Talk:Look Mickey

"Art"
my ass. The gag itself doesn't even make sense... clearly Donald can SEE that the fishing rod is not at the exact spot he's looking at (!), namely in the water – which is the spot where it MUST be in order to catch a fish. And it doesn't exactly help he's lifting the rod above his head... LOLFAIL – the more you think about it, the less makes sense. This (!) being the breakthrough work of Lichtenstein just goes to show how worthless modern art is most of the time (I do respect Warhol though). And if the absurdity is intended (which I highly doubt), mention it in the article peepz!

concern about copyvio in footnotes
I'm concerned that so much of the article is quotes, especially the exceptionally long footnote quotes. I think such quoting is unnecessary, as the editor should be able to write most information in his own words, leaving the "quotes" for standout phrases. Most of the authors quoted here are also quotes in many of the articles in a series on Lichtenstein's work, meaning substantial chunks of their work on Lichtenstein has been quoted. Why buy their books?

I've brought this up on other articles in the series. e.g. Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, Girl with Ball, Whaam!, Bedroom at Arles, Girl in Mirror, Golf Ball, Little Big Painting, Drowning Girl, Bedroom at Arles, As I Opened Fire, Artist's Studio—Look Mickey

Unlike some of the other articles, the authors with long quotes are more various. In the others, usually Diane Waldman is substantially quoted. Here there is only one from her:

[long quotes redacted. If they are a copyvio in the article, they are a copyvio here. Besides, what on earth could be the point of copying them here in the first place? They need to be removed from the article as well--that would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)]

Is this sort of thing ok? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Question
"Look Mickey is considered self-referential in the sense that the artist is painting something through which the viewer may see elements of the artist.[29]" - Tony, this is prob my last remaining point on the page, does the source go into much more detail on this, it seems a bit vagure to me. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Who owned the painting?
Interesting article, but there is a point which I think needs clarification. The article says that the painting was exhibited in a show in February 1962, where all works had pre-sold, implying that Look Mickey was pre-sold as well; it later says that it was bequeathed to the National Gallery of Art after Lichtenstein's death, which creates the impression that the painter kept it. (There is also the painting's inclusion in Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, although I don't take that as meaning that the work was literally hanging in his studio.) Which is it? Waltham, The Duke of 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Look Mickey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507132503/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyrighted material?
Does anyone know if Lichtenstein asked the Disney Company for permission to paint this? After all, he intended to sell it, so the commercial use was obvious. Or was Disney not yet prosecuting such copies and prohibiting their distribution at the time? Unbefleckte (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)