reproduction of the original cover or for sale in the expanded form from iTunes, where they are encrypted by Apple’s FairPlay DRM which restricts their use and raise the possibility of breaking §1201 of the copyright law if someone were to crack their digital protection.
As an example of the appropriator becoming the appropriated, Negativland themselves were sampled in 1991 on Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch’s Music for the People, the album that made Mark Wahlberg a star
In a manner reminiscent of P-Orridge’s blurring of art and commerce, at the time of the lawsuit Negativland and U2 were engaged in similar critiques of mass media and used similar technologies to appropriate copyright protected materials. In describing the concept behind the U2 single Negativland member Don Joyce says "we did it for laughs and because tricksters and jesters are the last hope against corporate music bureaucracies, which have all but killed grassroots inspiration" . Using similar rhetoric Bono describes the inspiration behind their Zoo TV tour: "The media has rock and roll by the balls," Bono says, almost snarling. "They draw cartoons, and it's indelible ink. It's an attempt to reduce you, your humanity, your sense of humor. The only way to deal
DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN
BEFORE AND AFTER
EDWARD D'ANCONA
circa 1940's
ROY LICHTENSTEIN
Man With Coat 1961
It would seem that Lichtenstein was even less original than many of his existing detractors had thought.
Although Lichtenstein had been using comic book imagery in his paintings since 1957, he did not do large canvases reproducing single comic strip panels featuring speech balloons until he painted Look Mickey in the summer of 1961 - four months after he had, by his own admission, seen Warhol's canvases. Warhol had been painting single comic strip panels featuring speech balloons since 1960 - a year earlier than Lichtenstein. It is possible that Lichtenstein, as Warhol suspected, had seen Warhol's paintings at Bonwit Teller, although Lichtenstein never mentioned it in interviews. In any case, Lichtenstein admitted having seen Warhol's cartoon paintings prior to doing his own single panel comic strip paintings featuring speech balloons (Look Mickey).
www.warholstars.org/warhol1/11roylichtenstein.html
Edward D'Ancona was a prolific pin-up artist who produced hundreds of enjoyable images, almost nothing is known about his background. He sometimes signed his paintings with the name "D'Amarie", but his real name appears on numerous calendar prints published from the mid 1930s through the mid 1950s, and perhaps as late as 1960.
The first company to publish D'Ancona pin-ups, about 1935 to 1937, was Louis F. Dow in St Paul. D'Ancona worked in oil on canvas and his originals from that time usually measured about 30 x 22 inches. His early work is comparable in quality to that of the young Gil Elvgren, who had begun to work for Dow in 1937. Because D'Ancona produced so much work for Dow, one might assume that he was born in Minnesota and lived and worked in the St Paul, Minneapolis area. It is known that he supplied illustrations to the Goes Company in Cincinnati and to several soft-drink firms, which capitalized on his works similarity to the Sundblom/Elvgren style, which was so identified with Coca-Cola. During the 1940s and 1950s, D'Ancona's superb use of primary colors, masterful brushstrokes, and painterly style elevated him to the ranks of the very best artist in pin-up and glamour art. His subject matter at this time resembled Elvgren's. Both enjoyed painting nudes and both employed situation poses a great deal. D'Ancona also painted a fair amount of evening-gown scenes, as did Elvgren, Frahm, and Erbit.
By 1960, D'Ancona had moved into the calendar art field. Instead of doing pin-ups and glamour images, however, he specialized in pictures on the theme of safety in which wholesorne policemen helped children across the street in suburban settings that came straight out of Norrnan Rockwell.
Edward D'Ancona
Although D'Ancona was a prolific pin-up artist who produced hundreds of enjoyable images, relatively little is known about his background.
He sometimes signed his paintings with the name "D'Amarie", but his real name appears on numerous calendar prints published from the mid 1930s through the mid 1950s, and perhaps as late as 1960.
The first company to publish D'Ancona pin-ups, about 1935 to 1937, was Louis F. Dow in St Paul. D'Ancona worked in oil on canvas and his originals from that time usually measured about 30 x 22 inches. His early work is comparable in quality to that of the young Gil Elvgren, who had begun to work for Dow in 1937. Because D'Ancona produced so much work for Dow, one might assume that he was born in Minnesota and lived and worked in the St Paul, Minneapolis area. It is known that he supplied illustrations to the Goes Company in Cincinnati and to several soft-drink firms, which capitalized on his works similarity to the Sundblom/Elvgren style, which was so identified with Coca-Cola.
During the 1940s and 1950s, D'Ancona superb use of primary colours, masterful brushstrokes, and painterly style elevated him to the ranks of the very best artist in pin-up and pin-up art. His subject matter at this time resembled Elvgren's. Both enjoyed painting nudes and both employed situation poses a great deal. D'Ancona also painted a fair amount of evening-gown scenes, as did Elvgren, Art Frahm and Erbit.
By 1960, D'Ancona had moved into the calendar art field. Instead of doing pin-ups and glamour images, however, he specialized in pictures on the theme of safety in which wholesome policemen helped children across the street in suburban settings that came straight out of Norman Rockwell.
Edward D'Ancona biography borrowed from The Great American Pin-up by Charles G. Martignette & Louis K. Meisel.
DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN
BEFORE AND AFTER
EDWARD D'ANCONA
Limbering Up
circa 1940's
ROY LICHTENSTEIN
Man Exercising 1961
It would seem that Lichtenstein was even less original than many of his existing detractors had thought.
Although Lichtenstein had been using comic book imagery in his paintings since 1957, he did not do large canvases reproducing single comic strip panels featuring speech balloons until he painted Look Mickey in the summer of 1961 - four months after he had, by his own admission, seen Warhol's canvases. Warhol had been painting single comic strip panels featuring speech balloons since 1960 - a year earlier than Lichtenstein. It is possible that Lichtenstein, as Warhol suspected, had seen Warhol's paintings at Bonwit Teller, although Lichtenstein never mentioned it in interviews. In any case, Lichtenstein admitted having seen Warhol's cartoon paintings prior to doing his own single panel comic strip paintings featuring speech balloons (Look Mickey).
www.warholstars.org/warhol1/11roylichtenstein.html
ARLEN SCHUMER
These comparisons are absolutely ridiculous; SO WHAT if RL was inspired by those 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 that argument?!?!?
Darryl Alexander Moore
I LOVE Lichtenstein! As an art teacher, I just finished doing art assignments based on his works just last week.
Arlen Schumer
Darryl--invite me come to your class and do a Lichtenstein lecture! www.arlenschumer.com/visualectures
Mike Hall
I've never researched the matter enough to understand the Lichtenstein hatred. Yes, he appropriated some some comic book images...which he then re-purposed (with alterations!) into commentaries on an entire STYLE of pop art. What exactly is wrong with that? It's not much different than mixed media art which uses photos and found objects to say something entirely different than what was originally said by the photos and found objects!
