Whaam!: Difference between revisions

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
out of scope; this is not an article about Lichtenstein's work in general; it is not even an article about his "comic-based work"; it is an article about an individual painting; the 2 sources provided do not tie these comments to this painting
Undid revision 566291072 by Bus stop (talk) You are currently being disputed by other FAC respondents such as User:Hiding, User:Curly Turkey and myself
Line 72: Line 72:
Lichtenstein's works based on enlarged panels from comic books engendered a widespread debate about their merits as art.<ref name=PApRLda7/><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> Lichtenstein himself admitted, "I am nominally copying, but I am really restating the copied thing in other terms. In doing that, the original acquires a totally different texture. It isn't thick or thin brushstrokes, it's dots and flat colours and unyielding lines."<ref name=W>{{cite journal|url=http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/wow|title=WOW!, Lichtenstein: A Retrospective at Tate Modern II|author=Dunne, Nathan|work=Tate Etc.|issue=27|date=2013-05-13 (Spring 2013)}}</ref> [[Eddie Campbell]] blogged that "Lichtenstein took a tiny picture, smaller than the palm of the hand, printed in four color inks on newsprint and blew it up to the conventional size at which 'art' is made and exhibited and finished it in paint on canvas."<ref name=L>{{cite web|url=http://eddiecampbell.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/lichtenstein_04.html|title=Lichtenstein|accessdate=2013-07-28|date=2007-02-04|publisher=|author=Campbell, Eddie}}</ref> Campbell even quoted Jack Cowart, Lichtenstein Foundation executive director who said "Roy's work was a wonderment of the graphic formulae and the codification of sentiment&nbsp;... the panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy."<ref name=L/> With regard to Lichtenstein, [[Bill Griffiths]] once said "There's high art and there's low art. And then there's high art that can take low art, bring it into a high art context, appropriate it and elevate it into something else."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_2/griffith/|title=Still asking, "Are we having fun yet?"|accessdate=2013-07-28|year=2003|author=Griffith, Bill|work=Interdisciplinary Comics Studies|volume=1|issue=2|publisher=Image TexT/[[University of Florida]]}}</ref>
Lichtenstein's works based on enlarged panels from comic books engendered a widespread debate about their merits as art.<ref name=PApRLda7/><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> Lichtenstein himself admitted, "I am nominally copying, but I am really restating the copied thing in other terms. In doing that, the original acquires a totally different texture. It isn't thick or thin brushstrokes, it's dots and flat colours and unyielding lines."<ref name=W>{{cite journal|url=http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/wow|title=WOW!, Lichtenstein: A Retrospective at Tate Modern II|author=Dunne, Nathan|work=Tate Etc.|issue=27|date=2013-05-13 (Spring 2013)}}</ref> [[Eddie Campbell]] blogged that "Lichtenstein took a tiny picture, smaller than the palm of the hand, printed in four color inks on newsprint and blew it up to the conventional size at which 'art' is made and exhibited and finished it in paint on canvas."<ref name=L>{{cite web|url=http://eddiecampbell.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/lichtenstein_04.html|title=Lichtenstein|accessdate=2013-07-28|date=2007-02-04|publisher=|author=Campbell, Eddie}}</ref> Campbell even quoted Jack Cowart, Lichtenstein Foundation executive director who said "Roy's work was a wonderment of the graphic formulae and the codification of sentiment&nbsp;... the panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy."<ref name=L/> With regard to Lichtenstein, [[Bill Griffiths]] once said "There's high art and there's low art. And then there's high art that can take low art, bring it into a high art context, appropriate it and elevate it into something else."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_2/griffith/|title=Still asking, "Are we having fun yet?"|accessdate=2013-07-28|year=2003|author=Griffith, Bill|work=Interdisciplinary Comics Studies|volume=1|issue=2|publisher=Image TexT/[[University of Florida]]}}</ref>


