Jump to content

Drowning Girl: Difference between revisions

Coordinates: 40°45′41.34″N 73°58′39.59″W / 40.7614833°N 73.9776639°W / 40.7614833; -73.9776639
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ce
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 21: Line 21:
The painting shows a teary-eyed woman on a turbulent sea. She is obviously emotionally fraught, seemingly from a romance. She declares that she would rather sink in the ocean than call Brad. This is revealed through a [[speech balloon]] that provides the narrative element: "I Don't Care! I'd Rather Sink – – Than Call Brad For Help!" The narrative element highlights the cliched [[melodrama]], while its graphics reiterate Lichtenstein's theme of [[painterly]] work depicting mechanized reproduction. The work is derived from a 1962 [[DC Comics]] panel, while also borrowing from [[Hokusai]]'s ''[[The Great Wave off Kanagawa]]'' and from elements of modernists artists [[Jean Arp]] and [[Joan Miró]]. It is one of several Lichtenstein works that mentions a hero named Brad who is absent from the picture. Both the graphical and narrative elements of the work are significantly cropped from the original comic strip source image.
The painting shows a teary-eyed woman on a turbulent sea. She is obviously emotionally fraught, seemingly from a romance. She declares that she would rather sink in the ocean than call Brad. This is revealed through a [[speech balloon]] that provides the narrative element: "I Don't Care! I'd Rather Sink – – Than Call Brad For Help!" The narrative element highlights the cliched [[melodrama]], while its graphics reiterate Lichtenstein's theme of [[painterly]] work depicting mechanized reproduction. The work is derived from a 1962 [[DC Comics]] panel, while also borrowing from [[Hokusai]]'s ''[[The Great Wave off Kanagawa]]'' and from elements of modernists artists [[Jean Arp]] and [[Joan Miró]]. It is one of several Lichtenstein works that mentions a hero named Brad who is absent from the picture. Both the graphical and narrative elements of the work are significantly cropped from the original comic strip source image.


Contemporaneous critics were divided on whether Lichtenstein's comics-based work was art, but it has since become popular with collectors and is now more widely accepted.
Contemporaneous critics were divided on whether Lichtenstein's comics-based work was art since it since some contend that he merely duplicated extant original work. Ever since he began creating comic-based artwork, others have complained that Lichtenstein did not give credit or compensation to the comic book artists. However, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now more widely accepted.


==Background==
==Background==
Line 68: Line 68:
Although single-panel comic representations depict a moment in time, this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times.<ref name=PoR>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lFxCRvrm9zAC&pg=PA156&dq=%22Drowning+Girl%22+Lichtenstein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GQexUZKIOcqE0QHA5IDYDg&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22Drowning%20Girl%22%20Lichtenstein&f=false|title=Pictures of Romance: Form against Context in Painting and Literature|publisher=[[University Of Chicago Press]]|author=Steiner, Wendy|isbn=0226772292|date=1987|page=156}}</ref> This work also marks a phase in Lichtenstein's career, when many of his works were named with [[present participle|present-participial]] names such as ''[[Sleeping Girl]]'', ''[[Crying Girl]]'' and ''Blonde Waiting'', which accentuates the works' "relation to process and action."<ref name=PoR/> According to the ''The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art'' during this phase of Lichtenstein's career, "A constant if restrained and a gentle sense of humor contribute just as much to the cheerful lightness of Lichtenstein's work as the balanced, completely harmonious composition."<ref name=TGEoAA/>
Although single-panel comic representations depict a moment in time, this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times.<ref name=PoR>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lFxCRvrm9zAC&pg=PA156&dq=%22Drowning+Girl%22+Lichtenstein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GQexUZKIOcqE0QHA5IDYDg&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22Drowning%20Girl%22%20Lichtenstein&f=false|title=Pictures of Romance: Form against Context in Painting and Literature|publisher=[[University Of Chicago Press]]|author=Steiner, Wendy|isbn=0226772292|date=1987|page=156}}</ref> This work also marks a phase in Lichtenstein's career, when many of his works were named with [[present participle|present-participial]] names such as ''[[Sleeping Girl]]'', ''[[Crying Girl]]'' and ''Blonde Waiting'', which accentuates the works' "relation to process and action."<ref name=PoR/> According to the ''The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art'' during this phase of Lichtenstein's career, "A constant if restrained and a gentle sense of humor contribute just as much to the cheerful lightness of Lichtenstein's work as the balanced, completely harmonious composition."<ref name=TGEoAA/>