Arlen Schumer
OY VEY, Mike, just scroll thru my own wall for past threads re: RL that expose the absolute virulence with which they hate RL; in fact, here's one of my own recent ri postes to their deadly combination of ignorance (they're still stuck in '65, with the same tired criticisms of tracing/stealing that you & i both thought were left behind) and arrogance (because they're comic book art fans, they think they know what they're talking about): "For the umpteenth time, if all you (and most other "comic fans" like you too, Fester?) think RL did was simply trace a comic book panel (and Mort, I'm surprised that you, an accomplished pro, would know there are worlds of difference between simply tracing an image vs. creating an entirely new work based on that reference, be it photo or illo), wake up and smell 2012--it ain't 1963 anymore, when middlebrow art critics said the same thing you're still harping on! RL proved them and you all wrong with the depth and breadth of his work over the years. If you invalidate RL, you invalidate ALL of Pop Art, not to mention the arts of sampling, appropriation and found art. Good luck with all that! Me, I will still be admiring RL's work as the great graphic designer he was, recontextualizing comic art and other commercial art into paintings that have stood the test of time--while your lame, stale canards and cavils are as dated and passe as they are pointless."
Mike Hall
It's ridiculous. Of course, these same people probably have NO IDEA how much fine art AND comic art rely on photo reference, or how widespread use of the camera obscura was in the arts before photography. As for RL, it takes a trained eye maybe 3 seconds to see the differences between what RL did and the panels he borrowed from; the differences are almost immediately apparent, and his intent is pretty clear.
Arlen Schumer
So then, Mike, explain why SO many professional (comic) artists--who, like I indicated in my previous post, SHOULD KNOW BETTER--are STILL wallowing in their own arrogant ignorance re: RL?
Mike Hall
Like I said, I have no idea. Lack of formal art education/reading on the subject? Hyper-sensitivity to the concept of sampling and how it can/should be used in art? Parroting sentiments expressed by others? It's a mystery to me. :)
Arlen Schumer
All of the above!
Coby L Cyr
wow...those two images look SO much alike! (sarcasm intended) He turned the idea into a beautiful piece. I do this a lot in my art work...I guess I'm a unimaginative wannabe illustrator also...wait...I do many more pieces that are original also, but I guess people will get stuck on reference pieces *sigh*
Arlen Schumer
Eggs Ackley, Coby!
Rick Stromoski
And James Frey was an excellent author!
Arlen Schumer
care to elaborate, rick? :) the 2 are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!
Arlen Schumer
Mike Hall, Rick Stromoski is EXACTLY the artist we've been discussing! :)
Rick Stromoski
And Shepard Fairey is an amazingly original poster artist!
Arlen Schumer
stick to the subject, rick! or CAN you?
Rick Stromoski
Sorry I prefer to wallow in my arrogant ignorance
Arlen Schumer
if the shoe fits, rick, wear it!
David Edward Martin
Lichenstein is a plagiarist. Period.
If he had acknowledged the artists whose works he copied, it would not have been so bad.
If he had given those artists a share of the millions he made copying their work, it would have been great.
But in the end, he was just a plagiarist and a fraud.
Coby L Cyr
Hmmm, actually, if this following link is correct....that is pretty bad. I was commenting on the images posted in the original link here. This link I found IS pretty extreme and far beyond "referencing" =/ You have to agree a little bit on this Arlen...
davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
Robert Pincombe
We've come far enough in this discussion for me to say only that the particular works for which Lichtenstein is most renowned are his least artistic works with little context from him and no imagination. Forget arguing plagiarism. All artists take from the world and arts around them. So I won't worry about the whole, who's panel is in this painting and just say, his brilliance was in selling his least interesting works as his greatest. Christ, the whole Lichtenstein debates of the last thirty years are the true artistic achievement. Just as Andy Warhol was his own greatest creation, so too is Lichtenstein himself his greatest piece of work.
Coby L Cyr
And that's why I come here...to get some education and insight into others views. Love it
Pete Harrison
Roy transformed clip art into something to be hung on a wall. Given the decade, it worked and was original & refreshing; the use of benday dots on canvas was pretty clever. HOWEVER, I do appreciate David's research that lets us all know the artist that originally did the artwork.
Arlen Schumer shared a link.
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...See More
Deconstructing roy lichtenstein - before and after
DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN BEFORE AND AFTER EDWARD D'ANCONA Limbering Up circa 1940's ROY LICHTENSTEIN Man Exercising 1961 It would seem that Lichtenstein was even less original than many of his existing detractors had thought. Although Lichtenstein had been using comic book imagery in hi...
Mark Staff Brandl and 6 others like this.
Mike Hall
I've never researched the matter enough to understand the Lichtenstein hatred. Yes, he appropriated some some comic book images...which he then re-purposed (with alterations!) into commentaries on an entire STYLE of pop art. What exactly is wrong with that? It's not much different than mixed media art which uses photos and found objects to say something entirely different than what was originally said by the photos and found objects!
Arlen Schumer OY VEY, Mike, just scroll thru my own wall for past threads re: RL that expose the absolute virulence with which they hate RL; in fact, here's one of my own recent ripostes to their deadly combination of ignorance (they're still stuck in '65, with the same tired criticisms of tracing/stealing that you & i both thought were left behind) and arrogance (because they're comic book art fans, they think they know what they're talking about): "For the umpteenth time, if all you (and most other "comic fans" like you too, Fester?) think RL did was simply trace a comic book panel (and Mort, I'm surprised that you, an accomplished pro, would know there are worlds of difference between simply tracing an image vs. creating an entirely new work based on that reference, be it photo or illo), wake up and smell 2012--it ain't 1963 anymore, when middlebrow art critics said the same thing you're still harping on! RL proved them and you all wrong with the depth and breadth of his work over the years. If you invalidate RL, you invalidate ALL of Pop Art, not to mention the arts of sampling, appropriation and found art. Good luck with all that! Me, I will still be admiring RL's work as the great graphic designer he was, recontextualizing comic art and other commercial art into paintings that have stood the test of time--while your lame, stale canards and cavils are as dated and passe as they are pointless."
Mike Hall
It's ridiculous. Of course, these same people probably have NO IDEA how much fine art AND comic art rely on photo reference, or how widespread use of the camera obscura was in the arts before photography. As for RL, it takes a trained eye maybe 3 seconds to see the differences between what RL did and the panels he borrowed from; the differences are almost immediately apparent, and his intent is pretty clear.
Shelly Crowley
Good Morning Arlen you wicked Man! :)
Arlen Schumer
Sorry you're so "hurt," Rick--when 1. I started this friggin' thread; 2. I started out being GENERAL in my criticisms of RL haters; and 3. you joined the thread voluntarily and posted your predictable RL attacks--so what, i don't have the "right" to spar with you verbally (especially someone I've known over the years and spent many dinners together with)? And then you complain that you're being "personally insulted"? Jeez, Rick, how thin IS your skin?
Arlen Schumer
Can't take the "heat" of debate, then don't come in the kitchen, rick!
Arlen Schumer
Hey shelly--you've come right in the middle of some anti-sensitivity counseling! :)
Shelly Crowley I
see that .....Still Love you my Witty Friend!
