yes, she now directly copies someone elses work vs collage it.  not changing the subject or context, just strait looking at one image and replicating it.  wow!  novel.  what a world we live in where painting something someone else actually did makes you worthy of praise. 

yes, she now directly copies someone elses work vs collage it.  not changing the subject or context, just strait looking at one image and replicating it.  wow!  novel.  what a world we live in where painting something someone else actually did makes you worthy of praise. 

I offer an opinion - I feel that you want to ram your views down my throat until i accept them.

I dont see a single point you have made in defending Stinkfish that couldnt be applied to chevrier.

I appreciate that you dont like her work but i think you are imposing your opinion as though it is fact. It is your opinion. in my opinion I think Stinkfish's magazine covers lack imagination and is nothing more than 'doodling' - the type of thing i do when i'm bored

in all fairness I think he meant me.

That's how free range works, hype hype hype flip flip flip and try to quiet any dissenting opinions with calls of hater. It's why this place is boring. First time I've been on in a week and it's basically rhe same threads constantly repeating themselves. Thank god there's other forums now.

Lichtenstein is another great example of theft. His position was that his vision, view, purpose were unique. His taking of the work out of its strip context made it different. Now, personally, I think that's s**t or more specifically I think that he should pay some of the income to the original creator just like a musician who used an unlicensed sample. Now, there is some nuance here. I'll equate it to DJ Shadow on the sampling side. Shadow goes waaay back, into the obscure and brings out samples that he dug for. He never discloses his source to protect himself, and I belive that this is an art. I also belive that to some effect Lichtenstein's source images are often equally as "lesser known" and I'd find a defence on similar ground interesting to explore. However, in my personal opinon Lichtenstein f**ked this whole thing up when his estate saught legal remedy at people copying him. I don't see how you can say "i copied someone and that doesnt count because of vision or context" and then seek to defend an image you took from someone else. You have given that up to an extent. Again that is my personal opinion, not estabilished fact.

In drasatic comparrison, SC takes images that are anything but obscure, they are inconic. Its f**king Superman. The curation, the bringing out of obscuratiy and taking out of context isnt happening here. It isnt obscure and the taking out of context... there is some case here. Its the only leg the stool has to stand on but I dont think that it, in and of itself, is a strong defence.

For the final record. Lichtenstein and his estates were / are c**ts for not taking some money and putting it into a fund to support comic artists as they get old and die and s**t.

two final thoughts.

my point about the comics obscurity was that in the case of Lichtenstein, taking rather obscure images as source material leans less on the value of the characters. no one is looking at a lichtensten and going... yes, i connect with this because i have an affinity or a connection to this specific character or universe of characters.

however, in the case of SC, I promise you that either overtly or subconsiously peoples connections with the pieces are largely driven by the estetically pleasing subject matter (young, fit, women) and the pop cultural iconic universe and characters that make up the work. The execution plays a part but put up fat old women and pages out of the sears catalog and you'de have far less fan fare. (for the record, I think that intersection has 1000x more artistic interest than SC's.

lastly, I'm not a fan of this forum protector s**t. i havent really followed whats going on, but feels a bit like hall monitors and that existing in a forum about revolutionary art seems a bit out of synch.

The thing is, and I think low brow, new brow, urban contemporary, comic art, street art and everything in between that references or is subconsciously inspired by or even consciously appropriates the things around them, in this case, iconic pop art motifs such as batman, superman, supermodels etc, has been fair game since the onset on Post Modernism. We're not surrounded by images of old fat women and sears catalog imagery otherwise I'm sure that would be appropriated too. McDonalds, Supermodels, Superheros, Coca Cola, Mickey Mouse, Kate Moss, Money, Graffiti etc.. these are the images that these artists have been bombarded with for decades, it's part of their mental environment. Is it any wonder that urban artists turn to them ? It's an argument that was had, and obviously won, with the old school of Modernism back in the late 70's and early 80's. Would you that we prosecuted early pioneers of hip hop for sampling Led Zep or Incredible Bongo band and kill a fledgling & very real new Black Culture ? would we prosecute Afrika Bambaataa for sampling Kraftwerk and inventing Electro ? Detroit techno pioneers ?. I believe anything in the past is fair game for the future. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan young contemporary urban artists appropriating corporate imagery to create a new language for art outside academia. As Jean Luc Goddard once said "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to, that counts".

 Would you class Ms. Chevrier as an urban artist though?

All fair points. Would you class Ms. Chevrier as an urban artist though?

All fair points. Would you class Ms. Chevrier as an urban artist though?