Painting 2 Post 7

So it's obviously time to talk about the elephant in the room: Lichtenstein.

Yes, Lichtenstein lifted ideas/images from comics of the time (Dick Tracy, Superman, "Romance Comics") and yes he made a few changes to them from the source material, but he didn't make NEW ones. This is my argument.

My work involves borrowing of styles from existing artists and situational premisis, but never tracing or copying any specific panel. And while my storylines are strongly researched, referential and (okay) maybe even derivative, they are wholly mine.

Lichtenstein brought to light the themes even the most mundane comics were discussing at the time: the glorification of war and the overly-feminization of the female character, and blew them up to a huge scale, and most importantly ISOLATED THEM. His works do not involve narrative continuity, only suggestion.

As much as anyone wanted (or wants, I suppose) to argue the legitimacy of his work as "fine art" he is solving his problems with one large picture and I am solving it with my words over a series of pictures. In that regard, he is much more of a traditional fine artist.

That being said, there are other illustrative fine artists. There are other cartoonist fine artists. There are other people who make screen prints and call it fine art. I am just somewhere in the sea of those with a mix of what I would hope is the more academic or conceptual points of Lichtenstein. Like him, I want to talk about themes in mass media as they reflect on global politics, but I also want to do it with a nod to the past that is both critical and respectful. I find his straight appropriation doesn't send a clear enough message of his position on that spectrum, where I hope mine does.

Leslie asked me if I had been "scarred by Peanuts." Maybe I have. Maybe we ALL have. But I still love it. And I think the best expression of that love is satire. The only question is: What happens when you satire a comedy about satire?