Arlen Schumer
Wow, rick, for someone who works in "funny" comics, you certainly have NO sense of humor! What the hell do I have to do, put a smiley-face icon after phrases like "turn in your artist badge" and "Captain Facetious"?!?!? And every other quote of mine you've pulled to justify your "hurt" feelings? Grown the eff up, man!
Arlen Schumer
Shelly--at least SOMEONE gets my "wittiness"!!! Where have you been all my life?
Arlen Schumer
And Rick, calling your argument "facetious" is a "personal attack" in your eyes? wow...rick, I called your ARGUMENT facetious, not YOU! Man, you're something!
Shelly Crowley
Hiding in a tiny cabin deep in a forest ...Snicker*
Steve Elworth
Are people going to start attacking Andy Warhol next? RL attacks have gone from arracking him from taking comics too seriously to ripping off these great artists pf comics? Enough!!!
Rick Stromoski
And Rick, calling your argument "facetious" is a "personal attack" in your eyes?
Not so much a personal attack ...more like dismissive. If you;re going to declare something facetious you need to explain why. Otherwise it's arguing by fiat/
Arlen Schumer
Now I ned to explain to you what the word facetious means in regards to how & why I used it? Well, gee, Rick, you attempted to "dismiss" RL's work by choosing a Mondrian and then creating an exact duplicate of it, only with the colors slightly changed; the dictionary def of "facetious" is: "treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant." Sorry, but if you couldn't figure that out for yourself, that's your problem--it's not my "job" to explain every step of a debate/discussion/argument to you--it's YOUR job to figure that out.
Fester Faceplant
I'm going to copy all of Bruce Springsteen's songs , just re-record them slightly, and call them my own. I'll make millions of dollars and people will call me brilliant and an artist!
Arlen Schumer
Fester, do I need to explain" facetious" to you as well?
Fester Faceplant
Of course not, Arlen. My vocabulary is quite impeccable. My point is that by your own standards of what "art" is, anyone can copy anything else and call it their own. The truth is that RL never had an original thought in his brain...he was a hack who and a thief.Nothing anyone can say will ever be able to justify his blatant rip-offs.
Arlen Schumer
Fester, guess you (and Rick) didn't really read my opening thread post: "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?!?!?"
Fester Faceplant
I read it. In fact I read it yesterday. RL may have been an "artist"....but he was certainly a thief.
Arlen Schumer
And therefore so was Duchamp, who created the idea of "found art" and called them "ready mades," because CONTEXT is everything, which you & Rick et al still don't grasp. And you invalidate Andy Warhol's entire body of work, and jeez, he's only considered the most influential artist of the 2nd half of the 20th century (after Picasso being the 1st half's). And you invalidate the entire genres of sampling and artistic appropriation. Other than that, Fester, how's the air down there under the sand? Give Rick Stromoski my best!
David Chelsea Fester's idea doesn't sound that different from bob dylan's self portrait or linda ronstadt's what's new, or Joe jackson's jumping jive. Lichtenstein was a cover artist.
Sean Moylan
Arlen, in general, many people either do not understand or do not accept the basic concepts behind Pop Art. The more you try to explain it to them the more confused or annoyed they'll become. Sometimes, you have to pick your battles and just let people like what they like.
Arlen Schumer
Eggs Ackly, Sean! My problem is, I never initiate these defenses of RL; as you can see from this opening thread, my gander gets up when I read OTHERS' attempted dismissals of RL, and I just can't resist doling out some artistic reprimands! :)
Rick Stromoski
Perhaps if I type slowly you'll understand my point Arlen...
I do know the definition of facetious.
What I was asking you was for you to to explain how my comparing RL's direct lifting of existing imagery, altering it and then calling it his own is any different than what I demonstrated with the Mondrian. Just declaring such a comparison as "facetious" and leaving it at that isn't an argument that bolsters you opinion in any way. Those who think RL is a thief and plagerist at least give reasons why we think so.
Rick Stromoski
And you invalidate Andy Warhol's entire body of work, and jeez, he's only considered the most influential artist of the 2nd half of the 20th century
There's a huge difference between Duchamp and Warhols work with found objects and RL's out right lifting of other artists imagery.
Rick Stromoski
Fester's idea doesn't sound that different from bob dylan's self portrait or linda ronstadt's what's new, or Joe jackson's jumping jive. Lichtenstein was a cover artist.
The difference being that these artist paid royalties to the original creators of those works. RL couldn't be bothered with that.
Rick Stromoski
Arlen, in general, many people either do not understand or do not accept the basic concepts behind Pop Art.
Bullshit...one can appreciate pop art without appreciating RL. Talk about sweeping generalities
Arlen Schumer
Jeez, Rick, you gonna give me a chance to respond to your first post in this last bunch? The facts are, i did NOT just declare your Mondrian straw man "facetious" (or do I have to explain "straw man" to you too?) and "leave it at that"; I went ON to say: "why don't you actually examine David Barsalou's great "Deconstructing RL" site--which (inadvertabntly?) makes a case for RL as a totally legitimate artist of recontextualization (i.e., "Pop Art")--and see how much RL, like the great graphic designer he was, altered/changed/redrew/rescaled/reinterpreted his well of commercial imagery (i.e., makes "art" out of it), versus your reductive, reactionary dismissal of "...he just lifted existing work and barely altered it in any way." To which, of course, YOU did ZNZOT respond to--instead you gave me YOUR "facetious" retort: "There are an infinite number of ways one can describe or "interpret" the excrement that descends out the south end of a steer....but no matter how you pretty it up, it's still bullshit."
Arlen Schumer
And lastly, Rick, I love how you qualify your RL dismissals with wishy-washy phrases like, "...he just lifted existing work and barely altered it in any way." The vague adjective "barely" goes unexplained. To you and your fellow ostriches, all RL does is trace comic panels "directly" (another one of your fallacies) and "blow them up and paint them in oils." To which, AGAIN I answered without a proper, non-facetious response, "If you think that RL's paintings are DIRECT copies of their source reference as your facetious Mondrian/RL comparison, then you have either, a. not really looked at Barsalou's before/after comparisons, or b. have your anti-RL blinders on. Either way, turn in your artist badge, rick!" I stand by that response, and your lack of one as well.
Arlen Schumer OK, not "lastly"--because I really love this whopper of yours: "...one can appreciate pop art without appreciating RL." I would really love for you to take the time to "appreciate" another Pop Artist--why not start with the greatest, warhol?--and watch how you dig your ostrich hole deeper, as every "appreciation" of Warhol will be de facto appreciations of RL too, as if you can just insert RL's name every time you use Warhol's. Good luck!
Rick Stromoski
So if I actually "painted the lines I borrowed from Mondrians work, made them a tad thinner let's say and THEN flipped it and changed the colors, THEN it would be genius and historically cutting edge?
If anything the link bolsters mine and other RL critics argument that he was an unoriginal plagiarist.
this quote is quite telling from your article you linked to
SO WHAT if RL was inspired by those 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 that argument?!?!?
Inconsequential pieces of commercial ( found) art by inconsequential artists like Jack Kirby, Harvey Kurtzman, Joe Kubert, Gil Kane, Milton Caniff, John Romita, Bud Sagendorf and William Overgard?
