Is Roy Lichtenstein’s Pop Art overrated?

I am not sure I really ‘get’ Lichtenstein – and I don’t think I care for Pop Art either.

If anyone reading this loves his art, please share with me in the comments. Pics below are from the Tate Modern.

To me, Pop Art sounds interesting in theory. But, reflecting the tapestry of the culture around us morphs into visual memes which become part of the cliche. The “Pop Art” movement of the late 1950s placed a heavy emphasis on “found art” and “found objects”. They sought to frame everyday objects and imagery into new settings to imbue them with a renewed significance and power. For me, I am not sure I would call this legitimate “art” … but I can appreciate its historical resonance. 

Reason 1 – No creativity, little artistic merit

Lichtenstein notices a frame within a comic and amplifies it with striking vividness and scale to make the art imposing. His work sits in the Tate Modern as “high-art”. For me, it doesn’t work at all. It’s not a Monet or a Van Gogh. In fact, I hardly see any artistic merit at all. He merely took an image out of a comic book, and painted it on a canvas. Even on a technical level, it is not that impressive either. It is devoid of any creativity. It’s simplified, easy and unimaginative.

This heavy focus on “ready made” art is rooted in Duchamp; and can be seen in Warhol, Johns, Rauschenberg etc. However, I think there is a serious difference. Duchamp’s urinal wasn’t made to be “on display” and looked on as “art”. He made it “art” by putting on display and writing a fake name as a label. It was, in that respect, transformative.

However, Lichtenstein took other peoples’ genuine comic art, edited it, put it on a panel and then made it expansive. It didn’t change the idea of it. Somehow, art galleries then considered it “high-art” which contemporary art critics were not inclined to do with the original comics.

Reason 2 – “But don't forget the conceptual”

Lichtenstein became famous because the regnant philosophy on art, in his time, was the pop art scene. Lichtenstein’s work is popular and catchy because it is so familiar. It’s like a corporate logo. The rest of his earlier oeuvre is mediocre at best.

I often wonder if academics and critics simply read into, embellish, convolute and hype-up art simply because it is on the wall of a museum. In other words, the institutions of art feed themselves their art. People look at a piece in a gallery. It psychically shouts back: “THIS IS IMPORTANT”, and then people feel nervous, anxious and force a narrative that doesn’t correspond to reality. I think a lot of peoples’ instinctive reaction to Roy Lichtenstein should be “rubbish” or “mediocre”.

This brings me to another problem I have. People like Lichtenstein for his paintings – but mostly because of “what he is saying”. In the broader scheme, all art is conceptual. But, to my mind, the best ones are those who don’t treat their art merely as a message. Ideas are great; but, looking in – especially from  the outside – if the ideas seem decent or agreeable; then the general sensation is that you’re not allowed to say that the art is not that great. And why not? Because it’s conceptual. There is no real way for conceptual art pieces to be judged.

This is compounded by another problem.The viewer must get into the head of the artist. The viewer has to divine what kind of idea he/she was trying to convey; and, after all that, we must come to our own conclusions. It is all ultimately subjective.

Reason 3 – Pop Art is condescending to the masses

It is said that Lichtenstein’s work is critiquing Western/US consumerism, and our industrial economic system.

But, to me, it feels like a haughty contempt for the everyday masses who go shopping, buy their mass-produced products and newspapers, take notice of marketing, and live unrefined lives. Perhaps more for Warhol than Lichtenstein? But the work often feel like sanitised pop images suitable for the consumption of elevated wealthy classes.

✲✲✲

Whaam!

✲✲✲

Lichtenstein’s Reflections Series

Below are five works from Lichtenstein’s Reflections print series. Each is supposed to feature one of his earlier paintings which is partly obscured under bands of colour. 

Lichtenstein said: 

"It portrays a painting under glass. It is framed and the glass is preventing you from seeing the painting. Of course, the reflections are just an excuse to make an abstract work, with the cartoon image being supposedly partly hidden by the reflections."

According to the Tate, it is supposed to a wry comment on his own rehashing and reusing of his own work!  That says it all, I think!

Ask yourself, where is the art?

✲✲✲

Reflections on Minerva

✲✲✲

Reflections on Girl

✲✲✲

Reflections on The Scream

✲✲✲

Reflections on Conversation 

✲✲✲

Reflections on Crash