Lichtenstein once said of his technique: "I take a cliche and try to organize its forms to make it monumental."<ref name=PApRLda7>{{cite web|url=http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1997/Pop-Art-pioneer-Roy-Lichtenstein-dead-at-73/id-43b85ac8a5a6ab361d2adb164e6a10ce|title=Pop Art pioneer Roy Lichtenstein dead at 73|accessdate=2013-06-10|date=1997-09-29|agency=[[Associated Press]]|author=Monroe, Robert}}</ref> In 1963, [[Brian O'Doherty]] wrote his belief that Lichtenstein's work was not art in ''[[The New York Times]]'' saying, he was "one of the worst artists in America" who "briskly went about making a sow's ear out of a sow's ear."<ref name=PApRLda7/> This was part of a widespread debate about the merits of Lichtenstein's comic blow-ups as true art. In January 1964 ''[[Life (magazine)|Life]]'' ran a story under the title "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" on this controversy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm|title=Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?|accessdate=2013-06-10|date=1964-01-31|work=[[Life (magazine)|Life]]|publisher=LichtensteinFoundation.org}}</ref> Later reviews were much kinder and [[Todd Brewster]] noted that this may have been motivated by popular demand saying in ''Life'' in 1986 that "Those cartoon blowups may have disturbed the critics, but collectors, tired of the solemnity of abstract expressionism, were ready for some comic relief. Why couldn't the funny pages be fine art?"<ref name=PApRLda7/>
Lichtenstein once said of his technique: "I take a cliche and try to organize its forms to make it monumental."<ref name=PApRLda7>{{cite web|url=http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1997/Pop-Art-pioneer-Roy-Lichtenstein-dead-at-73/id-43b85ac8a5a6ab361d2adb164e6a10ce|title=Pop Art pioneer Roy Lichtenstein dead at 73|accessdate=2013-06-10|date=1997-09-29|agency=[[Associated Press]]|author=Monroe, Robert}}</ref> In 1963, [[Brian O'Doherty]] wrote his belief that Lichtenstein's work was not art in ''[[The New York Times]]'' saying, he was "one of the worst artists in America" who "briskly went about making a sow's ear out of a sow's ear."<ref name=PApRLda7/> This was part of a widespread debate about the merits of Lichtenstein's comic blow-ups as true art. In January 1964 ''[[Life (magazine)|Life]]'' ran a story under the title "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" on this controversy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm|title=Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?|accessdate=2013-06-10|date=1964-01-31|work=[[Life (magazine)|Life]]|publisher=LichtensteinFoundation.org}}</ref> Later reviews were much kinder and [[Todd Brewster]] noted that this may have been motivated by popular demand saying in ''Life'' in 1986 that "Those cartoon blowups may have disturbed the critics, but collectors, tired of the solemnity of abstract expressionism, were ready for some comic relief. Why couldn't the funny pages be fine art?"<ref name=PApRLda7/> Although his work is now widely-accepted, there remain critics who continue to raise issues about it such as the claim that every comic-based work was done without paying any royalties or seeking permission from the original copyright holders.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2013/may/image-duplicator-pop-arts-comic-theft|title=Image Duplicator: pop art's comic debt|accessdate=2013-06-18|date=2013-05-13|author=Steven, Rachael|work=[[Creative Review]]}}</ref>