In an interview for a [[BBC4]] documentary in 2013, [[Alastair Sooke]] asked the comic book artist [[Dave Gibbons]] if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: "I would say 'copycat'. In music for instance, you can't just whistle somebody else's tune or perform somebody else's tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That's to say, this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'."<ref name="TPoL">{{cite web|url=http://paulgravett.com/index.php/articles/article/the_principality_of_lichtenstein|title=The Principality of Lichtenstein: From 'WHAAM!' to 'WHAAT?'|accessdate=2013-06-30|date=2013-03-17|author=Gravett, Paul|publisher=PaulGravett.com}}</ref> Sooke himself maintains that "Lichtenstein transformed Novick's artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways."<ref name="www.bbc.com 20130717-pop-artist-or-copy-cat"/>
Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or 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><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/|title=Deconstructing Lichtenstein: Source Comics Revealed and Credited|accessdate=2013-06-23|date=2011-02-02|author=Childs, Brian|publisher=Comics Alliance}}</ref> In an interview for a [[BBC4]] documentary in 2013, [[Alastair Sooke]] asked the comic book artist [[Dave Gibbons]] if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: "I would say 'copycat'. In music for instance, you can't just whistle somebody else's tune or perform somebody else's tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That's to say, this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'."<ref name="TPoL">{{cite web|url=http://paulgravett.com/index.php/articles/article/the_principality_of_lichtenstein|title=The Principality of Lichtenstein: From 'WHAAM!' to 'WHAAT?'|accessdate=2013-06-30|date=2013-03-17|author=Gravett, Paul|publisher=PaulGravett.com}}</ref> Sooke himself maintains that "Lichtenstein transformed Novick's artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways."<ref name="www.bbc.com 20130717-pop-artist-or-copy-cat"/>


Journal founder, [[City University London]] lecturer and [[University College London]] PhD, Ernesto Priego notes that Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original creators of his comic works was a reflection on the decision by [[National Periodical Publications]], the predecessor of [[DC Comics]], to omit any credit for their writers and artists:
Journal founder, [[City University London]] lecturer and [[University College London]] PhD, Ernesto Priego notes that Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original creators of his comic works was a reflection on the decision by [[National Periodical Publications]], the predecessor of [[DC Comics]], to omit any credit for their writers and artists:

Revision as of 16:08, 29 July 2013

Not to be confused with Wham.

Whaam!
ArtistRoy Lichtenstein
Year1963
TypePop art
LocationTate Modern, London

Whaam! is a 1963 diptych painting by American artist Roy Lichtenstein. A prominent example of pop art, it is widely regarded as one of Lichtenstein's most important and influential works. It was exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City in 1963, and purchased by the London Tate Gallery in 1966. It has been exhibited at Tate Modern since 2006.

Lichtenstein studied as an artist before and after serving in the United States Army in World War II. He practiced anti-aircraft drills in his basic training, and was sent for training as a pilot as part of his army service, but the program was canceled before training started. He went on to create a broad array of military art, and depicted aerial combat in several works. Whaam! is part of a series on war that he worked on between 1962 and 1964, and with As I Opened Fire (1964) is one of Lichtenstein's two large war-themed paintings.

Whaam! portrays an explosion of flames as a fighter plane successfully shoots down another plane with an air-to-air missile. Lichtenstien based the image on elements of panels of several comic-book stories. He transformed his primary prototype—a single panel from a war comic book published in 1962—by dividing the composition into two panels and altering the relationship of the graphical and narrative elements. The work is admired for the temporal, spatial and psychological unity of its two panels, which Lichtenstein conceived as a contrasting pair. The painting's title is displayed in the large onomatopoeia in the right panel.

Lichtenstein has drawn criticism for not giving credit or compensation to the artists from whose works the painting's composition was derived. Despite controversy surrounding its artistic merit, originality and ethical propriety, Lichtenstein's comics-based work has since become popular with collectors and is now widely accepted.

Background

Lichtenstein left Ohio State University, where he had been studying painting and drawing, to serve in the United States Army between February 1943 and January 1946—during and after WWII. After entering training programs for languages, engineering, and pilot training, all of which were canceled, he served as an orderly, draftsman, and artist in noncombat roles.[1][2] Among his duties as an orderly at Camp Shelby was enlarging Bill Mauldin's Stars and Stripes cartoons.[1] He was sent to Europe with an engineer battalion, but never saw active combat.

According to Mark Thistlethwaite of the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth, by the late 1950s, comic books were regarded in the US as material of "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind". Public antipathy led to United States Senate investigations in the early 1950s that studied connections between comics and juvenile delinquency.[3] However, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, some American painters began to adapt the imagery and motifs of comic strips on canvas. Lichtenstein made drawings in 1958 of comic strip characters, and Andy Warhol produced his earliest paintings in the style in 1960. Lichtenstein, unaware of Warhol's work, produced Look Mickey and Popeye in 1961.[4] He moved away from his earlier abstract expressionist works in 1961 to works based on cartoons, and within a few years these works took up more serious themes, such as romance and depictions of the armed forces in wartime.[5] 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."[5] It has been observed that the "simplicity and outdatedness [of comics] were ripe for being mocked".[6]