Fuck off
Arlen Schumer
"Fuck off," Rick? You've resorted/reduced to swearing now? Ooh, am I supposed to now run away in tears with the same "personal attack" whining of yours that you attempted to do when i dared to declare your Mondrian straw man "facetious"? The fact that I wasn't even referring to those great comic artists--who are STILL great, as is RL himself, despite appropriating their, indeed, naive "commercial" art (thought of as such in those great artists' own opinions, btw)--in my opening thread post exposes you as not only ignoring each and every one of my specfic responses, but your pithy "fuck off," in print, to a friend in real life, makes you just a crybaby whose ego can't stand losing an argument.
David Chelsea
I'm with Arlen here, and I'll try not to swear. One doesn't have to say Bobby Freeman was a hack to say Bette Midler was an artist, or vice-versa. And it's not a moral issue. FW Murnau's Nosferatu blatantly ripped off Bram Stoker's Dracula, (without paying royalties) but film historians definitely consider Murnau an artist.
David Edward Martin Gheez, is this still going on?
Film historians consider Murnau both an artists AND someone who ripped off Stoker. Art critics/historians need to show similar honesty and admit both Lichenstein and Warhol ripped off other's works while they are praising these people.
Rick Stromoski You've resorted/reduced to swearing now?
I've said fuck off the the sentiment that the works of those artists were incosequential, which goes to the heart of RL's work...that comic artists are to be mocked ...now who's being sensitive?
I've said fuck off the the sentiment that the works of those artists were incosequential, which goes to the heart of RL's work...that comic artists are to be mocked ...now who's being sensitive?
And I don't concede that I've "lost" any arument...in such discussions there aren't any clear" winners"
You think that RL's work is brilliant. You side with gallery owners and the synchphantic art community that RL was a major pop artist... which is your perogative
I side with a very large group of people who make their living at creating art that feels RL was a plageristic hack in the vein of Shepard Fairey and Rob Granito, who stumbled upon a career that encompassed ripping off other people's work at the same time demeaning what they do.
Mike Peterson I think Barnum did a great job of recontextualizing General Tom Thumb, Chang and Eng and the Feejee Mermaid. He was a true artist ... of the bunco variety.
Arlen Schumer
Rick, you wrote, "I've said fuck off the the sentiment that the works of those artists were inconsequential..." even tho I've already pointed out that you didn't even read my opening thread post which indicates I was talking about the anonymous (at the time) commercial artist whose work i felt bore zero relation to RL's. So your overheated "fuck off" was misplaced to begin with. But please, Rick, don't let the facts get in the way of your emotions!
Arlen Schumer And then you go on to justify your "fuck off" with this: "...which goes to the heart of RL's work...that comic artists are to be mocked." Well, only by you and your fellow ostriches. The rest of us with our heads above ground in the real world of comics AND art don't see it your absurdo reducto way. The dictionary definition (on my Apple desktop) of Pop Art is "art based on modern popular culture and the mass media, esp. as a critical or ironic comment on traditional fine art values." If you can read THAT as RL "mocking" the works of Abruzzo/Kubert/Romita/Novick et al, and not making "critical or ironic comment" on the original usage and "meaning" of those works--i.e., recontextualizing --i.e., Pop Art itself: making fine art out of commercial art--then Rick, as some comedian once said, you can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think!
Andrew Farago
My biggest issue with Lichtenstein comes up in your initial post, which talks about his comic book reference as "found art." Drawing inspiration from other artists is fine; lifting their compositions, dialogue, and palettes and just treating their works as raw materials for your own paintings just doesn't sit right with me. It's not Lichtenstein's fault that his work caught on, and I give him credit for moving on to other variations on the pop art/ben-day thing, but it will always stick in my crawl that artists like Russ Heath whose compositions have sold for literally millions of dollars are living on fixed incomes and probably never got so much as a postcard from Lichtenstein.
Arlen Schumer
Andrew, I also heard the bridges that Monet painted fell into disrepair and were torn down, while Monet's paintings of them made millions. And the western landscapes that Ansel Adams "stole" for his photographs don't get a fraction of the money for their upkeep that Adams' estate still makes off his photos. And let's see, what other totally "facetious" comparison can i make because a series should be three exampless? Oh, yeah, Warhol's Cambell soup paintings actually have made more money over time than the Campbells' company itself has made in its entire history, and Campbells is suing the Warhol Foundation for reparations!
Arlen Schumer
And as to the question of whether or not RL was morally/ethically/legally obligated to pay those comic artists fees to artistically appropriate their works, like recording artists have to pay for their samplings, has nothing and everything to do with said works' critical merits as Pop Art, i.e. commercial art transformed into fine art, which was the point of my opening thread in the first place, that has been reduced to the same tired, passe canards and cavils hurled by "artists" who can't tell the difference, it seems, between a literal tracing and the graphic-designed transformation going on in each and every Lichtenstein. i guess they don't actually visit David Barsalou's Deconstructing Lichtenstein site!
Arlen Schumer
And Rick, try directing your misplaced "fuck off" anger not at Lichtenstein (or me), but at the comic book companies themselves for not taking better financial care of their own, who sweated blood and tears for them. Why don't you write an open letter to DC and Marvel, for example, and tell them THEY should "fuck off" for not taking care of guys like Russ Heath that Andrew mentioned, since it obviously upsets you so much? I DARE YOU, Mr. Tough Guy!
Norman Felchle
Here's a link a friend of mine put up. I think it sheds a little light on both sides of this argument. Though.....I still come down more on Rick's side (I know Arlen....you had hopes for me...)
15 hours ago · Like
Norman Felchle superitch.com/?p=36
Super I.T.C.H » Blog Archive » Mort Pop Art Productions
superitch.com
Mort Walker, of Beetle Bailey fame, just sent me this photo of a YOUNG Pop Artis...See More
Arlen Schumer
And lastly, Rick (i hope!), you said that I "...side with gallery owners and the synchphantic (sic) art community that RL was a major pop artist." Calling me a sycophant? I guess only someone who doesn't know me on a personal level, who's never spent time with me on numerous social occassions over the years would call me that, or say "fuck off" to in print. I guess I must have you confused with a different rick stromoski!
Andrew Farago
Do bridges or soup cans have to worry about medical expenses or not having a 401(k) to fall back on in their old age? That's not really a direct comparison. Lichtenstein was a struggling artist who made good (and that's an understatement), and I've never read anything indicating that he gave a second thought to the artists who supplied him with the "found objects" that made his fortune. (Mort Walker's story about Lichtenstein meeting strip cartoonists is all well and good, but those weren't the guys whose works he'd copied, so they didn't have much reason to be upset.)
Norman Felchle
Personally, the Mort Walker story makes me wince. Lichtenstein may have been a genial guy and likeable....but how much can be excused by "he's just making a living, like us" I think it's interesting he didn't defend his work using any of Arlen's arguments. Was he being disingenuous here...or later? I'm tempted to believe this story. He may have been clever enough to find/sell a deeper concept behind the work....and it may have even become true in time. But he was just a guy like other guys. He had strong points...and weaknesses.