The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material". His method entailed "strengthening of the formal aspects of the composition, a stylization of motif, and a 'freezing' of both emotion and actions". Extreme examples of his formalization become "virtual abstraction" when the viewer recalls that the motif is an element of a larger work. Thus, Lichtenstein reinforced the non-realist view of comic strips and advertisements, presenting them as artificial images with minimalistic graphic techniques. Lichtenstein's magnification of his source material stressed the plainness of his motifs as an equivalent to mechanical commercial drawing, leading to implications about his statements on modern industrial America. Nonetheless, Lichtenstein appears to have accepted the American capitalist industrial culture.<ref name=TGEoAA/>
The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material". His method entailed "strengthening of the formal aspects of the composition, a stylization of motif, and a 'freezing' of both emotion and actions". Extreme examples of his formalization become "virtual abstraction" when the viewer recalls that the motif is an element of a larger work. Thus, Lichtenstein reinforced the non-realist view of comic strips and advertisements, presenting them as artificial images with minimalistic graphic techniques. Lichtenstein's magnification of his source material stressed the plainness of his motifs as an equivalent to mechanical commercial drawing, leading to implications about his statements on modern industrial America. Nonetheless, Lichtenstein appears to have accepted the American capitalist industrial culture.<ref name=TGEoAA/>

Revision as of 13:41, 18 June 2013

Drowning Girl
ArtistRoy Lichtenstein
Year1963
TypePop art, Oil and synthetic polymer paint on canvas
Dimensions171.6 cm × 169.5 cm (67.625 in × 66.75 in)
LocationMuseum of Modern Art, New York City
Coordinates40°45′41.34″N 73°58′39.59″W / 40.7614833°N 73.9776639°W / 40.7614833; -73.9776639

Drowning Girl (also known as Secret Hearts or I Don't Care! I'd Rather Sink) is a 1963 painting with oil paint and synthetic polymer paint on canvas by Roy Lichtenstein. Utilizing the conventions of comic book art, a speech balloon conveys the thoughts of the figure, while Ben-Day dots echos the effect of pixelation. It is one of the most significant paintings of the Pop art movement, and part of the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection since 1971. The painting is considered among Lichtenstein's most significant work, perhaps on a par with his acclaimed 1963 diptych Whaam!. Drowning Girl has been described as a "masterpiece of melodrama", and is one of the artist's earliest images depicting women in tragic situations, a theme he was to return to often in the mid 1960s.

The painting shows a teary-eyed woman on a turbulent sea. She is obviously emotionally fraught, seemingly from a romance. She declares that she would rather sink in the ocean than call Brad. This is revealed through a speech balloon that provides the narrative element: "I Don't Care! I'd Rather Sink – – Than Call Brad For Help!" The narrative element highlights the cliched melodrama, while its graphics reiterate Lichtenstein's theme of painterly work depicting mechanized reproduction. The work is derived from a 1962 DC Comics panel, while also borrowing from Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa and from elements of modernists artists Jean Arp and Joan Miró. It is one of several Lichtenstein works that mentions a hero named Brad who is absent from the picture. Both the graphical and narrative elements of the work are significantly cropped from the original comic strip source image.

Contemporaneous critics were divided on whether Lichtenstein's comics-based work was art since it since some contend that he merely duplicated extant original work. Ever since he began creating comic-based artwork, others have complained that Lichtenstein did not give credit or compensation to the comic book artists. However, such artwork has since become popular with collectors and is now more widely accepted.

Background

Tony Abruzzo's panel from "Run For Love!" in Secret Hearts, no. 83 (November 1962) was the source for Drowning Girl.

Drowning Girl is derived from Tony Abruzzo's panel from "Run For Love!" in Secret Hearts, no. 83 (November 1962), DC Comics,[1] which is the same source that Hopeless was inspired by.[2] When Lichtenstein had his first solo show at The Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in February 1962, it sold out before opening. The exhibition included Engagement Ring, Blam and The Refrigerator.[3] The show ran from February 10 through March 3, 1962.[4] According to the Lichtenstein Foundation website, Drowning Girl was part of Lichtenstein's first exhibition at Ferus Gallery in Los Angeles from April 1 – April 27, 1963, featuring Masterpiece, Portrait of Madame Cézanne and other works from 1962 and 1963 as well as his second solo exhibition at the Leo Castelli Gallery from September 28 – October 24, 1963 that included Torpedo...Los!, Baseball Manager, In the Car, Conversation, and Whaam!.[5][4] The Museum of Modern Art acquired the work in 1971.[6] The Museum of Modern Art's page for this work on its website explains this work's acquisition as follows: "Philip Johnson Fund (by exchange) and gift of Mr. and Mrs. Bagley Wright".[7]

