Talk:Roy Lichtenstein/Archive 1

POV quote
If "Such criticism, others counter, misses the point that Lichtenstein himself aimed for flat artificiality." is going to be in the article in needs to be changed to "Such criticism, Gamaliel counters, misses the point that Lichtenstein himself aimed for flat artificiality." Since that is really what is being said--198.93.113.49 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Expand tag justification: Article does not sufficiently describe the life and work of Lichtenstein. Good enough? Gamaliel 16:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What actually needs to be added? How much information can you expect to find about Roy Luchtenstein in an encyclopedia?--198.93.113.49 16:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you really think this is sufficient for an artist as famous as Lictenstein? Gamaliel 16:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's fine. If someone has something to add they should add it, but I don't see why it needs an expand tag. What do you think it lacks?--198.93.113.49 16:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is fine for a start, yes, but I don't see how you could object to expanding this article. If I had something specific to add, I would add it, as I will once I do some research.  This article is simply far too thin and lacking in substance and information. Gamaliel 16:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to expanding the article. I have no objection to explanding any article in Wikipedia. Does that mean every article in Wikipedia should have an expand tag?--198.93.113.49 16:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This one should because it is short and inadequate given Lichtenstein's fame and importance. I've listed it on the expansion page. Gamaliel 16:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good, there isn't much point in tagging it if it isn't on the expansion page.--198.93.113.49 17:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that it is incorrect that Lichtenstein abandonded comic panels in the 60's. Go to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm click on the Lichtenein search engine and go to 1989 for examples.--198.93.113.49 17:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, though this isn't the same type of work as the early 60s and this doesn't mean he didn't stop doing the latter in 1965. These 1989 pieces aren't the slavish copies being discussed in the rest of the paragraph, so I think it's fair to say he abandoned the near exact copying in 1965. Gamaliel 17:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * True, it is noticablly different. Why don't you quote what Time says about him leaving this type of work and then we can add a quailifier about him doing a different style of comics based artwork later.--198.93.113.49 17:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Lichtenstein has been typecast as "the comic-strip artist," but in fact comic strips take up only an early phase of his work. By 1965 he had stopped basing images on them. He was never to refer to comics again, except now and then by including a parody of one of his own earlier paintings in a parody of an elegant interior -- ah, well, I'm a classic too now, feels funny but that's art- life."

I don't really see the need to insert a quote just to say that he stopped in 1965. I've tweaked the working a bit, hopefully that will be satisfactory. Gamaliel 17:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your tweaking helps. I moved the statement though because it interrupted a thought.--198.93.113.49 17:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * On second thought I think that the quote is worth while anyway. You want to expand. Let's expand.--198.93.113.49 19:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notice to remove quote

 * Lichtenstein's obituary in The Economist noted that "this is to miss the point of Roy Lichtenstein's achievement. His was the idea. The art of today, he told an interviewer, is all around us."

It's imposible to tell what the "this" in the quote is refering to. The quote is meaningless without the context since we do on know what point is suposedly being missed. Please include the rest of the quote. Otherwise, I will have to delete it.--198.93.113.49 17:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Mere workers at the coal-face, the artists who laboured away on the comic books that Mr Lichtenstein copied, did not think much of his paintings. In enlarging them, some claimed, they became static. Some threatened to sue him. Whatever the justice of their complaints, in fact Mr Lichtenstein did them a sort of favour. Comic books these days are often taken seriously, the subject of theses (or a sign of growing illiteracy). But this is to miss the point of Roy Lichtenstein's achievement. His was the idea. The art of today, he told an interviewer, is all around us. It is not Impressionist painting. "It's really McDonald's." Of course, you don't have to believe everything he said." Gamaliel 17:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a long quote, but I don't think I see anyway to trim it. I going to add the whole thing as a block quote.--198.93.113.49 17:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Made some additions and move a few things about.
Hope no-one minds, added a bunch of information, still learning the wiki editor so the "notable works" needs to be put in a table as soon as I figure out how. I have a few ideas for more information to add which I'll hopefully do in the coming weeks. --John-Nash 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

more...
Added table (thanks to dreamweaver :) ) and removed list, still looks a bit clunky though --John-Nash 15:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added a few links and removed an fairly odd exisitng one, included citations for quotes from publications with linls to the articles.

