Is it deeper than it appears on the surface? What is the point of reusing comics and cartoons in the fine art context?
>>7785370
>>7785371
>>7785370jewish dogshit
>>7785372
>>7785374
>>7785370no, it's not deep at all. pop mean mass appeal, they have to dumb it down.
>>7785371>>7785372>>7785374>>7785375>What is the point of reusing comics and cartoons in the fine art context?In this context, the artist is making us reassess what's considered to be cheap mass produced throw away trash, through the lens of high art.Hard to think Roy Lichtenstein actually gives a shit about comics place in our culture, when he clearly didn't give a shit about the artists he copied - I believe none of them received a cent out of the millions little Roy got for copying their images (picrel).So most likely, Roy just couldn't come up with his own ideas, copied others, and then intellectualised it.
>>7785370it looks neat and there is a bit of a novelty in the contrast in seeing this kind of stuff being displayed in a museum before it became typicala more modern equivalent would be vaporwave which is pretty old at this point
>>7785474>a novelty in the contrast in seeing this kind of stuff being displayed in a museum before it became typicalExactly. R.Mutt's Fountain is interesting and funny when in the context of being surround by what everyone typically considered art - but when such things are typically displayed in a museum, it loses or appeal.
>>7785370There's a lot more to pop art than just the most obvious examples. It's no surprise it looks like it has no appeal beyond the surface level when most people's first impression is THAT Warhol picture or endlessly reposted bottom of the barrel Lichtenstein shit>get inspired by the legacy of american comics>yoink>rehash snapshots over and over and over and over and over with none of the original excitement and appeal>no i'm not going to do anything of interest like expanding on the concept>oh shit why does nobody care?