Lichtenstein made many works with an aeronautical theme.[7] He stated that he did not take his militaristic subjects seriously: "the heroes depicted in comic books are fascist types, but I don't take them seriously in these paintings—maybe there is a point in not taking them seriously, a political point. I use them for purely formal reasons."[8] It has been suggested that the painting belongs to the same anti-war genre as Picasso's Guernica, but this suggestion is dismissed by Bradford R. Collins: he considers it to be a revenge fantasy and vehicle for Lichtenstein's anger towards his first wife Isabel while they were in the middle of a bitter divorce battle (they separated in 1961, and divorced in 1965).[9]

Lichtenstein's romance and war comic-based works took comic book heroic subjects from a small panel on the page and depicted them on a monumental scale.[10] The large dimensions of Whaam! are consistent with the generally large canvases in use at that time by the abstract expressionists.[11] His collection of comic-inspired works from this period has been described by the Tate Gallery as "a fascinating, thought provoking and often witty compendium of images".[12]

Lichtenstein had not been a comic book collector as a youth.[13] His second wife, Dorothy, has claimed that Lichtenstein "was not a fan of comics and cartoons," but rather was enticed by the challenge of creating art based on a subject that was remote from the typical "artistic image".[14]

History

Original comic book panel from All-American Men of War #89, January–February 1962 (DC Comics)

Whaam! adapts a comic-book panel drawn by Irv Novick from the "Star Jockey" story of the January–February 1962 DC Comics' All-American Men of War issue #89.[15][16][17] The original comic panel is part of a dream sequence in which fictional World War II P-51 Mustang pilot, Johnny Flying Cloud, "the Navajo ace", foresees himself flying a jet fighter in the future, shooting down other jet planes.[18][19] In the final painting, both the attacking plane and the target plane have been replaced by different aircraft. Paul Gravett suggests that Lichtenstein substituted the attacking plane from the subsequent issue #90 (March–April 1962), from the story "Wingmate of Doom" illustrated by Jerry Grandenetti, and that he may have substituted the target plane with a Russ Heath drawing from the "Aces Wild" story in the same issue.[6] The painting also omits the speech bubble in which the pilot exclaims "The enemy has become a flaming star!".

A smaller, single panel oil painting made by Lichtenstein around the same time, Tex!, has a similar composition, with a similar plane at the lower left shooting a missile at a second plane that is exploding in the upper right, with a word bubble.[20] The same issue of All American Men of War was the inspiration for at least three other Lichtenstein paintings, Okay, Hot-Shot, Brattata and Blam, in addition to Whaam! and Tex![21] The graphite pencil sketch, Jet Pilot was also from that issue.[22] Several of Lichtenstein's other comics-based works are inspired by stories about Johnny Flying Cloud written by Robert Kanigher and illustrated by Novick, including Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, Jet Pilot and Von Karp.[19]

Some sources claim that Lichtenstein substituted this image for the attacking plane from the subsequent issue of All American Men Of War #90, March–April 1962 (DC Comics).

Lichtenstein held his first solo exhibition at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City, from February 10 to March 3, 1962. It sold out before its opening.[23] The exhibition included Engagement Ring, Blam and The Refrigerator.[24] According to the Lichtenstein Foundation website, Whaam! was part of Lichtenstein's second solo exhibition at the Leo Castelli Gallery from September 28 to October 24, 1963 that also included Drowning Girl, Baseball Manager, In the Car, Conversation, and Torpedo...Los!.[1][23] Marketing materials for the show included the lithograph artwork, Crak![25][26]

Throughout the 1960s, Lichtenstein repeatedly depicted aerial combat between the United States and the Soviet Union.[2] In the early and mid-1960s, he produced "explosion" sculptures, taking subjects such as the "catastrophic release of energy" from paintings such as Whaam! and depicting them in freestanding and relief forms.[27] In 1963, Lichtenstein was parodying a variety of artworks, from "low art" commercial illustrations and comics and to "high art" modern masterpieces by Cézanne, Mondrian, Picasso and others. At this time in his career, Lichtenstein noted that "the things that I have apparently parodied I actually admire."[28] Although the Lichtenstein Foundation website says that Lichtenstein did not begin using his opaque projector technique until the autumn of 1963,[1] Lichtenstein described his process for producing comics based art as follows:

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.[5]

Whaam! was purchased by the Tate Gallery in 1966.[1] In 1969, Lichtenstein donated what he called a "pencil scribble", his initial graphite on paper sketch entitled Drawing for 'Whaam!'.[29] The painting has been displayed at Tate Modern since 2006.[30] Both works were included as part of the largest-ever Lichtenstein retrospective that visited the Art Institute of Chicago from May 16 to September 3, 2012, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. from October 14, 2012 to January 13, 2013, the Tate Modern in London from February 21 to May 27, 2013 and The Centre Pompidou from July 3 to November 4, 2013.[31][32] Richard Morphet, an art historian, was an assistant keeper at the Tate at the time that Whaam! was being contemplated for acquisition. Morphet suggested as justification for buying Whaam! that the painting seemed to address several issues at the same time. He enumerated "history painting, Baroque extravagance, and the quotidian phenomenon of mass-circulation comic strips."[33]

