Thanks for your patience during our recent outage at scalar.usc.edu. While Scalar content is loading normally now, saving is still slow, and Scalar's 'additional metadata' features have been disabled, which may interfere with features like timelines and maps that depend on metadata. This also means that saving a page or media item will remove its additional metadata. If this occurs, you can use the 'All versions' link at the bottom of the page to restore the earlier version. We are continuing to troubleshoot, and will provide further updates as needed. Note that this only affects Scalar projects at scalar.usc.edu, and not those hosted elsewhere.
HIGH ART HIPOCRISY: Intersections of Cartoons and Fine Art Main MenuIntroductionThe Birth of the NewspaperComics: Taking Over the Sunday SupplementComics in the Early 1900sThe 1913 Armory ShowShowtime! New York City, Chicago, and BostonThe Critiques and The ComicsThe Pop Art Movement, Roy Lichtenstein, and Comic BooksDeconstructing Perspectives of Lichtenstein’s Work: Pro-Appropriation or Pro-Cartoonist?The Rise of 1940s Comic Books in the Late 20th CenturyComics in MuseumsThe MoMA “High and Low” ShowArt Spiegelman’s Response to MoMA High and LowComics in Museums TodayAbstract ComicsCora's Curation of Abstract ComicsConclusionReferencesCora Hernandezca60d402b432a51ad192c7a6d79f42e30854c48e
Appropriation artist Alexis Smith speaks on the process of appropriating commercial materials into artwork. In a 2013 interview for Artspace, she states “I really feel comfortable with the material world. I really like objects. To me, they speak to me in a symbolic way that a lot of people will realize through my collages. I’m a great believer in making things that people can understand because the objects in them are really simple, but incorporating them into collages is unexpectedly beautiful and arresting, and slightly recognizable and not threatening.” Most argue that Lichtenstein’s appropriation of comic book materials is allowed since other artists appropriated material as well. For example, artists such as Andy Warhol, Richard Pettibone, and Robert Rauschenberg all appropriated materials from popular culture for their artwork. Many say that since Lichtenstein did not directly trace the cartoonists and illustrators work, his appropriation and re-imagination of the material is perfectly fine and legal.
Pro-Cartoonist
Many of the illustrators who had their work appropriated by Lichtenstein had no idea their work had been appropriated until James Hussey, a documentary film producer who had been creating a film about Lichtenstein’s appropriation, reached out to interview them on the topic. Hussey’s film, titled Whaam! Blam! Roy Lichtenstein and the Art of Appropriation (2022), details Lichtenstein’s process of appropriation in detail, and also highlights the perspectives of the illustrators who created the original works. Those against Lichtenstein’s appropriation argue that his use of the original source material was unfair since he did not provide a credit, attribution, or portion of the profits/fame from the work he copied and hung inside gallery walls. Most of his famous works sold for tens of millions of dollars; a drastic contrast to the extremely low wages afforded to cartoonists for the original work Lichtenstein appropriated. His most expensive work, Masterpiece (1962) sold for $165M in 2017. Some argue that Lichtenstein’s appropriation differs from appropriation work such as artwork by Warhol and Rauschenberg, since they make direct copies or include brand names/logos in their artwork. For example, Warhol’s Campbell Soup Cans (1962) actually benefited the Campbell brand, since their name and logo were used in the artwork. If Lichtenstein had somehow incorporated the name of the comic book and illustrator in his paintings, the illustrators probably would've been a little less upset about Lichtenstein’s use of source material. However, since Lichtenstein never credited, paid, or thanked the comic book illustrators for their source material, they are left with a bittersweet feeling when they see his work. In a way, their work has made it into a museum, however, they also must grapple with the fact that they never actually benefited from their work existing in a gallery space.