Added links to galleries, which link to the actual pictures at the relevant museums website.

I wonder how/if we can add a picture of the artist from somewhere?

More changes
Standarised some of the conventions and located the current location of the paintings mentioned in the text. Few other changes, I removed the link to the comparison site as it appears consistently down. --John-Nash 20:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Galleries
I have changed the links from Tate Gallery to Tate Modern, as this is where Lichtenstein's works are on display in London. I know it's technically the gallery, but it doesn't hurt to be a bit more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.79.169 (talk • contribs)

Full quote
The quote that User:Gamaliel insist on providing only a fragment of makes no sense without the context. The quote begins with a pronounm "this" for goodness sakes. You can't expect anyone to know what "this" refers to without the context. Gamaliel has a personal vendetta against me and is simply reverting my edit out of spite. There is no reason not to include the full quote. It is an excelent quote that has a lot of valuable things to say about Lichtenstein. On the other hand the fragment adds nothing to the article at all since a reader cannot possublly undrstand it without the context.


 * A personal vendetta? Don't flatter yourself. It's merely a difference of opinion about the necessity of including the full text of a rather long quote. Gamaliel 18:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Carded
Can anybody say who put a US$2.5million Lichtenstein purchase on his credit card? Trekphiler 18:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Just read the article, nastily vandalised


 * Where? Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 13:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of the Early Years Section: (quote)"everybody say he stinks!!1

all he cares is about himself.

joy libchicken is such a wimp he stinks like poo and we all hate it because he stinks every where he goes. he sayed that he doesn't even know how to say CHICKEN!. well; he is a CHICKEN!"

This is the part! I think it must be in HTML or some other code not visible from the edit text page (it doesn't show up there..)


 * Your efforts to combat this are GREATLY appreciated! However, it would seem you were viewing a version of the page cached on your local computer. The vandalism in question was removed by User:ACBest earlier today, see this link. If you are using Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox, you might want to try "Ctrl+F5" or "Ctrl+R" if something like this happens again. If you are using a Mac, the appropriate command would be "Commad+R". Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First One Man Show
In Early Years: In 1951 he had his first one-man exhibition at a gallery in New York. In Rise to Fame: ...and he had his first one man show at the gallery in 1962. Which is true? Little tinyfish 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a serious flaw. I'll do my best to look into it. Jobjörn (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Position of Citation
Shouldn't the citation number fall before the period, within the sentence? Little tinyfish 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It should go like this: "This is a sentence.[1]" Why? I don't know, but see WP:MOS, there might be an explanation there. Jobjörn (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

27.10.1923-29.9.1997 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.233.9 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Modernist
That Tokyo digital museum link does not offer much of anything compared to the online gallery it was replaced by. Can you honestly say that the Tokyo museum link provides better content related to the article than the museum syndicate website? Is one painting better than over 70? What is your justification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that you are adding a commercial site advertising its cheap goods for sale. The other site - Tokyo Digital is irrelevant although it probably also can be deleted. Stop adding SPAM to this article...Modernist (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

