New allegations of plagiarism against Roy Lichtenstein
So normally I’m on the side of the appropriating artist with discussions like these… I feel that remix, parody and repurposing is important even if it doesn’t align with the goals (financial or otherwise) of the original artist.<p>But this type of Lichtenstein work never sat well with me. The transformation is extremely minimal - minor changes to the scene, a new cropping, and conversion from ink to painting. If I handed something like that in in school I’d get eviscerated in reviews (or worse!). I’d be curious for somebody more aware of art history to chime in in more detail that the article provides about how this is considered transformative.<p>Also, it’s good that he was honest that his work appropriated, but it seems rude and maybe even deceptive to not credit the artist he was appropriating from.<p>To be clear, Lichtenstein is a very capable artist, and can produce very beautiful work that is (as far as I can tell) highly original. For example, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;El_Cap_de_Barcelona" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;El_Cap_de_Barcelona</a> . I’m just not sure about the types of work shown in the article.