Description

A pivotal work of the pop art movement, Whaam! depicts a fighter aircraft in the left panel firing a rocket into an enemy plane in the right plane, which is disintegrating in a red-and-yellow explosion. The cartoon style is heightened by the use of the onomatopoeic lettering "WHAAM!" in the right panel, and a yellow-boxed caption with black lettering at the top of the left panel. The textual exclamation "WHAAM!" can be considered the graphic equivalent of a sound effect[34] (other onomatopoeic works by Lichtenstein include Bratatat! and Varoom!).[35]

One of Lichtenstein's war series of images, it combines "brilliant color and narrative situation".[36] The painting is large in scale, measuring 4.0 × 1.7 m (13 ft 4 in × 5 ft 7 in).[15] Lichtenstein employed his usual comic book style: "Using bright primary colors with black and white, he outlined simplified forms, incorporating mechanical printer's Ben-Day dots and stereotyped imagery."[37] Whaam! departs from Lichtenstein's earlier works such as Step-on-Can with Leg and Like New, in that the panels are not two variations of the same image.[17]

Graphite pencil on paper sketch entitled, Drawing for 'Whaam!', 1963

Although Lichtenstein was inspired by, and strove to remain faithful to, the source images, he made the paintings in a traditional way, starting with a sketch which he adjusted to improve the composition and then projected on to a canvas to make the finished painting.[12] In the case of Whaam!, the sketch is on two pieces of paper, and the finished work is painted with Magna acrylic and oil paint on canvas.[20] It was originally conceived as a single panel but evolved into a diptych. The sketch suggests that the "WHAAM!" motif would be coloured white, although it is yellow in the finished work.[29] The technique that Lichtenstein employed for this painting involved painting with layers that took enough time to dry that their shape and color could be manipulated. The paint was applied using a scrub brush and handmade metal screen to produce Ben-Day dots via a process that left physical evidence behind.[38][39] The Ben-Day dots technique enabled Lichtenstein to give his works a mechanically reproduced feel. Lichtenstein said that the work is "supposed to look like a fake, and it achieves that, I think".[40] These dots, which were invented by Benjamin Day to "recreate gradations of shading", were considered Lichtenstein's "signature method".[40]

The original source was one panel, but Lichtenstein split the work into two panels to reinforce the separation of action and result.[17] The left panel features the attacking plane—placed at a diagonal to create a sense of depth—below the text balloon, which Lichtenstein has relegated to the margin above the plane.[17] In the right panel, the exploding plane—depicted head-on—is outlined by the flames, accompanied by the bold exclamation "WHAAM!".[17] Although separate, with one panel containing the missile launch and the other its explosion, representing two distinct events,[41] the two panels are clearly linked spatially and temporally, not least by the horizontal smoke trail of the missile.[42] Lichtenstein commented on this piece in a July 10, 1967 letter: "I remember being concerned with the idea of doing two almost separate paintings having little hint of compositional connection, and each having slightly separate stylistic character. Of course there is the humorous connection of one panel shooting the other."[43]

File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg
Text balloon of Whaam!

Lichtenstein altered the composition to make the image more compelling, by making the exploding plane more prominent compared to the attacking plane than in the original.[17] The smoke trail of the missile has become a horizontal line. The flames of the explosion dominate the right panel,[17] but the pilot and the airplane in the left panel are the narrative focus.[34] They exemplify Lichtenstein's painstaking detailing of physical features such as the aircraft's cockpit.[44] The other element of the narrative content is a text balloon that contains the following text: "I pressed the fire control ... and ahead of me rockets blazed through the sky ..."[38] This is among the text believed to have been written and revised by Kanigher for All-American Men Of War,[45][46] although there is some doubt about this claim.[6] The yellow word "WHAAM!", altered from the red in the original comic panel and white in the pencil sketch, links the yellow of the explosion below it with the textbox to the left and the flames of the missile below the attacking plane.