Andrew Farago
M.C. Hammer sold hundreds of thousands of records in the early 1990s on the strength of sampling Rick James's song Superfreak, but he didn't give him proper credit, got sued, and lost millions of dollars in the process. The Verve used an obscure symphonic version of The Rolling Stones' Sympathy for the Devil in their massive hit Bittersweet Symphony, but they didn't give proper credit, got sued, and basically lost all their earnings for that album. I guess the fact that publishers didn't see this as copyright infringement and didn't pursue any claims against Lichtenstein puts him legally in the clear, and the artists whose works he referenced didn't go after him either...but I can't get over the fact that he, an artist himself, didn't treat the comic books he copied as anything other than found objects. Cutting checks to Russ Heath, William Overgard, John Romita, et al. would've gone a long way toward getting rid of the animosity that cartoonists have toward him and his work today.
Norman Felchle
Yeah...artists have to trade in what we've got. Our ideas and our work. When someone takes it , it hurts. It feels like cheating. It smacks of dishonesty. I feel the same way when I see James Cameron take Roger Dean's work and make a bazillion dollars with Avatar. I hope he quietly gave him a little something ....but, I doubt it.
Norman Felchle
I'll also admit we all look at other artists and get inspired....or maybe even cross the line into swiping. It's not like Lichtenstein was a lone villian in a world of pure creative souls.....but still, fair's fair.....isn't it?
David Chelsea
We live in a more litigious age than Lichtenstein did. If Lichtenstein tried to build a career today from reworked comics panels he'd be hearing from Russ Heath or Jack Kirby's lawyers, if Shepard Fairey's experience is any guide.
Norman Felchle
David....I'm afraid he'd have been hearing from Marvel/Disney's lawyers. I doubt Kirby would've seen a thing from it.
Arlen Schumer
Hey Rick (and Robert P, if you weren't joking)--if you think you're above me...b'low me!
Arlen Schumer
And Rick, try directing your misplaced "fuck off" anger not at Lichtenstein (or me), but at the comic book companies themselves for not taking better financial care of their own, who sweated blood and tears for them. Why don't you write an open letter to DC and Marvel, for example, and tell them THEY should "fuck off" for not taking care of guys like Russ Heath that Andrew mentioned, since it obviously upsets you so much? I DARE YOU, Mr. Tough Guy!
Arlen Schumer
Rick Stromoski=Paper Tiger!
Pete Harrison
Roy transformed clip art into something to be hung on a wall. Given the decade, it worked and was original & refreshing; the use of benday dots on canvas was pretty clever. HOWEVER, I do appreciate David's research that lets us all know the artist that originally did the artwork.
Bitt Faulk
Arlen: Pop art was about using pop culture iconography in high art. There is seldom anything iconographic about the images that RL stole (with some notable exceptions). They are quite clearly incompetent reproductions. Had RL decided that the iconographic element of comics was the outline/contour-line style, the flat shading, the word balloons, and the technical printing artifacts like halftoning, he could have made some really interesting "ART", putting those elements in the context of high art. Reproducing classic art pieces in that style, for example, while not exactly a mind-boggling premise, would have shown us that he at least had the idea that there were *ideas* worth exploring. As it is, though, all he did was reproduce existing images while often destroying many of the iconographic details that are supposed to be the hallmark of pop art, like mutilating the calligraphy to the point where it's no longer recognizable as comics lettering, removing differences in line thickness, etc.
A smug tedium reigns as Lichtenstein moves in at the Tate Modern and the artefacts of Pompeii and Herculaneum receive yet another airing at the British Museum. But at least George Bellows' arrival at the Royal Academy is something to salute.
A meanness of spirit made manifest by an intellectually benumbed public, quick to delight their under-developed palates for reasons they cannot articulate, has become the enemy of art.
- Jason Holmes 18/04/2013
I love my baby! He's so handsome. :o)
BULLIE LOVERS! Sign up for my newsletter - it's Bull Terrier specfic and full fo awesome Bull Terrier stuff and tips and I think you will really enjoy it.
bull-terrier.news.packlove.com/
(Also, I can't say I'm digging this new Flickr layout. :-/ )
I have a few other photos from today's hike I will post, but first. Does this remind you of any specfic cartoon character. It might give it away if I said who did the cartoon. Let me know.
Crested saguaro cactus in South Mountain Park. Today I went for a hike in South Mountain Park. This is the first crested saguaro I have seen in this park.
More for your BoS. These drawings and the accompanying text www.flickr.com/photos/30591976@N05/5550195877/in/photostr... and www.flickr.com/photos/30591976@N05/5550778288/in/photostr... are taken from The Natural History of Teesmouth - A Simple Introduction and was published by the Cleveland Naturalist;s Field Club and The Teesmouth Bird Club in 1966. While dealing specfically with Teesmouth in North East England, the species are found elsewhere in Britain and at similar latitudes across the globe.
The alveolar walls are moderately expanded by a non-specific chronic inflammatory cell infiltrate. There is no fibroblastic proliferation. The appearance of the abnormality is uniform throughout the specimen and thus the term 'temporal uniformity" is applicable.
A male frosted flatwoods salamander activerly searches for females among a patch of pipeworts and beaksedges growing in the basin of an ephemeral pond. Flatwoods salamanders depend a very specfic assemblage of sun-loving plants for egg laying and larval development. These plant assemblages are rapidly disappearing from breeding ponds due to unnatural prescriped fire regimes that favor burning under the cool wet conditions of winter and early spring. This is resulting in dramatic shifts in the ecological condition of the ephemeral dome swamps that dot the mesic longleaf pine landscape.
Who doesn't like a delicious gold twinkie with a white creamy filling? This portector does. Armed with a twinkie cream blaster, cream canister and cream blade. Hes ready to portect the yummy bundles of obesity!
First entry for Junie's Contest. Yup first i plan on making a second one with the theme of hard candy. Jolly ranchers in specfic. Good luck to everyone!
CONTEMPORARY ART AND THE ART OF PREHISTORY.
by Lucy Lippard.
New York (NY/USA), Pantheon Books, 1983. 6th printing.