Many sources, such as the Encyclopedia of Art describe Whaam! and Drowning Girl as Lichtenstein's most famous works.[8][9][10] The Daily Mail listed it along with Whaam! and Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But... as one of his most famous at the time of its 2013 Lichtenstein Retrospective display at the Tate Modern.[11] It is also regarded as one of his most influential works along with Whaam! and Look Mickey.[12] The work is considered one of the highlights of the core collection of the Museum of Modern Art.[13]

During the late 1950s and early 1960s a number of American painters began to adapt the imagery and motifs of comic strips. Lichtenstein in 1958 made drawings of comic strip characters. Andy Warhol produced his earliest paintings in the style in 1960. Lichtenstein, unaware of Warhol's work, produced Look Mickey and Popeye in 1961.[14] Drowning Girl depicted the advancement of his cartoon work, which represented his 1961 departure from his Abstract Expressionism period, from animated cartoons to more serious themes such as romance and wartime armed forces depictions.[15] Lichtenstein said that at the time, "I was very excited about, and very interested in, the highly emotional content yet detached impersonal handling of love, hate, war, etc., in these cartoon images."[15] Lichtenstein parodied four Picasso's between 1962 and 1963.[16] Picasso's depictions of weeping women may have influenced Lichtenstein to produce portrayals of vulnerable teary-eyed women, such as the subjects of Hopeless (1963) and Drowning Girl (1963).[17] Another possible influence on his emphasis on depicting distressed women in the early to mid 1960s was that his first marriage was dissolving at the time.[18] Lichtenstein's first marriage to Isabel Wilson, which resulted in two sons, lasted from 1949 to 1965.[19] The couple had separated in 1963.[20]

When Lichtenstein made his transition to comic-based work, he began to mimic the style while adapting the subject matter. He applied simplified color schemes and commercial printing-like techniques. The borrowed technique was "representing tonal variations with patterns of colored circles that imitated the half-tone screens of Ben Day dots used in newspaper printing, and surrounding these with black outlines similar to those used to conceal imperfections in cheap newsprint."[21]

This is an example of Lichtenstein's post-1963 comics-based women who "look hard, crisp, brittle, and uniformly modish in appearance, as if they all came out of the same pot of makeup." [22] In the early 1960s, Lichtenstein produced several "fantasy drama" paintings of women in love affairs with domineering men causing women to be miserable, such as Drowning Girl, Hopeless and In the Car. These works served as prelude to 1964 paintings of innocent "girls next door" in a variety of tenuous emotional states.[23] "In Hopeless and Drowning Girl, for example, the heroines appear as victims of unhappy love affairs, with one displaying helplessness...and the other defiance (she would rather drown than ask for her lover's help)."[23] Drowning Girl, the aforementioned works and Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But... are among those tragedies that make the author a popular draw at museums.[24] These tragic women are appealing to the male ego.[25]

In 1963, Lichtenstein was parodying various types of sources such as commercial illustrations, comic imagery and even modern masterpieces. The masterpieces represented what could have been dubbed the "canon" of art and was thought of as "high art," while the "low-art" subject matter included comic strip images. His masterworks sources included the likes of Cézanne, Mondrian and Picasso. During this time in his career, Lichtenstein noted that "the things that I have apparently parodied I actually admire."[26] At the time, Lichtenstein was exploring the theme of "industrialization of emotion". His comic romances often depicted stereotypical representations of thwarted passions.[27] Although the Lichtenstein Foundation website claims that Lichtenstein did not begin using his opaque projector technique until the fall of 1963,[5] Lichtenstein described his process for producing comics based art, including Drowning Girl:

As directly as possible...From a cartoon, photograph or whatever, I draw a small picture—the size that will fit into my opaque projector...I don't draw a picture to reproduce it—I do it in order to recompose it...I project the drawing onto the canvas and pencil it in and then I play around with the drawing until it satisfies me.