References which support that anti-art be mentioned in the article

 * Richard Kearney. “The Wake of Imagination”. Routledge, 1998, p. 254 : “Marcel Duchamp announces the end of humanist art as an expression of the creative imagination: art becomes an anti-art which ironically mimics the dehumanizing tendencies of our mechanistic age. The works of Lichtenstein, Beuys, Ben Vautier, Ballagh and Warhol confirm this conviction. Warhol, for example, represents the dissolution of the personality of the artist in the mechanical gesture of reproducing media images. He uses a seriographic technique which replaces the notion of an ‘authentic’ original with that of a multiple series. Here art derides itself by playing on the idea of the image as an artificial imitation of another equally artificial image. Reflecting the consumerist ideology of interchangeable cultural objects. Warhol’s pop art negates the humanist notion of creative subjectivity. Hence Warhol’s response to the news that Picasso had produced four thousand paintings in his life was to declare: ‘I can do as many in twenty four hours-four thousand works which will all be the same work and all of them masterpieces." The phenomenon of a unique human imagination producing a unique aesthetic object in a unique time and space thus collapses into a play of infinite repetition. The work becomes absolutely transparent, a mechanically reproducible surface without depth or interiority, a copy with no reference to anything other than a pseudo—world of copies.”
 * Tilman Osterwold. “Pop art”. Taschen, 2003, p. 44. “‘I want to be a machine,’ says Andy Warhol, the founder of an art ‘Factory’ in New York, where pictures were reproduced using photographic clippings as models. Even confirmed painters like Robert Rauschenberg, Roy Lichtenstein and Jasper Johns spoke of the ‘depersonalization’ and ‘anonymity’ of their work.” P. 55. : “Pop artists saw their work as anti-art, at least in relation to traditional notions of art. They expressed this in their depersonalization of style, their anti-subjectivism, in the roles they assumed in mass society and in their redefinition of art itself.” Armando Navarro (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Bogus" Image
I don't see what was so "bogus" about the Whaam! comparison image. It's the original comic book image and the Lichtenstein side by side, placed next to the text discussing the matter of the original sources of his works. I feel it adds usefully to the discussion, so I'm reinstating the comparison image. I should also note that the image in and of itself is being objected to by another editor at its talk page, so perhaps this discussion is best carried out there rather than here. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think that image belongs in this article and it will be deleted. This is an article about Roy Lichtenstein. It isn't an article about your opinions about him and his work. Your so called image does not belong in this article. If you want to create an alternative article analyzing Lichtentein's sources and relationship with other artist's work and/or appropriations of others work - make a new article...Modernist (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is complete nonsense! The image is complementing the discussion in the text directly next to it. Should that all be moved as well. Is your objection to the "Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein" text? That was present from the site the image was obtain from, as reference on the image source page. I lack the image manipulation skills necessary to remove this, but if that is what you are objecting to then I suppose I could make some ham fisted job or erasing it. But is such manipulation Kosher around here? I have no idea.


 * I'll try editing the image, or finding a better one and uploading that instead. Hopefully that will be sufficient to meet your objections. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference already covers your point, This is not an article about comparisons, it is a biography your image will be deleted if you include it...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. By that logic, none of the pictures on the page should be included. These images are all derivative of comic book excerpts. In any case, I have managed to find a good replacement from the image from an impeccable source, along with new information for the article. I'll include it all in the revised image. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a biographical article, the issue you seem so hell bent on including is already mentioned and referenced. The image is disrespectful and speculative and it should not be included in this article. There already is an article on Appropriation include it there if you have to...Modernist (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The redone image I have uploaded comes directly from the Roy Lichtenstien foundation and includes a link to the image and the original DC comic which are both hosted on the very same site. This isn't a controversial issue, or being disrespectful, or being opinionated, or appropriation controversies, or anything else. This is actually where the image comes from and it is something that Lichtenstien was always very open about, as evidenced for by the citation of the original source on his foundation's site.


 * This image is in my honest opinion and useful and appropriate inclusion to the article, and moreover I have at this point made every effort to ensure that the image is properly compliant by any reasonable standard to Wikipedia policies, such as can be discerned. If you have any further objections to the inclusion of the image, I would ask you to involve an outside arbiter before you remove the refurbised image, however exactly one goes about that. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We need a consensus and other editorial opinions...Modernist (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I simply cannot accept that explanation. I have encountered pleas to consensus before, and they have in my experience universally resulted in no consensus at all and have simply degenerated into stonewalling. I note that consensus only seems to be needed for the image to be added, and not for it to be removed. I also note that in the case of this particular image I have gone to great lengths to ensure that the image is well sourced, accurate, relevant and moreover complies with this site policies.