Lichtenstein borrowed both comic book techniques and subjects,[37] mimicking the style while adapting the subject matter.[47] He explained that "Signs and comic strips are interesting as subject matter. There are certain things that are usable, forceful and vital about commercial art." He was attracted to using the cool, formal style to depict emotive subjects, leaving the viewer to interpret the artist's intention.[12] He adopted a simplified color scheme 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."[47] PBS asserts that this is an adaptation of the ligne claire style associated with Hergé.[48] Lichtenstein once said of his technique: "I take a cliche and try to organize its forms to make it monumental."[38]

General context

Lichtenstein's works based on enlarged panels from comic books engendered a widespread debate about their merits as art.[38][49] Lichtenstein himself admitted, "I am nominally copying, but I am really restating the copied thing in other terms. In doing that, the original acquires a totally different texture. It isn't thick or thin brushstrokes, it's dots and flat colours and unyielding lines."[39] Eddie Campbell blogged that "Lichtenstein took a tiny picture, smaller than the palm of the hand, printed in four color inks on newsprint and blew it up to the conventional size at which 'art' is made and exhibited and finished it in paint on canvas."[50] Campbell even quoted Jack Cowart, Lichtenstein Foundation executive director who said "Roy's work was a wonderment of the graphic formulae and the codification of sentiment ... the panels were changed in scale, color, treatment, and in their implications. There is no exact copy."[50] With regard to Lichtenstein, Bill Griffiths once said "There's high art and there's low art. And then there's high art that can take low art, bring it into a high art context, appropriate it and elevate it into something else."[51]

Although Lichtenstein's comic-based work is now widely accepted, concerns are still expressed by critics who say Lichtenstein did not credit, pay any royalties to, or seek permission from the original artists or copyright holders.[52][53] In an interview for a BBC4 documentary in 2013, Alastair Sooke asked the comic book artist Dave Gibbons if he considered Lichtenstein a plagiarist. Gibbons replied: "I would say 'copycat'. In music for instance, you can't just whistle somebody else's tune or perform somebody else's tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That's to say, this is 'WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick'."[6] Sooke himself maintains that "Lichtenstein transformed Novick's artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways."[33]

Journal founder, City University London lecturer and University College London PhD, Ernesto Priego notes that Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original creators of his comic works was a reflection on the decision by National Periodical Publications, the predecessor of DC Comics, to omit any credit for their writers and artists:

Besides embodying the cultural prejudice against comic books as vehicles of art, examples like Lichtenstein's appropriation of the vocabulary of comics highlight the importance of taking publication format in consideration when defining comics, as well as the political economy implied by specific types of historical publications, in this case the American mainstream comic book. To what extent was National Periodical Publications (later DC) responsible for the rejection of the roles of Kanigher and Novick as artists in their own right by not granting them full authorial credit on the publication itself?"[46]

Furthermore, Campbell notes that there was a time when comic artists often declined attribution for their work.[50]

In an account published in 1998, Novick said that he had met Lichtenstein in the army in 1947 and, as his superior officer, had responded to Lichtenstein's tearful complaints about the menial tasks he was assigned by recommending him for a better job.[54] Jean-Paul Gabilliet has questioned this account, saying that Lichtenstein had left the army a year before the time Novick says the incident took place.[55] Bart Beaty, noting that Lichtenstein had appropriated Novick for works such as Whaam! and Okay Hot-Shot, Okay!, says that Novick's story "seems to be an attempt to personally diminish" the more famous artist.[54]

Reception

Whaam!'s grand scale and dramatic depiction make it a historic work of pop art.[56] With Lichtenstein's other monumental war painting As I Opened Fire, Whaam! is regarded as the culmination of Lichtenstein's dramatic war-comics works.[57] Whaam! is less abstract than As I Opened Fire.[34] It is widely described as either Lichtenstein's most famous work,[58] or, along with Drowning Girl, as one of his two most famous works.[59][60] It is described, along with Warhol's Marilyn Monroe prints, as one of the most famous works of pop art.[61] Gianni Versace once linked the two iconic pop art images via his gown designs.[62] The work is also regarded as one of his most influential works along with Drowning Girl and Look Mickey.[63]

Positive

José Pierre says Whaam! represented Lichtenstein's 1963 expansion "into the 'epic' vein".[64] A November 1963 Art Magazine review called it one of the "broad and powerful paintings" of the 1963 exhibition at Castelli's Gallery.[23] The Times in 1967 described the recent acquisition by the Tate of the "very large and spectacular painting"[65] and The Burlington Magazine in 1968 described the explosion as combining "art nouveau elegance with a nervous energy reminiscent of Abstract Expressionism".[66] One view is that by magnifying the comic book panels to an enormous size, "Lichtenstein slapped the viewer in the face with their triviality."[37] Whaam! presented "... limited, flat colors and hard, precise drawing," which produced "... a hard-edge subject painting that documents while it gently parodies the familiar hero images of modern America."[67] The flat and highly finished style of planned brushstrokes are pop art's retort to Expressionism.[56]

