So this image right here was going to start of a rant about art history. It was going to be a good rant too about how the watering down of our collective culture was eroding away at the foundations of civilization and how critical thinking for visual images should be taught in high school and blah blah blah. Whatever.
That all went out the window when I went mucking about the internet for a copy of Roy Lichtenstein's original work for you to compare it to and found out that the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation is about as uptight as the recording industry (citation!)
The short of it is that Lichtenstein did big ol' oils and acrylic paintings of panels from comic strips that he didn't originally draw and sold them as his own. It was a whole movement in the art world with critical thinkin' and making statements and everything. Go read an art history book if you really want to understand why this is a completely acceptable idea, it was the point of my original article anyways. (Here. Here's a freebie.)
Now what I'm having problems wrapping my brain around is that the people managing his estate get all upset when someone else makes a derivative work from the same original image. Of course they look alike, it's the same source material. If I paint a Campbell Soup can it's going to look an awful lot like what Warhol did because it's the same freakin' can.
I just don't see where they think they have a leg to stand on when, if you take away all the philosophy from Lichtenstein's work you end up with someone who pretty blatantly ripped off another artist.
Grawrargraphrear. I have to go before my sputtering shorts out my keyboard.
Oh, and here is one more link so you can compare what Big Box Mart has in their mass produced home decor vs what they are obviously imitating: Bah! Internets.
Tomorrow I promise pictures from my trip to Duluth. No more crazy artist talk (for awhile at least).