 * I am more than willing to hear the views and opinions of other editors on this matter. However, I cannot accept that an image for which every effort has been made to make proper and complete should be so brusquely removed by a single editor whose objections are frankly at odds with the very text of the article. I see no honest reason why this image should need to achieve consensus in order to stay up rather than in order to be removed. I believe there is no grounds in calling for consensus as this image is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate one to include in the article.


 * For these reasons, I am reinstating the image on the page, I would ask once again, that you if you have remaining objections to bring them before whatever authority is needed to resolve such disputes. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words you don't care that you deleted the image that was already there around 6 times already, you don't care that the Lichtenstein foundation appears to object to the premise the image proposes and you don't care about consensus or anyone else's opinion, you will do what you feel like...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I care about factual, accurate and educational content on pages in this encyclopaedia. This image constitutes such content. You have still not explained what is wrong with the image, except to say that it is "disrespectful", "speculative" or irrelevant. Moreover you are misrepresenting the Lichtenstein foundation, as they have the original image posted on the very same page as the "Whaam!" work, and are quite open about its derivative nature.


 * Why shouldn't the original image and the Lichtenstein be shown side by side next to a paragraph discussing how Lichtenstein derived his works in this period from comic book imagery? Is this some breach of etiquette? Should the whole paragraph be removed? I have removed the water marked image from the original source site, and have sourced both images directly from the horse's mouth, as it were. Is this image a misrepresentation? Is it inaccurate? Does it detract from the usefulness and informational value of the article? What is wrong with it?


 * Apparently the image has been removed by another user but they didn't take the opportunity to state why. I'll wait a day or so for them to post their reasons here. I am actually interesting in hearing reasoned arguments against the inclusion. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all on the foundation page the two images are separated with the painting and its ancillary prototype in separate sections on the page. - In your concoction they are jammed one on top of the other, same size, essentially obscuring the entire point of the painting and its sources. There is a very clear distinct gap between the painting which is at the Tate and the comic as source. As to being disrespectful of the artwork I think that is obvious - Roy Lichtenstein's original work does not include a piggyback on top. You have altered and defaced his painting, you have altered the size and scale of the two separate artworks and you have altered and debased the meaning of the original work..Modernist (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly necessary to get consensus in a confrontational situation like this. Edit-warring will lead to blocks. I don't have any problem with the comic image being included. In fact, I consider it highly desirable that it is, so the reader can be informed about Lichtenstein's source material and use of it. However, I agree with Modernist that the current display of the two jammed together is inappropriate and gives too much prominence to the comic. The widely known image is Lichtenstein's and the reader should be able to see that in isolation for what it is. A smaller separate image of the comic, perhaps on the right of the page with some text in between would work well. I don't see this as in any way demeaning to Lichtenstein, and, if it is, that's not a valid reason for omitting it, as it is factual and referenced. The comic image will need to be uploaded separately. I suggest also a less flippant approach to the fair use statements.  Ty  01:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I follow your logic on why the images should not be juxtaposed, but I don't agree that this should be precluded. Obviously the canvas art was much larger than the original comic image, however I don't think this difference in the physical size of the actual works should mean that the comic images should be physically smaller on the page. The similarity between the images is referenced right there in the text and placing them "side by side" shows this information visually. In the artists minds eye, surely the images were compared in this way. I don't see a problem with showing a comparision of this kind visually. It's what the text is talking about. I hardly see how this "defaces" the painting.


 * I do accept the point about there being no divider between the images. The original image was from a site called Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein, which is the first result returned for a search for Lictenstien and comics. Admittedly not the best source, especially with the site watermark, but since it had the exact juxtaposition that the text was talking about, I uploaded it and added it. After finding the improved images separately on the Lictenstein foundation site, I just kept the old image format.