Whaam! stands out from Lichtenstein's other comic-based works as the most successful and harmonious composition: the narrative and graphic elements are complementary; the senses of time and space are logical, the action from left to right; and the components are spatially aligned to emphasize the action. The ellipses of the text balloon present a progression which culminates with a "WHAAM!". The "coincidence of pictorial and verbal order" are clear for the Western viewer with the explanatory text beginning in the upper left and action vector moving from the left foreground to the right background, culminating in a graphical explosion in tandem with a narrative exclamation.[68] Wendy Steiner says the striking incongruity of the two panels—the left panel appearing to be "truncated", while the right depicts a centralized explosion—enhances the work's narrative power.[68]

Despite his general distaste for the 2013 Lichtenstein Retrospective at the Tate Modern, Adrian Searle of The Guardian credited the work's title with accurately describing its graphic content: "Whaam! goes the painting, as the rocket hits, and the enemy fighter explodes in a livid, comic-book roar."[69] David McCarthy regarded the work as a "spectacular display of firepower".[2]

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 based on his frequent commercial art source material, according to The Grove Encyclopedia of Art.[47]

The comic book medium that inspired paintings such as Whaam! was, in turn, affected by the cultural impact of pop art. By the mid-1960s, some comic books were displaying a new emphasis on garish colors, emphatic sound effects, and stilted dialogue—the elements of comic book style that had come to be regarded as camp—in an attempt to appeal to older, college-age readers who appreciated pop art.[70]

Negative

The Tate Gallery controversially bought the work in 1966, paying art dealer Ileana Sonnabend £4,665 (£109,763 in 2024 currency)—in spite of a reported 1966 market price of £5,382 (£126,633 in 2024 currency). Some of the museum's trustees opposed the acquisition, among them the sculptor Barbara Hepworth, the painter Andrew Forge, and the critic Herbert Read. The Tate's director, Norman Reid, said that the work aroused more public interest than any acquisition since World War II.[71] The first Lichtenstein retrospective held at the gallery in 1967 attracted 52,000 visitors.[72]

Lichtenstein's presentation of aerial combat is regarded as "dispassionate, detached and oddly disembodied" by McCarthy, who notes that Lichtenstein seemed intent upon scaling up a comic book image to history painting dimensions. This was in contrast to artists in whom the experience of the military conflict brought out a need to horrify or shock the audience, or both.[2]

In Sooke's documentary, when he attempted to get Gibbons to talk about Lichtenstein's improvements to the work, Gibbons disagreed: "This to me looks flat and abstracted, to the point of view that to my eyes it's confusing. Whereas the original has got a three-dimensional quality to it, it's got a spontaneity to it, it's got an excitement to it, and a way of involving the viewer that this one lacks."[6]

At the time of the 2013 Lichtenstein Retrospective at the Tate Modern, Daily Telegraph critic Alastair Smart wrote a disparaging review in which he characterized Whaam! as an attempt to mimic abstract expressionism. Smart said the work was neither a positive commentary on the fighting American spirit nor a critique, but was notable for marking "Lichtenstein's incendiary impact on the US art scene".[11]