— Lichtenstein, [15]

Lichtenstein's tinkering with the source material resulted in a recomposition with sharper focus after he eliminated several elements that distract from the depiction of the woman, such as the capsized boat, troubled male subject and the general seascape. The result was a swirling, swooping waves and "animate white foam" that envelope the subject with a "pictorial bouyancy" that form an "aquatic continuum".[15]

Description

Some sources describe the subjects of Lichtenstein's tragic girls series as heroines (in the sense that they are the counterparts to the heroes),[28] and others do not (in the sense that they are not heroic).[25] Drowning Girl is a painting of a female subject who would prefer to give in to the power of the ocean then call for aid. Lichtenstein's version of the scene eliminates everything but the sea and a few body parts of the subject: her head, shoulder and hand, which are barely above the water. As her face is presented her eyes are shut with drops of what appear to be tears flowing from them. Because Lichtenstein just presents a single frame, the viewer does not know what happened before this moment and what is going to happen after it. Furthermore, the viewer has no way to know who Brad is and why she is is so reluctant to call him.[28]

Although the changes are not regarded as significant,[23] Lichtenstein made several notable changes from the original source: "In the original illustration, the drowning girl's boyfriend appears in the background, clinging to a capsized boat. Lichtenstein cropped the image dramatically, showing the girl alone and encircled by a threatening wave. He changed the caption from 'I don't care if I have a cramp!' to 'I don't care!' and the boyfriend's name from Mal to Brad."[7] With the former narrative change, Lichtenstein removed evidence that the drowning girl has a cramp in her leg.[28] With the latter narrative change, Lichtenstein attempted to change the perception of the boyfriend. When discussing another work (I Know...Brad), Lichtenstein stated that the name Brad sounded heroic to him and was used with the aim of cliched oversimplification.[29]

Narrative content of Drowning Girl

Narrative content was in the forefront of much of Lichtenstein's work as a way to engage the viewer.[30] Measuring 171.6 cm × 169.5 cm (67.625 in × 66.75 in), Drowning Girl presents "a young woman who seems to have cried herself a river ... literally drowning in emotion."[attribution needed] The melodrama makes it clear that she has been hurt by a "Brad", the name given to several of Lichtenstein's heroes.[31] The caption makes it clear that the subject is practically "drowning in a sea of tears.[24]

In typical Lichtenstein fashion, the tragic female is presented "...in a suspended state of distress."[28] The subject's head appears to rest on a wave as if it were a pillow and lies in the water as if it were a bed, creating a blend of "eroticism and final resting place".[31] The waters of the sea swirl around the subject's waves of hair creating the perception of a whirlpool.[28] The painting is representative of Lichtenstein's affinity for single-frame drama that reduces the viewer's ability to identify with it and that abstracts emotion. His use of industrial and mechanical appearance further trivialize the sentiments,[31] although the painterly touches add to its simplification.[32]

Reception

During the 2012–13 retrospective, The Huffington Post described Drowning Girl as Lichtenstein's "masterpiece of melodrama".[33] Poul Erik Tøjner called the work an example of Lichtenstein's "post-coital perdition" pieces, describing it as the "star witness" of this genre of his works. He notes that the subject is reaching far-flung depths as she acts out of pride.[34] Tøjner perceived eroticism in this painting, likening the open mouth to a vaginal feature and noting the singularity of Lichtenstein using an open mouth. With that in mind, he compares the tears to ejaculate residue.[35]

Lichtenstein acknowledges that the wave is adapted from Hokusai's famous print, The Great Wave off Kanagawa.[31]

