If "Such criticism, others counter, misses the point that Lichtenstein himself aimed for flat artificiality." is going to be in the article in needs to be changed to "Such criticism, Gamaliel counters, misses the point that Lichtenstein himself aimed for flat artificiality." Since that is really what is being said-- 198.93.113.49 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Expand tag justification: Article does not sufficiently describe the life and work of Lichtenstein. Good enough? Gamaliel 16:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that it is incorrect that Lichtenstein abandonded comic panels in the 60's. Go to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm click on the Lichtenein search engine and go to 1989 for examples.-- 198.93.113.49 17:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Lichtenstein has been typecast as "the comic-strip artist," but in fact comic strips take up only an early phase of his work. By 1965 he had stopped basing images on them. He was never to refer to comics again, except now and then by including a parody of one of his own earlier paintings in a parody of an elegant interior -- ah, well, I'm a classic too now, feels funny but that's art- life."
I don't really see the need to insert a quote just to say that he stopped in 1965. I've tweaked the working a bit, hopefully that will be satisfactory. Gamaliel 17:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's imposible to tell what the "this" in the quote is refering to. The quote is meaningless without the context since we do on know what point is suposedly being missed. Please include the rest of the quote. Otherwise, I will have to delete it.-- 198.93.113.49 17:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Mere workers at the coal-face, the artists who laboured away on the comic books that Mr Lichtenstein copied, did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him. Whatever the justice of their complaints, in fact Mr Lichtenstein did them a sort of favour. Comic books these days are often taken seriously, the subject of theses (or a sign of growing illiteracy). But this is to miss the point of Roy Lichtenstein's achievement. His was the idea. The art of today, he told an interviewer, is all around us. It is not Impressionist painting. "It's really McDonald's." Of course, you don't have to believe everything he said." Gamaliel 17:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hope no-one minds, added a bunch of information, still learning the wiki editor so the "notable works" needs to be put in a table as soon as I figure out how. I have a few ideas for more information to add which I'll hopefully do in the coming weeks. -- John-Nash 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Added table (thanks to dreamweaver :) ) and removed list, still looks a bit clunky though -- John-Nash 15:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Added a few links and removed an fairly odd exisitng one, included citations for quotes from publications with linls to the articles.
Added links to galleries, which link to the actual pictures at the relevant museums website.
I wonder how/if we can add a picture of the artist from somewhere?
Standarised some of the conventions and located the current location of the paintings mentioned in the text. Few other changes, I removed the link to the comparison site as it appears consistently down. -- John-Nash 20:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the links from Tate Gallery to Tate Modern, as this is where Lichtenstein's works are on display in London. I know it's technically the gallery, but it doesn't hurt to be a bit more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.79.169 ( talk • contribs)
The quote that User:Gamaliel insist on providing only a fragment of makes no sense without the context. The quote begins with a pronounm "this" for goodness sakes. You can't expect anyone to know what "this" refers to without the context. Gamaliel has a personal vendetta against me and is simply reverting my edit out of spite. There is no reason not to include the full quote. It is an excelent quote that has a lot of valuable things to say about Lichtenstein. On the other hand the fragment adds nothing to the article at all since a reader cannot possublly undrstand it without the context.
Hello gentlemen! It's been a while since anyone but me used this talk page, it seems. Namely 11 months and three weeks, or so.
I would like to state my disappointment by the massive amount of external links available in this article, namely the ones linking to his works. It feels out of place in an encyclopedia. As thus, if noone objects, I'll make some more "normal" lists of his works and will instead link to the galleries containing the pictures in the external links - there aren't too many of them - in the External links section.
Objections, anyone? Jobjörn ( Talk | contribs) 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody say who put a US$2.5million Lichtenstein purchase on his credit card? Trekphiler 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Just read the article, nastily vandalised
At the bottom of the Early Years Section: (quote)"everybody say he stinks!!1
all he cares is about himself.
joy libchicken is such a wimp he stinks like poo and we all hate it because he stinks every where he goes. he sayed that he doesn't even know how to say CHICKEN!. well; he is a CHICKEN!"
This is the part! I think it must be in HTML or some other code not visible from the edit text page (it doesn't show up there..)