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e "Chronology". Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. Retrieved 2013-06-09.
  2. ^ a b c d McCarthy, David (2004). H.C. Westermann at War: Art and Manhood in Cold War America. University of Delaware Press. p. 71. ISBN 0-87413-871-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Thistlethwaite, Mark. "Mr. Bellamy". Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth. Retrieved 2013-07-15.
  4. ^ Livingstone, Marco (2000). Pop Art: A Continuing History. Thames and Hudson. pp. 72–73. ISBN 0-500-28240-4.
  5. ^ a b c Lanchner, Carolyn (2009). Roy Lichtenstein. Museum of Modern Art. pp. 11–14. ISBN 0-87070-770-1.
  6. ^ a b c d e Gravett, Paul (2013-03-17). "The Principality of Lichtenstein: From 'WHAAM!' to 'WHAAT?'". PaulGravett.com. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
  7. ^ Pisano, Dominick (2003). Pisano, Dominick A. (ed.). The Airplane in American Culture. University of Michigan Press. p. 275. ISBN 0-472-06833-4.
  8. ^ Naremore, James (1991). Naremore, James and Patrick M. Brantlinger (ed.). Modernity and Mass Culture. Indiana University Press. p. 208. ISBN 0-253-20627-8.
  9. ^ Collins, Bradford R. (Summer 2003). "Modern Romance: Lichtenstein's Comic Book Paintings". American Art. pp. 60–85. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
  10. ^ Schneckenburger, Honnef and Fricke Ruhrberg (2000). Ingo, Walter F. (ed.). Art of the 20th Century. Taschen. p. 321. ISBN 3-8228-5907-9.
  11. ^ a b Smart, Alastair (2013-02-23). "Lichtenstein, at Tate Modern, review". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2013-06-15.
  12. ^ a b c "Illustrated companion". Tate Gallery. Retrieved 2013-07-19. published in Wilson, Simon (1991). Tate Gallery: An Illustrated Companion (revised ed.). Tate Gallery. p. 242. ISBN 0-295-97039-1.
  13. ^ Brown, Mark (2013-02-18). "Roy Lichtenstein outgrew term pop art, says widow prior to Tate show: New insights come as most comprehensive show of artist's work ever attempted brings together 125 paintings and sculptures". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-06-15.
  14. ^ Clark, Nick (2013-02-18). "Whaam! artist Roy Lichtenstein was 'not a fan of comics and cartoons'". The Independent. Retrieved 2013-06-15.
  15. ^ a b Lichtenstein, Roy. "Whaam!". Tate Collection. Retrieved 2013-06-26.
  16. ^ "1960s: Whaam!". Lichtenstein Foundation. Retrieved 2012-05-23.
  17. ^ a b c d e f g Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 104. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  18. ^ Bacon, James (2013-05-13). "Comics and art – James talks to Rian Hughes about Image Duplicator". Forbidden Planet. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
  19. ^ a b "Character Sketch: The Comic That Inspired Roy Lichtenstein". Yale University Press. Retrieved 2013-06-23.
  20. ^ a b "Catalogue entry". Tate Gallery. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
  21. ^ Armstrong, Matthew (Autumn 1990). "High & Low: Modern Art & Popular Culture: Searching High and Low". 2 (6). Museum of Modern Art: 4–8, 16–17. Retrieved 2013-07-19. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  22. ^ "Jet Pilot". LichtensteinFoundation.org. Retrieved 2013-06-24.
  23. ^ a b c Judd, Donald (2009). "Reviews 1962–64". In Bader, Graham (ed.). Roy Lichtenstein: October Files. 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).
  24. ^ 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)
  25. ^ "Search Result: CRAK!". LichtensteinFoundation.org. Retrieved 2013-06-26.
  26. ^ Lobel, Michael (2009). "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader, Graham (ed.). Roy Lichtenstein. MIT Press. pp. 118–20. ISBN 978-0-262-01258-4.
  27. ^ Alloway 1983, p. 56.
  28. ^ "Christie's to offer a Pop Art masterpiece: Roy Lichtenstein's Woman with Flowered Hat". ArtDaily. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  29. ^ a b "Roy Lichtenstein: Drawing for 'Whaam!' 1963". Tate Gallery. Retrieved 2013-07-18.
  30. ^ "Tate Modern opens first major rehang of its Collection with the support of UBS" (Press release). Tate Gallery. 2006-05-22.
  31. ^ "'Roy Lichtenstein: A Retrospective' Debuts At The Art Institute of Chicago (PHOTOS)". The Huffington Post. 2012-05-22. Retrieved 2013-06-08.
  32. ^ 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.
  33. ^ a b Sooke, Alistair (2013-07-17). "Is Lichtenstein a great modern artist or a copy cat?". BBC. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
  34. ^ a b c Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 105. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  35. ^ "The Report: Mr Roy Lichtenstein". MrPorter.com. 2013-02-12. Retrieved 2013-06-23.
  36. ^ Alloway 1983, p. 20.
  37. ^ a b c Strickland, Carol; Boswell, John (2007). The Annotated Mona Lisa: A Crash Course in Art History from Prehistoric to Post-Modern. Andrews McMeel Publishing. p. 174. ISBN 0-7407-6872-7.
  38. ^ a b c d Monroe, Robert (1997-09-29). "Pop Art pioneer Roy Lichtenstein dead at 73". Associated Press. Retrieved 2013-06-15. Cite error: The named reference "PApRLda7" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  39. ^ a b Dunne, Nathan (2013-05-13 (Spring 2013)). "WOW!, Lichtenstein: A Retrospective at Tate Modern II". Tate Etc. (27). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  40. ^ a b Churchwell, Sarah (2013-02-22). "Roy Lichtenstein: from heresy to visionary". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-07-26.
