Lichtenstein uses a projector to project an image that he sketched onto the canvas. Then he traces the image onto the canvas. This was the case for his first pop painting, which was inspired by a cartoon on a bubble gum wrapper. He also uses inspiration from comic books and other advertisements. This method differs from Andy Warhol’s because Warhol often used silkscreen rather than tracing the image like Lichtenstein. This method is the same because they use projectors to reproduce already existing images rather than drawing the image themselves. I prefer Lichtenstein’s method because it seems like he puts more of his own touch into creating the paintings. I do like Warhol’s work as well, but Lichtenstein’s method is my favorite of the two.
..jpg)
In copying the famous paintings, Lichtenstein straightened out lines and changed colors and sizes. He also manipulated the images using the dot screen so to see how the famous paintings would look in different styles. These really aren’t even close to how Lichtenstein copied the comic books. You can see the direct correlation between the comic books and Lichtenstein’s work, while with the famous paintings it is more difficult to see how he copied the work. I prefer Lichtenstein’s reuse of comic books because like the style of the comic books. The huge images interest me and trying to figure out the themes of each painting is fun. I personally see no problem with Lichtenstein “copying” other artists in the way that he did because it wasn’t an exact replica. He made the image larger, painted it differently, and interpreted it to mean something new. It was no longer a single panel of a comic book. Lichtenstein gave it a bigger meaning. He was trying to say something with each carefully selected image that he painted. If it was an exact replica with no meaning, then it would be a different case.
Commercial artists are creating work that will be mass produced and distributed as advertisements or entertainment. “Fine” artists create one image and it is meant to convey meaning. These works are sold, but not always reproduced. One thing these two kinds of artists have in common is that they may be motivated by money. Both want people to like and purchase their work, even if they don’t admit it. The rules are different for each artist, though. “Fine” artists make their own rules. They do not have to follow guidelines or social norms if they don’t want to. Commercial artists must adapt to what the social norm is if they want to be appreciated. These rules are made by the client. A client in an ad agency or an author of a book may have rules for the images they want the artist to create. A curator of a museum could have influence on a fine artist, but ultimately the artist is the decision maker.
Question: Would you rather be a commercial or fine artist? Why?
Again, I love the choice of images that you used when responding to each question. I also like Lichenstein's projection method. To me, Warhol mainly copied the work adding very little of his own style. Either way, both are considered great artists in the Pop Art realm. No matter if we think their work is great or not.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be a fine artists because I would have the room and free reign to create works of art that conform to my own set of rules. I would rather create an image to convey or provoke feelings out of the viewer. To me commercial artists create art to reel in consumers. So what my fine art may not be sold or reproduced. I will know that it is my own and I have created it for my own sake.
I like the detailed answers you put for these questions. Once I read them I actually had a better idea of what the film was trying to convey overall. Especially when talking about his different methods and how he changed the lines and colors. Thank you for that.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be a commercial artist simply because I need the guidelines that they receive. I don't think outside the box very often and I would need to be told what to do by the client. I also, unlike Parrish who brings up a good point, would like the fact that my painting has a purpose and is trying to reel in consumers. I wouldn't want to make a piece of artwork just because. It would have to be for some sort of reason. This is what a commercial artist does. They make their artwork in order to appeal to the consumer or audience. I would enjoy this a lot more than fine painting.
Personally, I would prefer to be a fine artist. I think I may have somewhat answered this in one of my video blogs, but I see commercial art as losing something for the artist. With commercial art, there is a need to create art that complies with a certain set of standards placed before artists by the commercial art world. There are norms that need to be observed in order to be accepted. However, fine artists are operating outside any set guidelines. There are no rules and no set purpose to their art. This form of art is more concerned with being "out of the box." This is where I see art having its boundaries pushed further and further back.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be a fine artist than a commercial artist. Like with anything you love, when it becomes a "job" you tend to not love it as much. I feel that commercial artists who have to create something specific for a client on a deadline would lose their love of their artistic ability before a fine artist would. That being said, it depends a lot on the person. Some people I know are amazing artists, but lack the inspiration to create new and different art, so by being a commercial artist, someone else would be inspired for them.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with the comment above because when you do something you love, and it turns into a job you loose interest it and stop doing what you love. Now if you find a job that you love doing then its a different story.
Delete