This was painted at the apex of Lichtenstein's use of enlarged dots, cropping and magnification of the original source.[36] Lichtenstein made Drowning Girl a cornerstone of his career because of "His extraordinary sense of organization, his ability to use a sweeping curve and manipulate it into an allover pattern..."[37] The work is described as "A mix of cliché, melodrama, pathos, and absurdity..."[38] The result of this work is described as "a remarkably impassive style".[39] The image is typical of Lichtenstein's depiction of comic subjects responding to a situation in a cliched manner.[40]

Drowning Girl presents an "...unmistakeable acknowledgement to the flamboyant linearism of Art Nouveau...".[41] The waves are intended to "recall Hokusai as well as the biomorphic forms of Arp and Miro;"[42] just as the source comics were intended to.[43] Lichtenstein has claimed a strong relation between the original comic book source panel and Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa, making this work a bridge between the two.[44] The adaptation of the wave print is said to add a decorative look and feel to the painting, without which the work might be much more alarming to the viewer.[31] Lichtenstein even made the connection between Drowning Girl's arabesque waves and "the Art Nouveau aesthetic".[45] He stated the following about this work:

In the Drowning Girl the water is not only Art Nouveau, but it can also be seen as Hokusai. I don't do it just because it is another reference. Cartooning itself sometimes resembles other periods in art – perhaps unknowingly ... They do things like the little Hokusai waves in the Drowning Girl. But the original wasn't very clear in this regard – why should it be? I saw it and then pushed it a little further until it was a reference that most people will get ... it is a way of crystallizing the style by exaggeration.

— Sources, [46][37]

Tøjner describes the work as "Lichtenstein's finest formulation of a counter-image to the many explosions in his universe", noting that the drama is past its peak although it may seem to be at a crescendo.[34] He also notes that "the tears are drawn with classic Lichtenstein waxy fullness" despite the surrounding water, which must signal since "naturalistic justification" is absent.[34] A November 1963 Art Magazine review stated that this was one of the "broad and powerful paintings" of the 1963 exhibition at Castelli's Gallery.[4] In a December 1964 Art Magazine review of his October 24 – September 19, 1964 Castelli Gallery show, he was referred to as the author of I Don’t Care, I’d Rather Sink (Drowning Girl).[47] According to Gary Garrels of the Museum of Modern Art The work is a "poetics of the utterly banal, of displaced ordinariness" resulting in an "image frozen in time and space", making it "iconic".[32] Comparing this to the source, Garrels says it is a rendering "in a simplified vocabulary" produced while putting aside his mechanical objectivity.[32]

Lanchner wrote of Lichtenstein's translation of a "highly charged" cartoon image into coolly handled art which intensifies the contrast between the two.[15] While contrasting Lichtenstein's Ben Day dot use in Drowning Girl with another artist's work, Sarah Rich and Joyce Henri Robinson note that the work "satirizes the melodrama of soap operas and serial comics, turning the drama of the title figure's potential suicide into a high camp performance".[48]

Although single-panel comic representations depict a moment in time, this is an example of one in which the moment is "pregnant" with drama related to other times.[49] This work also marks a phase in Lichtenstein's career, when many of his works were named with present-participial names such as Sleeping Girl, Crying Girl and Blonde Waiting, which accentuates the works' "relation to process and action."[49] According to the The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art during this phase of Lichtenstein's career, "A constant if restrained and a gentle sense of humor contribute just as much to the cheerful lightness of Lichtenstein's work as the balanced, completely harmonious composition."[21]

Lichtenstein once said of his technique: "I take a cliche and try to organize its forms to make it monumental."[19] In 1963, Brian O'Doherty wrote his belief that Lichtenstein's work was not art in The New York Times saying, he was "one of the worst artists in America" who "briskly went about making a sow's ear out of a sow's ear."[19] This was part of a widespread debate about the merits of Lichtenstein's comic blow-ups as true art. In January 1964 Life ran a story under the title "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" on this controversy.[50] Later reviews were much kinder and Todd Brewster noted that this may have been motivated by popular demand saying in Life in 1986 that "Those cartoon blowups may have disturbed the critics, but collectors, tired of the solemnity of abstract expressionism, were ready for some comic relief. Why couldn't the funny pages be fine art?"[19] Although his work is now widely-accepted, there remain critics who continue to raise issues about it such as the claim that every comic-based work was done without paying any royalties or seeking permission from the original copyright holders.[51]