  41. ^ Archer, Michael (2002). "The Real and its Objects". Art Since 1960 (second ed.). Thames & Hudson. p. 25. ISBN 0-500-20351-2.
  42. ^ Coplans 1972, p. 39: "... Whaam I (1963), on the other hand, is a diptych with a clearly linked pictorial narrative ..."
  43. ^ Coplans 1972, p. 164.
  44. ^ Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader (ed.). pp. 123–24. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  45. ^ Gravett, Paul (2002-05-31). "Robert Kanigher: The man who put Sergeant Rock in a hard place". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-07-28.
  46. ^ a b Priego, Ernesto (2011-04-04). "Whaam! Becoming a Flaming Star". The Comics Grid, Journal of Comics Scholarship. Retrieved 2013-07-28.
  47. ^ a b c Joan M. Marter (2011). Marter, Joan (ed.). The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art. Oxford University Press. p. 158. ISBN 0-19-533579-1.
  48. ^ Bengal, Rebecca (circa 2006-07-11). "Essay: Tintin in America". PBS. Retrieved 2013-06-19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  49. ^ "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?". Life. LichtensteinFoundation.org. 1964-01-31. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
  50. ^ a b c Campbell, Eddie (2007-02-04). "Lichtenstein". Retrieved 2013-07-28.
  51. ^ Griffith, Bill (2003). "Still asking, "Are we having fun yet?"". Interdisciplinary Comics Studies. Image TexT/University of Florida. Retrieved 2013-07-28.
  52. ^ Steven, Rachael (2013-05-13). "Image Duplicator: pop art's comic debt". Creative Review. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  53. ^ Childs, Brian (2011-02-02). "Deconstructing Lichtenstein: Source Comics Revealed and Credited". Comics Alliance. Retrieved 2013-06-23.
  54. ^ a b Beaty, Bart (2004). "Roy Lichtenstein's Tears: Art vs. Pop in American Culture". Canadian Review of American Studies. 34 (3): 249–268. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
  55. ^ Gabilliet, Jean-Paul (2009). Of Comics and Men: A Cultural History of American Comic Books. University Press of Mississippi. p. 350. ISBN 1-60473-267-9.
  56. ^ a b Arnason, H. H., Daniel Wheeler (revising author third edition), and Marla F. Prather (revising author, fourth edition) (1998). "Pop Art and Europe's New Realism". History of Modern Art: Painting • Sculpture • Architecture • Photography (fourth ed.). Harry N. Abrams, Inc. pp. 538–540. ISBN 0-8109-3439-6. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  57. ^ Waldman. "War Comics, 1962–64". p. 95. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  58. ^ "Roy Lichtenstein: American artist". Reproduced Fine Art, Inc. Retrieved 2013-06-06.
  59. ^ Cronin, Brian (2012). Why Does Batman Carry Shark Repellent?: And Other Amazing Comic Book Trivia!. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-1-101-58544-3.
  60. ^ Collett-White, Mike (2013-02-18). "Lichtenstein show in UK goes beyond cartoon classics". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2013-06-08.
  61. ^ Edgar, Andrew; Sedgwick, Peter (1999). Sedgwick, Peter and Andrew Edgar (ed.). Key Concepts in Cultural Theory. Routledge. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-203-98184-9.
  62. ^ Ball, Deborah (2011). House of Versace: The Untold Story of Genius, Murder, and Survival. Crown Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-307-40652-1. He translated one of Roy Lichtenstein's most famous paintings by putting giant letters spelling "WHAAM!" on a yellow clevore evening gown. He adorned a silk halter-neck gown with Andy Warhol's celebrated images of Marilyn Monroe ...
  63. ^ Hoang, Li-mei (2012-09-21). "Pop art pioneer Lichtenstein in Tate Modern retrospective". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2013-06-08.
  64. ^ Pierre, José (1977). An Illustrated History of Pop Art. Eyre Methuen. p. 91. ISBN 0-413-38370-9.
  65. ^ "Spectacular piece of Pop art", The Times, Tuesday, Jan 03, 1967; pg. 6; Issue 56829; col E
  66. ^ Roberts, Keith (February 1968). "Current and Forthcoming Exhibitions: London". The Burlington Magazine. pp. 107–108. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
  67. ^ Arnason, H. H. (1986). "Pop Art, Assemblage, and Europe's New Realism". History of Modern Art (third ed.). Prentice Hall, Inc./Harry N. Abrams, Inc. p. 458. ISBN 0-13-390360-5.
  68. ^ a b Steiner, Wendy (1987). Pictures of Romance: Form against Context in Painting and Literature. University Of Chicago Press. pp. 161–64. ISBN 0-226-77229-2.
  69. ^ Searle, Adrian (2013-02-18). "Roy Lichtenstein: too cool for school?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2013-06-15.
  70. ^ Brooker, Will (2001). Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Cultural Icon. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 182. ISBN 0-8264-1343-9.
  71. ^ Holden, Duncan (2013-02-18). "Work of the Week: Whaam! by Roy Lichtenstein". Tate Gallery. Retrieved 2013-07-19.
  72. ^ Bailey, Martin (2013-02-13). "Who opposed a £4,665 Lichtenstein?". The Art Newspaper. Retrieved 2013-02-19.

See also

References

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whaam!&oldid=566300280"