This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The footnotes in this article contain an excessive amount of quotes from copyrighted works. For example,
from Lobel, Michael "Technology Envisioned Lichtenstein's Monocularity"
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. p. 103. "In the painting an outstretched finger pushes aside the cover of a circular peephole, revealing the face of a male figure; a word balloon above displays the lines of text that make up the painting's title."
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. p. 103. "Removed from its narrative context and presented as an easel painting it reads as a visual pun on abstraction, for if one imagines that peephole swinging closed the painting is read projectively as a monochrome canvas. In this way Lichtenstein offers a scene in which abstraction has been quite literally punctured by both figuration and language: a fitting image for an artist who had recently discarded an abstract mode for a figurative one."
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. p. 103. "Although he rendered the composition primarily in black and white he added some notes of colors, such as the field of monochrome color behind the figure. He applied additional color—the flesh tone in the figure’s face and hand, and the blue of the pupil— in passages of regularized red and blue dots, respectively. Those dots, of course, make reference to the mechanically printed medium from which Lichgenstein had borrowed his imagery."
Lobel, Michael (2003). "Pop according To Lichtenstein". In Holm, Michael Juul, Poul Erik Tøjner and Martin Caiger-Smith. Roy Lichtenstein: All About Art. Louisiana Museum of Modern Art. p. 85. ISBN 87-90029-85-2. "Consider the consistency with which Lichtenstein was concerned in his work with issues of vision, it should come as no surprise that acts of seeing and looking are frequently foregrounded in his paintings. This is true even from the very beginning of his experimentation with the Pop idiom, in such canvases as Look Mickey and I Can See The Whole Room...And There's Nobody In It!, both from 1961. The titles of these works with their references to looking and seeing – already signal the artist's concerns with acts of vision, and the scenes depicted in these paintings bear this out. In I Can See The Whole Room a male figure stares out at us from the painting, his face and hand framed by a circular peephole that visually rhymes with his single exposed eye."
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. pp. 104–5. "For example, it has been widely overlooked that Lichtenstein's work from the early 1960s consistently confronts issues of vision and visuality. This is evident from even the most cursory inspection of a work like I Can See the Whole Room!: the act of looking is foregrounded not only in the image itself, with that figure staring out at us from the very center of the painting, but also in the title (displayed in the word balloon above) with its reference to seeing."
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. pp. 119. "We have already seen how I Can see the Whole Room! (along with various other works from this period) stands for the possibility—impelled by Lichtenstein’s immersion in Hoyt Sherman’s theoretical program—of subjectivity being threatened through the experience of the human body approaching the automatism of the machine. Yet it also suggests another, parallel reading; if the painting imagines the viewer as erased by (or merged with) the photographic apparatus, it also depicts a figure interacting with a machine, inasmuch as the male figure peers out at the viewer through a primaitive shutter mechanism. This is true as well of Torpedo...LOS! and CRAK!: in these paintings vision is directed through some sort of device that forces it into a monocular format."
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. p. 111. "In I Can See the Whole Room! the relation between machine and embodied vision is condensed into one particularly charged element: the motif of monocularity. For one, monocular vision stands for the photographic apparatus itself: thus much is clear in the artist's depiction of the central peephole, which pierces the darkened chamber of that primitive photographic mechanism. The single exposed eye of the figure peering through that hole rhymes with the monocular format of the camera lens, the that hole rhymes with the monocular format of the camera lens."
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. pp. 116. "It's as if, in these paintings as in I Can See the Whole Room!, monocularity represented something so significant—yet so charged—to the artist that he would only allude to it rather than represent it directly. The same is true of one of Lichtenstein's most striking war-comic images, Torpedo...LOS! (1963), in which a submarine captain peers through a periscope, his exposed eye serving as the veritable focal point of the painting. Lichtenstein altered the image in a subtle way, depicting that exposed eye as open, rather than closed as in the comic book source panel...the figure's direct embodiment of monocularity would ultimately be repressed in Lichtenstein's painting. That is to say that here as in I Can See the Whole Room!, one side of the figure's face has been screened off from view. It is as if the artist introduced an undecidability into his depiction of vision, leaving the status of that hidden eye utterly in question."
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. pp. 126–27. "If we consider I Can See the Whole Room! as a kind of self-portrait, then the play between monocular and binocular modes in the artist’s work can best be brought out by comparing it with another image central to his project, namely Image Duplicator (1963). In fact, such a comparison suggests that the latter canvas represents a veritable correction of the former. In both work a figure peers out at the viewer through an intervening surface plane, although the earlier representation of monocular vision gives way in the later work to the aggressive binocularity of those two glaring eyes. There is a formal element that lends further support to this reading: the arcing lines under the exposed eye of I Can See the Whole Room! used to denote the shading of a cheekbone; are almost exactly of Image Duplicator. We might even consider the aggression depicted in the later painting as compensating for its rejection of monocularity, in that a refusal of the terms of technologized vision was less than secure in Lichtenstein's practice."
Lobel, Michael. "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity". In Bader. p. 127. "Monocularity was a fitting—albeit conflicted—vehicle for representing the relation between body, vision, and machine. Conflicted because it suggests both an intensification of vision (think of the common experience of closing one eye in order to fix an object in the gaze) and a cutting-off or loss of the ordinary experience of embodied vision. Nevertheless, the artist's experiences with visual technologies had demonstrated that something had to be sacrificed if the machine was to augment human perception."
The editor should take the time to understand the material and use his own wording rather than using so much of an author's copyrighted word. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)