Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Inspiration from Artists Week 44 : Iosif Derecichel and Roy Lichtenstein.
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
OK, enough off-topic for one post (sorry Lucian)Sorry for what? I'm glad that people are replying! I understand why some of you don't like his works. Now that we're on the topic of Pop Art, I must confess that, for some reason, I'm not a fan of Andy Warhol's style. I can acknowledge his ingenuity, but it's just not something I find aesthetically pleasing. As for Lichtenstein, he could have done so much more had he lived longer. I've seen some new artists who adopted and improved his style, and created gorgeous paintings. I mentioned two of them on one of the previous pages of this thread.
Edited
by Lucian Hodoboc
Posted
Some interesting reactions to Lichtenstein. Overall I'm a fan of Pop Art, but my appreciation tends to revolve around individual paintings rather than by whole bodies of work by individual artists. Warhol's work does nothing for me, although I like some of his thoughts about art in general.
Some paintings have the WOW factor that impresses me, a few of Lichtenstein's do that. Another is James Rosenquist's F111...it's 86 feet long, if memory serves it was the artist's protest about the money the USA spends on weapons. I've never seen the original, only photos, I'd love to see it.
I like a lot of Peter Blake's quirky British pop art.
Quite often the pop art I like is done by relatively unknown artists, and it's till being made. But if you want to dip into pop art, Ray Lichtenstein is a good place to start.
Posted
I think the reason Lichtenstein’s work doesn’t appeal to me, even though I can appreciate the skill involved, is that it has such a commercial look to it - and as Sylvia has said, it often looks ‘copyist with no creativity of his own’. I wouldn’t hang any of it on my wall, whereas Andy Warhol’s colourful work has a real design element to it. Love this flower series of his. (Still, just as well we have different opinions, that’s what makes this thread so interesting!)
Edited
by Jenny Harris
Posted
There is an interesting Wikipedia article about the painting Whaam! . It’s currently in the Tate Modern:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaam!
I have always wondered about this painting ripping off the original comic strip and what Irv Novick, the original comic book artist must have felt. I really like the painting and in a way RL did highlight how brilliant some comic book art can be, in the same way Warhol makes you appreciate the art of every day items like Campbell soup cans.
I have always wondered about this painting ripping off the original comic strip and what Irv Novick, the original comic book artist must have felt. I really like the painting and in a way RL did highlight how brilliant some comic book art can be, in the same way Warhol makes you appreciate the art of every day items like Campbell soup cans. 
Posted
I remember, many many years ago walking around the Tate (pre Modern) or it might even have been in the National Gallery collection in those days, but basically turning a corner and seeing the ‘Whaam’ painting and just getting blown away (sorry about the pun). For the first time I really appreciated how good Lichtenstein’s work really was. I’d been quite indifferent until that moment.
Posted
You can subdivide artists in all sorts of ways, but one such division has appeared here - there are those who take the 'it'd be dull if we all thought the same' line; and others - some others - who take to a downright rejection of any work which doesn't, for whatever reason, appeal to them.
And then, there are those of us who veer somewhat between the two poles. I was reminded of this just the other day, by a prominent, and very good, American artist who would hear not a word in praise of Picasso: in fact, he positively objected to Picasso, as one who had set art off on destructive trail. I see his point, without agreeing with it.
Lichtenstein, like Warhol (though the two were very different) took established images and, as it were, played with them - took others' themes and made use of them. That doesn't make either of them (though I admit to disliking Warhol's work, on the whole) mere copyists, with all respect to Sylvia - whose point I also understand, but disagree with.
There's another point here - demanding originality in subject matter and treatment is all very well, and we'd all strive to achieve it: but after centuries of paintings by thousands of artists, is true originality even remotely possible? If not, maybe we should stop pretending that it is: there may be a million ways to paint a tree - but it's still a tree.
Sylvia has stronger opinions than many of us: it's the Yorkshire blood, long steeped in Welsh belligerence. She'd have made a good art critic - at least a lot better than the Guardian's current crop - the theme of art criticism has long been one of wholesale dismissal of some (see Ruskin on Whistler, or Jonathan Jones on Hambling) - and fulsome praise of others (see various, including J Jones before the sliver of doubt entered his soul, on Tracey Emin or Damien Hurst) - but it gives me wicked pleasure to argue with her because: with all due reverence, we DON'T all think the same, and some of us are more wary than the fierce Sylv might be of dogmatism. She's always interesting and has something to say, mind, or I would't bother to respond!
NB: Lancashire blood! Not Yorkshire.....
Edited
by Robert Jones, NAPA
Posted
Well nowt as queer as folk as we LANCASTRIANS would say with proud Welsh belligerence my adopted country.
Yes if I feel strongly about summat I say so. Hence my comment re plagiarism.
Are you suggesting a new career for me Robert... ? There is already one of my brood in the media business.
Seeing it's the season of goodwill to all men ,I forgive you .
Posted
Thank Gawd for that - I was fearing the arrival of a fire-breathing Welsh dragon, bearing the Lancaster rose on its flank. Apologies, Sylvia, but you will see that my comment did enshrine praise of a sort, as well as the merest hint-ette of criticism.
And yes, you'd make a fine art critic - giving no quarter (and occasionally being wrong......).
Posted
You are stepping on very thin ground once more Robert......taking your point about nothing new under the sun or words to that effect ,I agree. But if I paint an apple I don't look at another artists apple to describe it. It becomes my apple and my description of it. I don't take another's creation and make it my own.
Artists here may take a painting from some well known piece of work and usually they acknowledge the original piece.,and it's artist.
It isn't only the copying aspect of these works that I dislike it's the actual work itself ,trite and boring.
Edited
by Sylvia Evans