3oo pp/289 printed, offset. 8 x 9-3/16, perfectbound wrappers.
booklength essay copiously illustrated with Lippard's photographs (an 8pp colour section includes Mary Beth Edelson, Dennis Oppenheim, Charles Simonds, Michelle Stuart, Judy Varga, all photographing their own works, among others). Lippard cites lotsa earthworks & site-specfic installations as in a class with the "primitive" (as exampled by Nazca, Stonehenge, various mounds, mazes, artefacts & ley line activities). artists include: Carl Andre, Alice Aycock, Louise Bourgeois, Emily Carr, Maryanne Carruthers-Akin, Judy Chicago, Houston Conwill, Jayme Curley, Michael Dames, Betsy Damon, Jeanne-Claude De Guillebon, Walter De Maria, Michele Oka Doner, Mary Fish, Richard Fleischer, Terry Fox, Michael Heizer, Donna Henes, G.Henley, Nancy Holt, Patrick Ireland, Gillian Jagger, Christo Javacheff, Patricia Johanson, Frida Kahlo, Leandro Katz, Frederick Kiesler, Robin Lasser, Sol LeWitt, Ana Mendieta, Robert Morris, Claire O'Kelly, James Pierce, Jody Pinto, Keiko Prince, Lynn Randolph, Charles Ross, Alan Saret, Carolee Schneemann, Sylvia Scott, Robert Smithson, Athena Tacha, Tim Leura Tjapaltjara, Francesc Torres, Bill Vazan, Tim Whiten; photographers include Marsha Bailey, Iain Baxter, Ron Berlin, Marilyn Bridges, Peter Carmichael, Graham Challifour, Jay Crotty, Mary Beth Edelson, Su Friedrich, Gianfranco Gorgoni, \Valerie Heroovis, Jack Higbee, Susan Hiller, Chris Jennings, Buus Jensen, K.Kernberger, Cathy Kiddle, Richard Landry, John Latham, Iris Laudig, Margaret I.Lippard, Richard Long, Michael McCafferty, T.E.Moore, Cesar Paternosto, Nigel Rolfe, Anna Sofaer, Soichi Sunami, Wolfgang Volz, Alice Weston, B.Charles Wilson; lots more of both.
a bit worn...
25.oo
HIgh magnification view showing marked expansion of the alveolar wall. There is mild interstitial inflammation as well as fibroblastic proliferation and collagen deposition.
The alveolar walls are markedly expanded by a non-specific chronic inflammatory cell infiltrate as well as fibroblastic proliferation.
The alveolar walls are expanded by a non-specific chronic inflammatory cell infiltrate. There is no fibroblastic proliferation.
2019 Weekly Alphabet Challenge, Week 43, Q for Quiet
Today's the day Woensdrecht, Hoogerheide, Putte, Ossendrecht and Bergen op Zoom commemorate the liberation of their villages and town from the Nazi occupiers by the Allies, specfically the Canadians, now 75 years ago. There were many events, including a parade of WWII military vehicles, but I chose a quiet moment later to capture the village's war monument and the wreaths. In the distance a Sherman tank such as was used during the liberation
"I establish boundaries which determine both what is collected and where it is collected from. Accumulating and assembling single-coloured objects, I consider the psychological influence of colour, its effect and sensory impact upon the viewer.”
Chroma is the culmination of Manchester artist Liz West’s interests and ideas over a five-year period.This new body of work, site-specific to BLANKSPACE, explores the themes of colour theory, collecting and the exploration of real and illusory space.
West’s playful and magical works, each of which she builds by hand, consist of unexpected and carefully arranged combinations of materials. Systems of ordering, classification and coding are applied in the development and generation of West’s work. She invokes the monumental, whilst utilising commonplace objects that are found and collected from the world around her
I took a drive out to West Chicago today in hopes of seeing UP 1995. I saw it rounding the corner, and as I turned on my camera, it quickly turned off. I traveled there to specficly shoot it under CNW Signals, which didnt happen. West Chicago, IL
Canton, Madison County, Mississippi:
Most Confederate monuments, and Union monuments too, only refer to groups of soldiers, such as those from a certain company or a particular town or county. This monument specfically honors local African Americans who fought for the Confederate States of America with the Harvey Scouts (cavalry), in defense of their Southern homeland. Specifically mentioned is Willis Howcott, a local black man who gave his life in fighting against the federal troops who invaded the Southern states.
An estimated 60,000 or more African American men, both free and slave, were Confederate soldiers - a fact which is often overlooked by history books because it contradicts the politically correct northern view of the War for Southern Independence.
www.37thtexas.org/html/Memoriam2.html
Also, check out my CONFEDERATE DIGEST blog: www.ConfederateDigest.blogspot.com
Name:Methanol
Also as Methylol
Methanol is a colorless alcohol, hygroscopic and completely miscible with
water, but much lighter (specific gravity 0.8). It is a good solvent, but very
toxic and extremely flammable. This simple single carbon alcohol is a volatile
solvent and a light fuel.
CAS NO.:67-56-1
MOL WT.: CH3OH 32.042
Specifications
Purity WT% 99.85 MIN
PM Test - 50 MIN
Specfic Gravity 20/20∩ 0.7920~0.7930
Color APHA 5 MAX
Distil Range ∩ 64.5~65.5
Non-Volatile Contest Х/100Б 5 MAX
Odor - PASS
Water WT ppm 1000 MAX
Acidity & Alkanity WT ppm 30 MAX
Acetone WT ppm 30 MAX
Hydro Carbon - PASS
Cl WT ppm 0.1 MAX
Boiling Point ∩ 64.5
Freezing Point ∩ 97.8
Flash Point ∩ 16 (OPEN TYPE)
12 (CLOSED TYPE)
Explosion Point wt % 36.5
Lgnition Point ∩ 470
Package:
Iron drum or tank
Storage:
Tanks for methanol are made of carbon steel. Outdoor storage is
preferred, with the following safety precautions: keep away from ignition
sources and excessive heat; wear goggles; rubber gloves; chemical cartridge
respirator; aprons and boots.
Usage:
Formaldehyde production is the largest market for methanol, followed by the
fast growing market for MTBE. It is also used to produce acetic acid, fuels,
solvents and methyle derivatives.
During the summer 2011, a weeklong outing to record the Sunset Route (specfically the Lordsburg line) in southeastern Arizona was indeed productive.
One morning, I set out to photograph the original (eastbound) main through the former station of Chamiso, AZ. Before departing my vehicle, asked the property owner who was returning home in his pickup (toting a long rifle mounted high on his rear windshield) if I could have his consent to hike. He affirmed my request if I dared to assume the potential risks. Immediately after conquering the intended vista something out of place caught the eye. I spotted these Federales Americano (thank God they were Dept. Homeland Security) before they spotted this photographer. The public servant on the left took about two minutes to hike up to my staked position and made contact with me. Our exchange was short and cordial. He later mentioned that they were tracking a group of migrants led by a guide and that they had good intel that they were within five miles of our vicinity
Moral of the story is two truths. First, ask the proprietor for consent before passing. And lastly, don’t take for granted the safety and rule-of-law (specifically our uniquely American rights) that exists in the land of the free.
"I establish boundaries which determine both what is collected and where it is collected from. Accumulating and assembling single-coloured objects, I consider the psychological influence of colour, its effect and sensory impact upon the viewer.”
Chroma is the culmination of Manchester artist Liz West’s interests and ideas over a five-year period.This new body of work, site-specific to BLANKSPACE, explores the themes of colour theory, collecting and the exploration of real and illusory space.
West’s playful and magical works, each of which she builds by hand, consist of unexpected and carefully arranged combinations of materials. Systems of ordering, classification and coding are applied in the development and generation of West’s work. She invokes the monumental, whilst utilising commonplace objects that are found and collected from the world around her
This is from almost three years ago. I did a photo shoot with Juliette and the two young children she was caring for. You have to love the little girl's rosie red cheeks.
The little girl's brother has special needs and Juliette took care of both during the weekdays. What I loved about this shoot is just watching Juliette interacting with the children.