What are considered reasonable citations? I think I have some websites that can be used. I have seen the External Links page, but what about citations? El redactor
Thanks much, can i read up on this more somewhere? El redactor
In Early Years: In 1951 he had his first one-man exhibition at a gallery in New York. In Rise to Fame: ...and he had his first one man show at the gallery in 1962. Which is true? Little tinyfish 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the citation number fall before the period, within the sentence? Little tinyfish 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
27.10.1923-29.9.1997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.233.9 ( talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That Tokyo digital museum link does not offer much of anything compared to the online gallery it was replaced by. Can you honestly say that the Tokyo museum link provides better content related to the article than the museum syndicate website? Is one painting better than over 70? What is your justification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what was so "bogus" about the Whaam! comparison image. It's the original comic book image and the Lichtenstein side by side, placed next to the text discussing the matter of the original sources of his works. I feel it adds usefully to the discussion, so I'm reinstating the comparison image. I should also note that the image in and of itself is being objected to by another editor at its talk page, so perhaps this discussion is best carried out there rather than here. ObsessiveMathsFreak ( talk) 15:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In other words you don't care that you deleted the image that was already there around 6 times already, you don't care that the Lichtenstein foundation appears to object to the premise the image proposes and you don't care about consensus or anyone else's opinion, you will do what you feel like... Modernist ( talk) 20:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly necessary to get consensus in a confrontational situation like this. Edit-warring will lead to blocks. I don't have any problem with the comic image being included. In fact, I consider it highly desirable that it is, so the reader can be informed about Lichtenstein's source material and use of it. However, I agree with Modernist that the current display of the two jammed together is inappropriate and gives too much prominence to the comic. The widely known image is Lichtenstein's and the reader should be able to see that in isolation for what it is. A smaller separate image of the comic, perhaps on the right of the page with some text in between would work well. I don't see this as in any way demeaning to Lichtenstein, and, if it is, that's not a valid reason for omitting it, as it is factual and referenced. The comic image will need to be uploaded separately. I suggest also a less flippant approach to the fair use statements. Ty 01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I agree with Modernist that a separate article is a reasonable consideration for a place where such comparisons can be made. I don't think a source exists that uses language that relies on such imagistic comparisons. That is for the reason that the imagistic similarities are a given. There is nothing remarkable about the superficial imagistic similarities in this instance, any more than it is found to be remarkable that there are superficial imagistic similarities between some of Warhol's paintings and sculptures and commercial entities found on supermarket shelves and in warehouses. It is a given that there is somewhat careful copying. This isn't something that has to be proven. No source is going to dwell on the striking similarities between that which is presented as a work of art and that from which it is derived because that is so obvious as to not warrant comment. What is called for to justify inclusion of the comic book image in the Lichtenstein article is some real point to be made by invoking the comic book images. Just plunking the comic book image down in the Lichtenstein article without substantial verbal justification merely serves to, in my opinion, imply the exposure of something scandalous. There really isn't any. Everyone knows the artwork is based on common commercial sources. In my personal opinion there is nothing to be gained by placing the comic book image in the Lichtenstein article, and in fact doing so creates its own nonverbal message that is a message that is un-sourced. Again, that message has to do with the exposing of the dirty truth behind these paintings, that they are entirely derivative of someone else's efforts. But I don't think that message is sourced. And I don't think that message is consistent with the message of the more general artistic climate that this artwork comes from. In my opinion, the challenge these artists faced was to present the quotidian as the extaordinary. It is a given that the quotidian is quotidian. That doesn't have to be proven. Bus stop ( talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I think having the source image in the article greatly benefits my understanding of Lichtenstein. I specifically appreciated the juxtaposition image; I'm new to his work and understanding just how much he appropriates gives me insight into what he's trying to do. The arguments against including the source image and the juxtaposition image seem to be based on the assumption that any Wikipedia reader would readily understand that Lichtenstein's works are heavily influenced by single specific sources. Or, at least, that there would be no possible educational reason to display the images because some people may react to it negatively. If you believe appropriation to be no big deal, then why block the source/juxtaposition images from the article? Anyone with an eye can see he shapes his version to augment his intentions.
