Quick Lichtenstein follow-up

Here's an article from the Boston Globe about the "Deconstructing" project. I find the incredibly condescending attitude of the representative from the Lichtenstein Foundation pretty much makes the point that none of the pieces could be "Art" without his appropriation. The fact that the representative refers to the artists that got ripped off dismissively as "drawers" is particularly telling. And infuriating. They can't even be referred to as "artists." Obviously, these men and women (well, ok, almost entirely men) were of a lower quality than the great Lichtenstein, forgetting that he stripped their work of any content and, often, emotional impact...argh!

As for the artists who were interviewed, I can't blame either them or the companies for which they worked for not suing. Leaving aside the money issues (either the cost of the suit or the result), I can imagine the terrible publicity that would have come from "low" art suing "high" art, which would only work to RL's benefit and the publisher's detriment. I am shocked that the great George Tuska had no idea his work had been copied for one of RL's more famous pieces.

Ultimately, obviously, it's not about the money or even (entirely) the credit. It's about the total lack of respect shown by both Lichtenstein and (subsequently) his foundation.

From the article:
As it happens, the Lichtenstein Foundation uses an exact copy of a Kubert picture of a fierce dog, titled ``Grrrrrrrrrrr!!" to illustrate a warning to copyright violators on its website. Grrrrr indeed.

Grrrr indeed.