The most important element of Lichtenstein's procedure was "the enlargement and unification of his source material". His method entailed "strengthening of the formal aspects of the composition, a stylization of motif, and a 'freezing' of both emotion and actions". Extreme examples of his formalization become "virtual abstraction" when the viewer recalls that the motif is an element of a larger work. Thus, Lichtenstein reinforced the non-realist view of comic strips and advertisements, presenting them as artificial images with minimalistic graphic techniques. Lichtenstein's magnification of his source material stressed the plainness of his motifs as an equivalent to mechanical commercial drawing, leading to implications about his statements on modern industrial America. Nonetheless, Lichtenstein appears to have accepted the American capitalist industrial culture.[21]

Notes

  1. ^ Waldman, pp. 118–119.
  2. ^ "Secret Hearts #83 (a)". LichtensteinFoundation.org. Retrieved 2013-06-11.
  3. ^ Tomkins, Calvin (1988). "Roy Lichtenstein: Mural With Blue Brushstroke". Harry N. Abrams, Inc. p. 25. ISBN 0-8109-2356-4. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  4. ^ a b c Judd, Donald (2009). "Reviews 1962–64". In Bader, Graham (ed.). Roy Lichtenstein: October Files. The MIT Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-262-01258-4. Cite error: The named reference "RLOF4" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b "Chronology". Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. Retrieved 2013-06-09.
  6. ^ Lanchner, Carolyn (2009). Roy Lichtenstein. Museum of Modern Art. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-87070-770-4.
  7. ^ a b "Drowning Girl: Roy Lichtenstein (American, 1923–1997)". Museum of Modern Art. Retrieved 2012-05-23.
  8. ^ "Roy Lichtenstein: Biography of American Pop Artist, Comic-Strip-style Painter". Encyclopedia of Art. Retrieved 2013-06-05.
  9. ^ Cronin, Brian. "Why Does Batman Carry Shark Repellent?: And Other Amazing Comic Book Trivia!". Penguin Books. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  10. ^ Collett-White, Mike (2013-02-18). "Lichtenstein show in UK goes beyond cartoon classics". Chicago Tribune. Reuters. Retrieved 2013-06-08.
  11. ^ Kirkova, Deni (2013-02-19). "Pop goes the Tate! Iconic works of Roy Lichtenstein brought together for exciting new exhibition at the Tate Modern". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  12. ^ Hoang, Li-mei (2012-09-21). "Pop art pioneer Lichtenstein in Tate Modern retrospective". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2013-06-08.
  13. ^ Wright, Carol V. (2004). Art/Shop/Eat New York (Art/Shop/Eat). W. W. Norton & Company. p. 173. ISBN 0393325946. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  14. ^ Livingstone, Marco (2000). Pop Art: A Continuing History. Thames and Hudson. pp. 72–73. ISBN 0-500-28240-4.
  15. ^ a b c d e Lanchner, Carolyn (2009). Roy Lichtenstein. Museum of Modern Art. pp. 11–14. ISBN 0870707701.
  16. ^ "Release: Roy Lichtenstein's Woman with Flowered Hat: A Pop Art Masterpiece". Christie's. 2013-04-10. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  17. ^ Schneider, Eckhard, ed. (2005). Roy Lichtenstein: Classic of the New. Kunsthaus Bregenz. p. 142. ISBN 3-88375-965-1.
  18. ^ "Roy Lichtenstein at the Met". LichtensteinFoundation.org. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
  19. ^ a b c d Monroe, Robert (1997-09-29). "Pop Art pioneer Roy Lichtenstein dead at 73". Associated Press. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
  20. ^ Mason, Paul (2002). "Pop Artists (Artists in Profile)". Heinemann Library. p. 29. ISBN 1588106462. Retrieved 2013-06-17.