MMBKG (
talk)
19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on WP:NFCC considerations, this article should continue to have no more than four FU images of his art. When there were only articles about three of his works (prior to May 9, 2012), having two about the same painting seemed appropriate. Now that more than 30 of his works have articles on WP, I think we should now reconsider which four images represent Lichtenstein's career. I don't think any work should be the subject of more than two of the images.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this car a sculpture/painting or just a car in terms of WP:NFCC?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
My limited knowledge of the topic means any contribution I make can only be to advise you on whether the images pass NFCC, why they are deficient and what might be done for them to be retained. I neither know the topic nor the sources that might help you justify the use of such non-free images. Commentary about the genre of the images may well be all that is necessary but you do need to support it with WP:RS and modify the rationales to reflect accurately the "purpose". Good luck. ww2censor ( talk) 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Should we include the original comics artwork in these articles. In responding to the above thread, I moved the original artwork for Whaam! from Roy Lichtenstein to the page for the work. Should I get a FU image of each original source if possible?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have two suggestions for the improvement of this article. The first is to add a link to the website below that displays Lichtenstein's work beside earlier published comic book panels that have the same layout and content, while also listing their artists. This would allow readers to understand more easily the plagiarism controversy around Roy Lichtenstein and his art, which is very relevant for his biographical page. The second suggestion is when discussing his technique, to have a little more than links to the Ben-Day dot Wikipedia page. Ben-Day dots are a mechanical process used in production for printing color images using a minimal color palette, most often times found in comic books, magazines, and newspapers. So Roy Lichtenstein just took this pre-existing mechanical technique and increased the dot size to make his stylized pictures. I think this addition would help readers understand what influenced him and how he made his artwork, as well as the main contribution Roy Lichtenstein brought to the art world by introducing Ben-Day dots in a large scale to Pop Art and the mass public.
The article is DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN, which would be useful for those ignorant of the topic to see the artwork side by side and form their own judgement on the controversial matter. David Barsalou ( NYPOP) has been going through comic books for 32 years to do a comparative analysis of them with Roy Lichtenstein's works. This article Deconstructing Lichtenstein: Source Comics Revealed and Credited - ComicsAlliance has further information if you would like to know more, as well as quotes from David Barsalou and others. -- Sarahild ( talk) 00:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Having just seen a BBC documentary on Lichtenstein, I am curious as to how he avoided being sued for copyright infringement for his 'appropriation' of existing art works. Of course, his paintings based on comic strips or advertisements were not identical to the originals, but they were close enough that 'copying' could hardly be denied. Indeed, according to the BBC documentary, he started his paintings by projecting the original in large scale onto his canvas, then tracing round it. So how did he get away with it? I am not an expert on US copyright law, and I have not found any clear answer from Google. One possibly relevant point I did find was that in 1965 the British 'Op' artist Bridget Riley visited the US and was appalled to see the widespread use of her work in commercial design. She reportedly tried suing but was not successful, but it has been claimed that the law was subsequently changed as a result of her complaints (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/nov/27/bridget-riley-national-gallery-review ). If this is true, it might help explain both how Roy Lichtenstein avoided being sued, and why he stopped using comic book images in the late 60s! But I have not found any confirmation that the law was in fact changed in any relevant way at this time. I can only guess that the rather loose US doctrine of 'fair use' saved him 109.158.46.125 ( talk) 13:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous bid for attention by someone selling an album...We don't add every affair every artist has or had or every muse, how absurd is this nonsense becoming?.. Modernist ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
What if we discard the last sentence with the quote.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have now had some time to run through a lot of the secondary sources. Wexler does not claim to have "sat" for the nudes. My mediocre understanding of Spanish from El Mundo is that she was his girlfriend and always running around nude. Going back to April 2012, Evening Standard and August 2012, Female First there are secondary sources presenting her claim as a muse. In early Feb 2013, Female First again presented Wexler as the muse. A few weeks later both the Evening Standard ( Feb 2013) and Daily Mail ( Feb 2013) presented her as his muse. The Daily Mail presentation makes a very strong link. The BBC also presents her as his muse ( [1]). Wikipedia must admit this content, even though no books make this link.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In the mean time, Nudes with Beach Ball seems like it should include the Daily Mail ( Feb 2013) content on this matter. What do you guys think about mentioning this stuff in individual works articles?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but fwiw, I do know there is a major retrospective exhibit currently at the Tate Modern: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/lichtenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.106.176 ( talk) 19:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm just a casual internet surfer, so I don't really know how to fix it myself. Just a heads up if anyone can help out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.189.126 ( talk) 08:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Roy Lichtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Roy Lichtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
If "Such criticism, others counter, misses the point that Lichtenstein himself aimed for flat artificiality." is going to be in the article in needs to be changed to "Such criticism, Gamaliel counters, misses the point that Lichtenstein himself aimed for flat artificiality." Since that is really what is being said-- 198.93.113.49 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Expand tag justification: Article does not sufficiently describe the life and work of Lichtenstein. Good enough? Gamaliel 16:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that it is incorrect that Lichtenstein abandonded comic panels in the 60's. Go to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm click on the Lichtenein search engine and go to 1989 for examples.-- 198.93.113.49 17:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Lichtenstein has been typecast as "the comic-strip artist," but in fact comic strips take up only an early phase of his work. By 1965 he had stopped basing images on them. He was never to refer to comics again, except now and then by including a parody of one of his own earlier paintings in a parody of an elegant interior -- ah, well, I'm a classic too now, feels funny but that's art- life."
