Took the whole family to the Art Institute to enjoy the Roy Lichtenstein exhibit (among other things) and had a great afternoon wandering the impressive museum.
I've always enjoyed Lichtenstein's work, probably because it was so relatable when I saw them first as a child, but was soured by the curators attempt to be so heavily handed dismissive of his source material, the actual comic panels he based his most famous and impressive paintings on. These are beautiful original panels, that I'm sure he was impressed by when choosing them, but the accompanying narrative posted by the hanging Pop Art copies calls them "banal" and "commonplace."
Wouldn't it to be easier to give credit where credit is due than claiming that only by Roy's grace they were transformed into actual art? The link below shows many "before and after" examples and, in my opinion, the reference usually shows a better understanding of what there're illustrating than the often "off" interpretations that sometimes don't seem to grasp what the reasoning is behind any line placement.
I can't believe Roy himself would be so arrogant and condescending. If it were so easy, why didn't he just make up his own art? Of course I'm holding him to the high standard he's been lifted to in the art world with his paintings selling for millions and the interest in keeping the bounty reaped from the Lichtenstein industry, the touring art show, the books and the merchandising from mugs to calendars going full steam.
When you're standing on someone elses shoulders, it's just plain bad manners to pee on them too.