Juliette is finishing up her masters degree at ASU in a field related to child development (do not remember specfically).
As many of you know, i am using the Texas Components TX2575 Bulk Z-Foil resistor for a long time
in important circuit positions, especially as I/V resistor.
Recently i stumbled over a short recommendation from Thorsten Loesch.
Originally Posted by ThorstenL:
Hi,
I would second Rohpoint, Neohm less. Rohpoint are truely excellent. For my first TDA1541 Non-OS DAC (in 98) I handmade bifilar wound Non-inductive 25 Ohm resistors.
In susequent builds I compared to Rohpoint (which I have used extensively and found no reason to handwind resistors.
In my commercial designs we use a specfic type of SMD resistors after auditioning tons.
Some SMD resistors are really bad, some are so-so and some are most excellent, though no patch for a Rohpoint Squaristor GR102.
Ciao T
Because i know Thorsten as a man who had the perfect sound in mind,
i ordered one pair 30R to try them in my Tube-I-zator.
Please note: ROHS compliant parts are now green and the second letter in the part number is 'G'.
The Copper Basin Railway in south eastern Arizona at the Hayden unloader. The railway runs between 4 & 6 return trains between the mine at Ray and the unloader at Hayden. They run to a specfic timetable. Seen here is 505 an ex-Kennecott Copper Co (original owners of the mine) - a 2300hp EMD GP 39 built in 1978. This is the 0945 loaded trip from Ray.
"I establish boundaries which determine both what is collected and where it is collected from. Accumulating and assembling single-coloured objects, I consider the psychological influence of colour, its effect and sensory impact upon the viewer.”
Chroma is the culmination of Manchester artist Liz West’s interests and ideas over a five-year period.This new body of work, site-specific to BLANKSPACE, explores the themes of colour theory, collecting and the exploration of real and illusory space.
West’s playful and magical works, each of which she builds by hand, consist of unexpected and carefully arranged combinations of materials. Systems of ordering, classification and coding are applied in the development and generation of West’s work. She invokes the monumental, whilst utilising commonplace objects that are found and collected from the world around her
"I establish boundaries which determine both what is collected and where it is collected from. Accumulating and assembling single-coloured objects, I consider the psychological influence of colour, its effect and sensory impact upon the viewer.”
Chroma is the culmination of Manchester artist Liz West’s interests and ideas over a five-year period.This new body of work, site-specific to BLANKSPACE, explores the themes of colour theory, collecting and the exploration of real and illusory space.
West’s playful and magical works, each of which she builds by hand, consist of unexpected and carefully arranged combinations of materials. Systems of ordering, classification and coding are applied in the development and generation of West’s work. She invokes the monumental, whilst utilising commonplace objects that are found and collected from the world around her
When I saw this Citroën 2CV on a side street in Montclair, New Jersey, I walked down to the nearest drugstore and bought a disposable camera - I didn't have the one I was using at the time - specfically to photograph it! You simply don't see these in America anymore. And, considering the awful sales of French cars in America (you can't buy a French car here anymore), you probably never did.
Conceived as a French people's car in the 1930s, the project went underground during World War II when the Germans occupied France. After the war, it debuted at the 1948 Paris salon, where its weird appearance drew chuckles from the press. But it became respected for offering cheap, reliable transportation. Called the 2CV (for deux chevaux vapeur, literally "two steam horses" from its tax horspower rating - mind you, the engine had far more nontaxable horsepower!), it became a contemporary of the Volkswagen Beetle and served as a symbol of France - much like Marianne. :-D It remained in production until 1990.
This 2CV is a 1965 model, hence it had a 425cc flat-twin engine, coupled with a four-speed manual transmision. Only a few thousand 2CVs were sold in the United States.
"I establish boundaries which determine both what is collected and where it is collected from. Accumulating and assembling single-coloured objects, I consider the psychological influence of colour, its effect and sensory impact upon the viewer.”
Chroma is the culmination of Manchester artist Liz West’s interests and ideas over a five-year period.This new body of work, site-specific to BLANKSPACE, explores the themes of colour theory, collecting and the exploration of real and illusory space.
West’s playful and magical works, each of which she builds by hand, consist of unexpected and carefully arranged combinations of materials. Systems of ordering, classification and coding are applied in the development and generation of West’s work. She invokes the monumental, whilst utilising commonplace objects that are found and collected from the world around her
www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/09/12/1121599445/s...
So you haven't caught COVID yet. Does that mean you're a superdodger?
Back in the early 1990s, Nathaniel Landau was a young virologist just starting his career in HIV research. But he and his colleagues were already on the verge of a landmark breakthrough. Several labs around the world were hot on his team's tail.
By this point in the pandemic, most Americans have had at least one bout of COVID. For children under age 18, more than 80% of them have been infected, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates.
But just as with HIV, some people have been exposed multiple times but never had symptoms and never tested positive.
"We've heard countless anecdotes about nurses and health-care workers being exposed without any protection and remaining negative over and over again," says pediatrician Jean-Laurent Casanova, who studies the genetics of viral resistance at Rockefeller University. "Or people share a household with someone who's been coughing for a couple of weeks, and one person stays negative."
So why haven't these people caught COVID?
After two years of hunting, a team at the University of California, San Francisco has come pretty close to answering the question.
"These findings are like hot off the presses," says immunogeneticist Jill Hollenbach, who led this research. "We haven't published them yet. It's all stuff that's been happening this summer."
Hollenbach and her team have found a genetic mutation that doesn't prevent the virus from infecting cells – that's what Landau was searching for in his HIV research – but still does something remarkable: It prevents a person from having COVID symptoms.
Turns out, stopping an infection altogether is an extremely tough nut for our bodies to crack.
What does it take to be a true superdodger?
Over the course of human history, scientists have identified only two instances of true virus superdodgers. That is, where a specific mutation in their genes makes people completely resistant to a virus. So that it slides off their cells, "like water sliding off a glass window," as Casanova puts it..
In 2003, a team in London showed how some people never get a stomach bug, called norovirus, which causes vomiting and diarrhea. The researchers found that one mutation in their genes prevents them from making a molecule the virus needs to infect the cell.
(In 1995, researchers in France figured out why some people appeared to never be infected with a species of malaria known as Plasmodium vivax. However, over the past decade, further studies have clarified that these superdodgers actually do become infected with the parasite; they simply don't show symptoms.)
The best-known superdodgers in human history
By far, the most famous virus superdodgers are people protected against HIV — the ones Landau and his colleagues were studying back in the early 1990s.
In 1996, his team was getting really close to solving that puzzle. One morning they found a huge clue. The night before, they had set up an experiment to test which molecules HIV needed to infect a human cell. The experiment garnered spectacular results.
It showed that HIV didn't enter cells the way scientists had believed. Instead it needed a little bit of extra help. Specifically, HIV needs a specific molecule, called CCR5, on the surface of the cell to "open the door" and let the virus enter, Landau says. Without CCR5, the virus only sticks to the cell's surface but can't enter. "It's kind of like the virus is knocking at the door, but nobody's opening the door. The door is locked," he says.