I don't really see the need to insert a quote just to say that he stopped in 1965. I've tweaked the working a bit, hopefully that will be satisfactory. Gamaliel 17:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's imposible to tell what the "this" in the quote is refering to. The quote is meaningless without the context since we do on know what point is suposedly being missed. Please include the rest of the quote. Otherwise, I will have to delete it.-- 198.93.113.49 17:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Mere workers at the coal-face, the artists who laboured away on the comic books that Mr Lichtenstein copied, did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him. Whatever the justice of their complaints, in fact Mr Lichtenstein did them a sort of favour. Comic books these days are often taken seriously, the subject of theses (or a sign of growing illiteracy). But this is to miss the point of Roy Lichtenstein's achievement. His was the idea. The art of today, he told an interviewer, is all around us. It is not Impressionist painting. "It's really McDonald's." Of course, you don't have to believe everything he said." Gamaliel 17:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hope no-one minds, added a bunch of information, still learning the wiki editor so the "notable works" needs to be put in a table as soon as I figure out how. I have a few ideas for more information to add which I'll hopefully do in the coming weeks. -- John-Nash 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Added table (thanks to dreamweaver :) ) and removed list, still looks a bit clunky though -- John-Nash 15:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Added a few links and removed an fairly odd exisitng one, included citations for quotes from publications with linls to the articles.
Added links to galleries, which link to the actual pictures at the relevant museums website.
I wonder how/if we can add a picture of the artist from somewhere?
Standarised some of the conventions and located the current location of the paintings mentioned in the text. Few other changes, I removed the link to the comparison site as it appears consistently down. -- John-Nash 20:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the links from Tate Gallery to Tate Modern, as this is where Lichtenstein's works are on display in London. I know it's technically the gallery, but it doesn't hurt to be a bit more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.79.169 ( talk • contribs)
The quote that User:Gamaliel insist on providing only a fragment of makes no sense without the context. The quote begins with a pronounm "this" for goodness sakes. You can't expect anyone to know what "this" refers to without the context. Gamaliel has a personal vendetta against me and is simply reverting my edit out of spite. There is no reason not to include the full quote. It is an excelent quote that has a lot of valuable things to say about Lichtenstein. On the other hand the fragment adds nothing to the article at all since a reader cannot possublly undrstand it without the context.
Hello gentlemen! It's been a while since anyone but me used this talk page, it seems. Namely 11 months and three weeks, or so.
I would like to state my disappointment by the massive amount of external links available in this article, namely the ones linking to his works. It feels out of place in an encyclopedia. As thus, if noone objects, I'll make some more "normal" lists of his works and will instead link to the galleries containing the pictures in the external links - there aren't too many of them - in the External links section.
Objections, anyone? Jobjörn ( Talk | contribs) 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody say who put a US$2.5million Lichtenstein purchase on his credit card? Trekphiler 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Just read the article, nastily vandalised
At the bottom of the Early Years Section: (quote)"everybody say he stinks!!1
all he cares is about himself.
joy libchicken is such a wimp he stinks like poo and we all hate it because he stinks every where he goes. he sayed that he doesn't even know how to say CHICKEN!. well; he is a CHICKEN!"
This is the part! I think it must be in HTML or some other code not visible from the edit text page (it doesn't show up there..)