 * But while the current format has its problems, I don't know of any other way to properly juxtapose images using the Mediawiki system. Floats tend to throw images around the page, and I have never been able to get the gallery tag to work satisfactorily (specifically, to get it to use the existing image boxes with the right caption font and "enlarge image links", etc). If there was a better way to show two images side by side, I would use it, but I don't know of any. (Although at this point, I'm concerned that two images means double the chances that one of them will be rather capriciously speedily deleted. The image upload requirements are a bedlam that I have found nigh impossible to navigate.)


 * In conclusion, I would agree with changing the manner of the juxtaposition, but not removing the juxtaposition itself. I can upload both files separately and order them in whatever way seems fittest, but I think they should be placed side by side on the page to illustrate the nature of the derivation. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The painting is already there, in the article, all that is needed is one image - the comic. Then add it to the article or I will add it to the article once you upload it. Keep it simple, all that is needed is the source image.Editors will decide how the two separate images work in the article, not just you...Modernist (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Three editors so far have disagreed with the juxtaposition. The main image is the painting. The comic is supplementary and should not be given the same prominence, unless you can show that this is how major sources normally present Lichtenstein's painting.  Ty  02:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Only two editors have disagreed. The view that the comic is supplementary or should not be given prominence is simply not legitimate. It is the original source of the painting and juxtaposing the two, with blow ups, shows this in a simple visual way. Now, perhaps this is regarded as disrespectful in art circles, but this article is not for art circles. It's for everybody. And most people will immediately be able to see both the similarities and the differences between the original and the painting if they are presented side by side in this way. This was always a source a controversy in the art community and beyond and attempting to reduce the prominence of the original misrepresents the debate.


 * Apparently I must now show how "major sources" present Lichtenstein's work before the juxtaposition can be made; an adjective that no doubt excludes the original source of this image. I sincerely doubt that any member of the art gallery community has given much prominence to the derivative nature of these paintings, preferring to sweep their creation process under the carpet instead of showing it honestly. I put it to you that this new requirement is simply the latest in a long series of attempts to stonewall the addition of this image to the article, by people who object to any attention being drawn to the derivative nature of these paintings. The end result is an article written, not for the benefit of all, but for the benefit of those who control it.


 * I will add the original image to article in the manner in which "consenus" has deemed fit, though I have little doubt that my interpretation of the requirements set down will be seen as entirely too liberal, both in the article and probably in the image which I upload. I suspect that ultimately, the very presence of the comic image in the article will be be a point that "consensus" will dispute. In the meantime, perhaps some small, postage stamp icon of the original will be allowed to remain on the page for, if nothing else, the sake of article completeness.


 * I will end by asking anyone truly interested the continued good running of this encyclopedia to take a long hard look at the sequences of events surrounding the (attempted) addition of this image to the article. The process goes beyond a simple art gallery dispute and speaks volumes about the procedures and processes that determine how articles are written and maintained on Wikipedia. I will end only by saying that in my opinion, these processes are in need of reform.ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The three editors are myself, Modernist and Ceoil, who reverted your edit.Most of your post is completely irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We follow established sources per WP:V and WP:NPOV and our own opinions are not appropriate per WP:NOR. If, as you say, the art world does not feature the comparison, that is actually an argument to omit it in the article. However, the comparison is and has been made. However, I note there is no referenced text to point out the relationship between the comic book image and Lichtenstein's so I suggest you provide some, before someone comes along and puts the comic image up for deletion on that basis.


 * I have moved the image to the right and reduced the size per WP:MOSIMAGE. The picture readers should see first and be able to study for itself is Lichtenstein's. That is the famous one.  They can then encounter his source material. If you're not happy with that, then we will call in further opinion. In the meantime, please leave it as it is. See WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR.


