SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere Nutzervereinbarung und die Datenschutzrichtlinie.
SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere unsere Datenschutzrichtlinie und die Nutzervereinbarung.
<ul><li>Painter, lithographer and sculptor. </li></ul><ul><li>Studied at the Art Students League 1939, and at Ohio State College 1940-3. </li></ul><ul><li>War service 1943-6. </li></ul><ul><li>Returned to Ohio State College 1946-9, and taught there until 1951. </li></ul><ul><li>First one-man exhibition 1951. </li></ul><ul><li>Instructor at New York State University 1957-60, and at Rutgers University </li></ul>Roy Lichtenstein 1923-1997
Takka Takka, 1962. Oil on canvas, 56 x 68 in. Painted in a non-figurative and Abstract Expressionist style 1957-61 Began to incorporate loosely handled cartoon images, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck etc., in his paintings. Made a breakthrough into his characteristic work in 1961; painted pictures based on comic strip images, advertising imagery and overt adaptations of works of art by others – appropriation. In what ways does this work have a propagandistic quality to it? How might this work have some autobiographical quality to it?
How has Lichtenstein recreated the original images to suit his own style? How has he changed the originals? How has allowed them to remain the same? Do you think this was important in the creation of the art works? Why/ why not?
Whaam!, 1963, Magna on canvas 172 x 269 cm (two canvasses) Describe Lichtenstein’s style of art work. Discuss how you think Lichenstein may have created this work.
Explosion 1965-6 Lithograph on paper image: 562 x 435 mm on paper, print In order to recreate the machine-made process Lichtenstein devised the Benday Dots. These were done by creating various-sized stencils of uniformed circles.
In the Car, 1963, Magna on canvas,172 x 203 cm Drowning girl , 1963. Consider these two works. In what way has Lichtenstein created meaning within the works? (Ie. how has he used iconography to tell us about the society that he is a part of?) What makes you think so?
Brushstroke 1965, Screenprint on paper 565 x 724 mm on paper, print Brushstroke with Spatter, 1966 Oil and magna on canvas 172.7 x 203.2 cm. What do you think these works are in reference to? What makes you think so? What sort of artistic context is Lichtenstein referring to within these works? Do you think it is effective? Why/why not?
Brushstroke , 1996, paint on aluminum, 32 ft x 20 ft. In what ways does this work have a Pop Art quality to it? Do you think there is a difference between this work and his painted works? Why/Why not?
Self Portrait 1978, 5 ft 10 in x 4 ft 6 in Lichtenstein’s 1978 “Self Portrait”, depicting himself as a t-shirt with a mirror as his head, sums up his lifetime of sly, probing art. We’re all reflections of society, it seems to say, and it behooves us to examine critically the milieu we reflect. If Shakespeare’s plays “hold the mirror up to nature”, Roy Lichtenstein makes us look in the mirror of human nature. -Carol Strickland Roy Lichtenstein: Keen observer of Life’s Little Ironies. Make a comment on what this means? Do you agree or disagree considering the work of Lichtenstein’s that you have seen so far?
Cubist Still Life with Playing Cards 1974 Oil and Magna on canvas 96 x 60 in How has Lichtenstein created a Lichtenstein-cubist art work? Is it Cubist? Pop? Why? What sorts of iconographic motifs has Lichenstein used to create meaning within this work? Identify and explain their significance.
Is he the worst artist in the U.S.? LIFE MAGAZINE JANUARY 31, 1964 For some of America’s best known critics and a host of laymen, the answer to the question is YES. A critic of the New York Times, hedging only a bit, pronounced Roy Lichtenstein “one of the worst artists in America”. Others insisted that he is no artist at all, that his paintings of blown-up comic strips, cheap ads and reproductions are tedious copies of the banal. But an equally emphatic group of critics, museum officials and collectors find Lichtenstein’s pop art “fascinating”, “forceful”, “starkly beautiful”… How is this in stark contrast to the previous art movement we have studied? What do you think about this comment? Justify your answers with reference to at least two other art works from either the unit (US Modern Art) or the other units we have studied.