What are considered reasonable citations? I think I have some websites that can be used. I have seen the External Links page, but what about citations? El redactor
Thanks much, can i read up on this more somewhere? El redactor
In Early Years: In 1951 he had his first one-man exhibition at a gallery in New York. In Rise to Fame: ...and he had his first one man show at the gallery in 1962. Which is true? Little tinyfish 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the citation number fall before the period, within the sentence? Little tinyfish 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
27.10.1923-29.9.1997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.233.9 ( talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That Tokyo digital museum link does not offer much of anything compared to the online gallery it was replaced by. Can you honestly say that the Tokyo museum link provides better content related to the article than the museum syndicate website? Is one painting better than over 70? What is your justification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what was so "bogus" about the Whaam! comparison image. It's the original comic book image and the Lichtenstein side by side, placed next to the text discussing the matter of the original sources of his works. I feel it adds usefully to the discussion, so I'm reinstating the comparison image. I should also note that the image in and of itself is being objected to by another editor at its talk page, so perhaps this discussion is best carried out there rather than here. ObsessiveMathsFreak ( talk) 15:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
In other words you don't care that you deleted the image that was already there around 6 times already, you don't care that the Lichtenstein foundation appears to object to the premise the image proposes and you don't care about consensus or anyone else's opinion, you will do what you feel like... Modernist ( talk) 20:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly necessary to get consensus in a confrontational situation like this. Edit-warring will lead to blocks. I don't have any problem with the comic image being included. In fact, I consider it highly desirable that it is, so the reader can be informed about Lichtenstein's source material and use of it. However, I agree with Modernist that the current display of the two jammed together is inappropriate and gives too much prominence to the comic. The widely known image is Lichtenstein's and the reader should be able to see that in isolation for what it is. A smaller separate image of the comic, perhaps on the right of the page with some text in between would work well. I don't see this as in any way demeaning to Lichtenstein, and, if it is, that's not a valid reason for omitting it, as it is factual and referenced. The comic image will need to be uploaded separately. I suggest also a less flippant approach to the fair use statements. Ty 01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I agree with Modernist that a separate article is a reasonable consideration for a place where such comparisons can be made. I don't think a source exists that uses language that relies on such imagistic comparisons. That is for the reason that the imagistic similarities are a given. There is nothing remarkable about the superficial imagistic similarities in this instance, any more than it is found to be remarkable that there are superficial imagistic similarities between some of Warhol's paintings and sculptures and commercial entities found on supermarket shelves and in warehouses. It is a given that there is somewhat careful copying. This isn't something that has to be proven. No source is going to dwell on the striking similarities between that which is presented as a work of art and that from which it is derived because that is so obvious as to not warrant comment. What is called for to justify inclusion of the comic book image in the Lichtenstein article is some real point to be made by invoking the comic book images. Just plunking the comic book image down in the Lichtenstein article without substantial verbal justification merely serves to, in my opinion, imply the exposure of something scandalous. There really isn't any. Everyone knows the artwork is based on common commercial sources. In my personal opinion there is nothing to be gained by placing the comic book image in the Lichtenstein article, and in fact doing so creates its own nonverbal message that is a message that is un-sourced. Again, that message has to do with the exposing of the dirty truth behind these paintings, that they are entirely derivative of someone else's efforts. But I don't think that message is sourced. And I don't think that message is consistent with the message of the more general artistic climate that this artwork comes from. In my opinion, the challenge these artists faced was to present the quotidian as the extaordinary. It is a given that the quotidian is quotidian. That doesn't have to be proven. Bus stop ( talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I think having the source image in the article greatly benefits my understanding of Lichtenstein. I specifically appreciated the juxtaposition image; I'm new to his work and understanding just how much he appropriates gives me insight into what he's trying to do. The arguments against including the source image and the juxtaposition image seem to be based on the assumption that any Wikipedia reader would readily understand that Lichtenstein's works are heavily influenced by single specific sources. Or, at least, that there would be no possible educational reason to display the images because some people may react to it negatively. If you believe appropriation to be no big deal, then why block the source/juxtaposition images from the article? Anyone with an eye can see he shapes his version to augment his intentions.