 * 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am simply amazed beyond belief by the above comments by . There is no controversy about the appropriation of imagery anymore, except I guess in his mind. I earlier directed that editor to Appropriation art and I suggest now that he/she read up on the work of Sherrie Levine and her Walker Evans appropriations. The source of Roy Lichtenstein's imagery is old news, very old news, more than 20 years old news. When Roy was alive he met his sources and acknowledged them. That is not the point of Roy's paintings, by the way. - Andy Warhol dealt with appropriation lawsuits, - (he used all kinds of sources for his paintings including Elsie the Cow and Mickey Mouse), as did Sherrie Levine, David Salle and others...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Modernist that a separate article is a reasonable consideration for a place where such comparisons can be made. I don't think a source exists that uses language that relies on such imagistic comparisons. That is for the reason that the imagistic similarities are a given. There is nothing remarkable about the superficial imagistic similarities in this instance, any more than it is found to be remarkable that there are superficial imagistic similarities between some of Warhol's paintings and sculptures and commercial entities found on supermarket shelves and in warehouses. It is a given that there is somewhat careful copying. This isn't something that has to be proven. No source is going to dwell on the striking similarities between that which is presented as a work of art and that from which it is derived because that is so obvious as to not warrant comment. What is called for to justify inclusion of the comic book image in the Lichtenstein article is some real point to be made by invoking the comic book images. Just plunking the comic book image down in the Lichtenstein article without substantial verbal justification merely serves to, in my opinion, imply the exposure of something scandalous. There really isn't any. Everyone knows the artwork is based on common commercial sources. In my personal opinion there is nothing to be gained by placing the comic book image in the Lichtenstein article, and in fact doing so creates its own nonverbal message that is a message that is un-sourced. Again, that message has to do with the exposing of the dirty truth behind these paintings, that they are entirely derivative of someone else's efforts. But I don't think that message is sourced. And I don't think that message is consistent with the message of the more general artistic climate that this artwork comes from. In my opinion, the challenge these artists faced was to present the quotidian as the extaordinary. It is a given that the quotidian is quotidian. That doesn't have to be proven. Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, Bus stop. It's like Rip Van Winkle just woke up and discovered that Pop art exists...Modernist (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Slightly apropos, I find this article on the Brillo Soap Pad box, which is of course a sculptural entity by Andy Warhol. In that article we find that the designer of that shipping carton, used in the actual commerce of Brillo soap pads, was a man named James Harvey, who was also a "fine-art-artist" aside from being a "commercial-artist." I don't know what point any of this makes. But it is interesting, I think. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find, it brings into focus the nearly 50 year discussion concerning appropriations and some of the ethical, legal issues that come into play...Modernist (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think having the source image in the article greatly benefits my understanding of Lichtenstein. I specifically appreciated the juxtaposition image; I'm new to his work and understanding just how much he appropriates gives me insight into what he's trying to do. The arguments against including the source image and the juxtaposition image seem to be based on the assumption that any Wikipedia reader would readily understand that Lichtenstein's works are heavily influenced by single specific sources. Or, at least, that there would be no possible educational reason to display the images because some people may react to it negatively. If you believe appropriation to be no big deal, then why block the source/juxtaposition images from the article? Anyone with an eye can see he shapes his version to augment his intentions. MMBKG (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Images
Based on WP:NFCC considerations, this article should continue to have no more than four FU images of his art. When there were only articles about three of his works (prior to May 9, 2012), having two about the same painting seemed appropriate. Now that more than 30 of his works have articles on WP, I think we should now reconsider which four images represent Lichtenstein's career. I don't think any work should be the subject of more than two of the images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kudos Tony for your good work. Frankly I agree four FU images are more than enough considering the text. We need to keep Drowning Girl and Wham because they are important early works and should stay, we should add Big Painting No. 6 because when he created these brushstroke paintings he put the world on notice that he was a serious painter and not simply a cartoon hack; and it's a terrific example of those paintings. I have always been blown away by this painting Portrait of Madame Cézanne it appropriates and quotes an illustration from the book by Erle Loran entitled Cézanne's Composition that every art history teacher had in the '50s, however it's a little esoteric. As a 4th image perhaps we should use this one: Bedroom at Arles as it is from 1992 and covers another type of the appropriation aspect of his career...Modernist (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am just realizing that Little Big Painting may be the better brushstroke representation. Look at some of these quotes: "In Big Painting No. 6 and Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, Lichtenstein dramatically enlarged the size of the canvas and increased the dynamic activity that was so much a part of Little Big Painting." and "Little Big Painting is one of several paintings&mdash;of which other examples are the large canvas of the same year, Big Painting No. 6 (fig. 130), and the aforementioned Yellow and Green Brushstrokes&mdash; in which Lichtenstein uses overlapping forms rather than centering one form or placing two side by side." Do you have any sources saying that Big Painting No. 6 was the one that made the art world take notice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