  21. ^ a b c Marter, Joan, ed. (2011). "The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art". Oxford University Press. p. 158. ISBN 0195335791. Retrieved 2013-06-15.
  22. ^ Coplans, p. 23.
  23. ^ a b c Waldman, p. 113.
  24. ^ a b Borchert, Vian Shamounki (2012-12-11). "Roy Lichtenstein: A Retrospective at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC". Gaithersburg Patch. Retrieved 2013-06-05.
  25. ^ a b Kongden, Kristen (2001). Browne, Ray B. and Pat Browne (ed.). The Guide to United States Popular Culture. Popular Press 3. p. 490. ISBN 0879728213. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  26. ^ "Christie's to offer a Pop Art masterpiece: Roy Lichtenstein's Woman with Flowered Hat". ArtDaily. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  27. ^ Gabilliet, Jean-Paul (2009). Of Comics and Men: A Cultural History of American Comic Books. University Press of Mississippi. p. 289. ISBN 1604732679. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  28. ^ a b c d e Rand, Kelly and Julia Langley (2012-10-11). "Roy Lichtenstein: A Retrospective @ National Gallery of Art". DCist. Retrieved 2013-06-08.
  29. ^ Coplans, p. 110.
  30. ^ Waldman, p. 63.
  31. ^ a b c d e Hendrickson, Janis (1993). "The Pictures That Lichtenstein Made Famous, or The Pictures That Made Lichtenstein Famous". Roy Lichtenstein. Benedikt Taschen. p. 34. ISBN 3-8228-9633-0.
  32. ^ a b c Garrels, Gary (2005). Drawing from the Modern: 1945-1975. Vol. 2. Museum of Modern Art. p. 28. ISBN 0870706640. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  33. ^ Parker, Sam (2012-02-18). "Roy Lichtenstein: Retrospective At Tate Modern (Review)". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  34. ^ a b c Tøjner. "I Know How You Must Feel...". In Holm; et al. (eds.). Roy Lichtenstein: All About Art. Louisiana Museum of Modern Art. p. 21. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor= (help)
  35. ^ Tøjner. "I Know How You Must Feel...". In Holm; et al. (eds.). p. 21. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  36. ^ Rondeau and Wagstaff, p. 32.
  37. ^ a b Waldman, p. 75.
  38. ^ Morgan, Ann Lee (2007). The Oxford Dictionary of American Art and Artists. Oxford University Press. p. 282. ISBN 978-0-19-512878-9.
  39. ^ Fineberg, Jonathan (1995). Art Since 1940: Strategies of Being. Harry N. Abrams. p. 263. ISBN 0-8109-1951-6.
  40. ^ Coplans, p. 15.
  41. ^ Pierre, José (1977). An Illustrated History of Pop Art. Eyre Methuen. p. 94. ISBN 0-413-38370-9.
  42. ^ Coplans, p. 26.
  43. ^ Coplans, p. 91.
  44. ^ Rondeau and Wagstaff, p. 48.
  45. ^ Guffey, Elizabeth E. (2006). Retro: The Culture of Revival. Reaktion Books. pp. 66–67. ISBN 186189290X. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  46. ^ Madoff, Steven Henry, ed. (1997). "Focus: The Major Artists". Pop Art: A Critical History. University of California Press. p. 202. ISBN 0-520-21018-2.
  47. ^ Judd, Donald. "Reviews 1962–64". In Bader (ed.). p. 4. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  48. ^ Rich, Sarah and Joyce Henri Robinson (2003). Through the Looking Glass: Women and Self-Representation in Contemporary Art. Palmer Museum of Art. p. 13. ISBN 0911209603. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  49. ^ a b Steiner, Wendy (1987). "Pictures of Romance: Form against Context in Painting and Literature". University Of Chicago Press. p. 156. ISBN 0226772292.
  50. ^ "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?". Life. LichtensteinFoundation.org. 1964-01-31. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
  51. ^ Steven, Rachael (2013-05-13). "Image Duplicator: pop art's comic debt". Creative Review. Retrieved 2013-06-18.

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drowning_Girl&oldid=560448965"