"That was what we call a eureka moment," Landau says. "That was the moment where we could say, 'We found something that had never been seen before.' "
Landau and his colleagues rushed to the computer and wrote up the findings as quickly as possible. Then he literally ran to the FedEx store to submit the paper to the journal Nature, knowing that other teams were likely to have the same finding soon.
"In those days you couldn't just submit your paper through your computer," he says. "You had to mail a hard copy of it to the journal. And my job was to sprint over to the FedEx store so we could get the paper mailed on time."
Then only a few short weeks later, Landau and his colleagues made another huge discovery, and in the process solved the final piece of the HIV puzzle. "We were quite amazed that it all happened so quickly," Landau says.
In collaboration with a research group down the hall, Landau and his colleagues sequenced the CCR5 gene in two people completely resistant to HIV. Lo and behold! Both people had the same mutation in the gene – and it's a powerful mutation. It completely cripples the molecule so that it doesn't appear on the cells' surface, the group reported in the journal Cell. Remember, without CCR5, HIV can't infect the cell.
"You can put as many virus particles as you want onto those cells, and they will not get infected," he says. "So in the case of resistance to HIV, the story was very clear."
The finding completely shifted the field of HIV. It led to the first – and only – way to cure a person of HIV and suggested a new route, using gene editing with CRISPR. But it did something else: It showed scientists that one mutation could make a person completely resistant to an infection. One mutation in their genes could make them a true superdodger.
Trying to find out if there really are COVID superdodgers
"So when SARS-CoV-2 came along, of course, many labs looked to see if the same might be true for this virus," Landau says. And inspired by the story of CCR5, they went looking for mutations in the genes required for SARS-CoV-2 to enter and infect cells.
For COVID superdodgers, the situation appears to be more complex than for people resistant to HIV, Landau says, because the way SARS-CoV-2 infects cells is different from that of HIV.
Instead of using CCR5 to "open the cell's door," SARS-CoV-2 uses the ACE2 receptor. People can't live without ACE2. "The receptor regulates your blood pressure," Landau explains. So, unlike CCR5, you can't simply knock out the ACE2 receptor, he says. "You're not going to have many people walking around that don't have ACE2.
"Of course, there may be more subtle mutations in ACE2 which could play a role in resistance to SARS-CoV-2," he adds. "But there doesn't seem to be an obvious and dramatic mutation as is the case for HIV."
But perhaps what's more likely, he says, is that people have mutations in genes other than ACE2, and these mutations probably don't protect them from getting infected per se but do protect them from getting sick.
Maybe there are ... mini-dodgers?
So having one of these mutations would make you a sort of COVID mini-dodger, if you will. There are other ways to resist an infection besides denying the virus entrance into the cell, Landau explains. And they likely involve your body's immune system.
That's exactly what the team at UCSF has found.
Since the pandemic begin, Jill Hollenbach and her colleagues at UCSF have been studying people who test positive COVID but show no symptoms. "Not even a sniffle or a scratchy throat," she says. "So they are entirely asymptomatic."
After analyzing DNA from more than 1,400 people, they identified a mutation that helps a person clear out a SARS-CoV-2 so fast that their body doesn't have a chance to develop symptoms.
The mutation occurs in a gene called HLA, which is critical during the earliest stages of infection. Hollenbach and her colleagues found that having a particular mutation in that gene increases a person's chance of being asymptomatic by almost 10 times. They reported those preliminary findings online last September.
Since then, they've gone on to show how this mutation works. And it has to do with your immune system preparing for SARS-CoV-2 before the pandemic even began back in 2019.
When a virus first enters cells, HLA signals to the immune system that cells are invaded and need help. That signal triggers a cascade of events that ultimately leads your body to make potent weapons specifically designed to fight SARS-CoV-2. These weapons include antibodies and T cells that uniquely recognize pieces of this virus. Once these targeted weapons are available, your immune system has a much easier time clearing up the infection. But these weapons take time to manufacture. And that delay allows the infection to spread and symptoms to develop.
But what if, for some lucky reason, your immune system already had weapons specifically targeted to SARS-CoV-2?
This summer, Hollenbach and her colleagues demonstrated that, with a specific mutation in HLA, some people have T cells that are already pre-programmed to recognize and fight off SARS-CoV-2. So there's no delay in generating COVID-specfic weaponry. It's already there.
"Your immune response and these T cells fire up much more quickly [than in a person without the HLA mutation]," Hollenbach says. "So for lack of a better term, you basically nuke the infection before you even start to have symptoms."
But here's the kicker. For the HLA mutation to work (and for you to have these pre-armed T cells), you first had to have been infected with another coronavirus.
"Most of us have been exposed to some common cold coronavirus at some point in life," she explains. And we all generate T cells to fight off these colds. But if you also have this mutation in your HLA, Hollenbach says, then just by mere luck, these T cells you make can also fight off SARS-CoV-2.
"It's definitely luck," she says. "But, you know, this mutation is quite common. We estimate that maybe 1 in 10 people have it. And in people who are asymptomatic, that rises to 1 in 5."
Seeking possible superdodgers who'll spit into a cup
While Hollenbach and her team continue to look for more mini-dodger genes, Casanova over at Rockefeller University and his colleagues are still trying to determine if there are true superdodger genes. And he's looking for participants right now for his study.
"You fill out a questionnaire online about your exposures to SARS-CoV-2," he says. And then if you meet the criteria of a superdodger, the team sends you a testing kit. Basically you spit in a cup and mail it back to Casanova and his collaborators.
"We'll extract your DNA and sequence your genome," he explains. "We hope that in a group of 2,000 to 4,000 people, some people will have genetic mutations that tell us why they're resistant to infection."
And perhaps, like with HIV, that finding will one day shift the field of COVID research and lead to a vaccine that does what everyone wishes our current vaccines would do: turn everyone into a COVID superdodger.
www.wired.com/story/the-mystery-of-why-some-people-dont-g...
The Mystery of Why Some People Don’t Get Covid
A small number of people appear naturally immune to the coronavirus. Scientists think they might hold the key to helping protect us all.
We all know a “Covid virgin,” or “Novid,” someone who has defied all logic in dodging the coronavirus. But beyond judicious caution, sheer luck, or a lack of friends, could the secret to these people’s immunity be found nestled in their genes? And could it hold the key to fighting the virus?
My Boyfriend and I went to see an exhibit of Keith Haring's artwork, specfically the Ten Commandments pices that he created.
"I establish boundaries which determine both what is collected and where it is collected from. Accumulating and assembling single-coloured objects, I consider the psychological influence of colour, its effect and sensory impact upon the viewer.”
Chroma is the culmination of Manchester artist Liz West’s interests and ideas over a five-year period.This new body of work, site-specific to BLANKSPACE, explores the themes of colour theory, collecting and the exploration of real and illusory space.
West’s playful and magical works, each of which she builds by hand, consist of unexpected and carefully arranged combinations of materials. Systems of ordering, classification and coding are applied in the development and generation of West’s work. She invokes the monumental, whilst utilising commonplace objects that are found and collected from the world around her