MMBKG (
talk)
19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on WP:NFCC considerations, this article should continue to have no more than four FU images of his art. When there were only articles about three of his works (prior to May 9, 2012), having two about the same painting seemed appropriate. Now that more than 30 of his works have articles on WP, I think we should now reconsider which four images represent Lichtenstein's career. I don't think any work should be the subject of more than two of the images.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this car a sculpture/painting or just a car in terms of WP:NFCC?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
My limited knowledge of the topic means any contribution I make can only be to advise you on whether the images pass NFCC, why they are deficient and what might be done for them to be retained. I neither know the topic nor the sources that might help you justify the use of such non-free images. Commentary about the genre of the images may well be all that is necessary but you do need to support it with WP:RS and modify the rationales to reflect accurately the "purpose". Good luck. ww2censor ( talk) 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Should we include the original comics artwork in these articles. In responding to the above thread, I moved the original artwork for Whaam! from Roy Lichtenstein to the page for the work. Should I get a FU image of each original source if possible?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have two suggestions for the improvement of this article. The first is to add a link to the website below that displays Lichtenstein's work beside earlier published comic book panels that have the same layout and content, while also listing their artists. This would allow readers to understand more easily the plagiarism controversy around Roy Lichtenstein and his art, which is very relevant for his biographical page. The second suggestion is when discussing his technique, to have a little more than links to the Ben-Day dot Wikipedia page. Ben-Day dots are a mechanical process used in production for printing color images using a minimal color palette, most often times found in comic books, magazines, and newspapers. So Roy Lichtenstein just took this pre-existing mechanical technique and increased the dot size to make his stylized pictures. I think this addition would help readers understand what influenced him and how he made his artwork, as well as the main contribution Roy Lichtenstein brought to the art world by introducing Ben-Day dots in a large scale to Pop Art and the mass public.
The article is DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN, which would be useful for those ignorant of the topic to see the artwork side by side and form their own judgement on the controversial matter. David Barsalou ( NYPOP) has been going through comic books for 32 years to do a comparative analysis of them with Roy Lichtenstein's works. This article Deconstructing Lichtenstein: Source Comics Revealed and Credited - ComicsAlliance has further information if you would like to know more, as well as quotes from David Barsalou and others. -- Sarahild ( talk) 00:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Having just seen a BBC documentary on Lichtenstein, I am curious as to how he avoided being sued for copyright infringement for his 'appropriation' of existing art works. Of course, his paintings based on comic strips or advertisements were not identical to the originals, but they were close enough that 'copying' could hardly be denied. Indeed, according to the BBC documentary, he started his paintings by projecting the original in large scale onto his canvas, then tracing round it. So how did he get away with it? I am not an expert on US copyright law, and I have not found any clear answer from Google. One possibly relevant point I did find was that in 1965 the British 'Op' artist Bridget Riley visited the US and was appalled to see the widespread use of her work in commercial design. She reportedly tried suing but was not successful, but it has been claimed that the law was subsequently changed as a result of her complaints (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/nov/27/bridget-riley-national-gallery-review ). If this is true, it might help explain both how Roy Lichtenstein avoided being sued, and why he stopped using comic book images in the late 60s! But I have not found any confirmation that the law was in fact changed in any relevant way at this time. I can only guess that the rather loose US doctrine of 'fair use' saved him 109.158.46.125 ( talk) 13:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous bid for attention by someone selling an album...We don't add every affair every artist has or had or every muse, how absurd is this nonsense becoming?.. Modernist ( talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
What if we discard the last sentence with the quote.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have now had some time to run through a lot of the secondary sources. Wexler does not claim to have "sat" for the nudes. My mediocre understanding of Spanish from El Mundo is that she was his girlfriend and always running around nude. Going back to April 2012, Evening Standard and August 2012, Female First there are secondary sources presenting her claim as a muse. In early Feb 2013, Female First again presented Wexler as the muse. A few weeks later both the Evening Standard ( Feb 2013) and Daily Mail ( Feb 2013) presented her as his muse. The Daily Mail presentation makes a very strong link. The BBC also presents her as his muse ( [1]). Wikipedia must admit this content, even though no books make this link.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In the mean time, Nudes with Beach Ball seems like it should include the Daily Mail ( Feb 2013) content on this matter. What do you guys think about mentioning this stuff in individual works articles?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but fwiw, I do know there is a major retrospective exhibit currently at the Tate Modern: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/lichtenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.106.176 ( talk) 19:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm just a casual internet surfer, so I don't really know how to fix it myself. Just a heads up if anyone can help out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.189.126 ( talk) 08:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Roy Lichtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Roy Lichtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)