NFCC query
Is this car a sculpture/painting or just a car in terms of WP:NFCC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a car to me :)...Modernist (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer the car to the signature by the way in spite of the German article...Modernist (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We've tried to not use sigs in articles for multiple reasons - no matter what the Germans do...Modernist (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove it and use an explanatory edit summary. I don't know what the reasoning is behind sigs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will add the car back if we get the goahead at Media_copyright_questions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we replace one or two paintings with murals or sculptures?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets go to 5 or 6 FU images. Roy's paintings are well covered now - the car is interesting - I've no objection to the addition of a sculpture; or mural; I prefer the sculpture...Modernist (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Saw the NFCC question at WP:MCQ and having dealt with non-free images for several years though I should add my views. I believe the BMW image fails the non-free criteria, especially WP:NFCC because there is no critical commentary about the image that makes it contextually significant, just prose that it was commissioned and the WP:FURG says that the image is required to support the fact that it is mentioned in the article. That is just not enough to justify the inclusion of such a non-free image. "Bedroom at Arles", "Big Painting No. 6" have no critical commentary of any kind either to justify their inclusion. Only "Whaam!" has any reasonable commentary and "Drowning Girl" has some reasonable prose. These should be fixed or removed and ideally any commentary should be supported by WP:RS. Deciding how many images to use is not the real issue; each and every non-free image must be justified with a fully compatible fair-use rationale. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above that each image used needs to be discussed in the text. I think the paintings used cover Lichtenstein's ouevre, and explanatory text is needed. I think the car will also require explanation as would any additional imagery...Modernist (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone is presenting instructions for someone else to clean up the text. I could copy some text in from Bedroom at Arles and Big Painting No. 6, but I have no case to present about the car being important to his biography. Not even sure either of these paintings is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree Tony - all we can do imo is write about the genre using the imagery as examples of some of Lichtenstein's various moves within his aesthetic. As you already know having written those various articles - Big Painting No. 6, represents an excellent example of his brushstroke series which harken back to his abstract expressionist work when he was still at Rutgers, the Bedroom at Arles painting is an example of his appropriation from art history paintings which have included other appropriations from famous works by well known artists including Picasso, Matisse, Cezanne, Vincent van Gogh etc. which also illustrates Roy's extremely sophisticated knowledge of art and art history - underlining his interests were not just comics. Although Roy also had a well developed sense of humor. While the car is an example of Roy's more commercial, industrial projects encompassing - ceramics, public sculpture, murals, banners, houseware, and other objects - all calling into question and re-defining our understanding of what constitutes a work of art. Some of his other subjects include: school notebooks, backs of paintings and the stretchers, mirrors, - he was communicating the Duchampian, Picassoid, lesson that anything can be art...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My limited knowledge of the topic means any contribution I make can only be to advise you on whether the images pass NFCC, why they are deficient and what might be done for them to be retained. I neither know the topic nor the sources that might help you justify the use of such non-free images. Commentary about the genre of the images may well be all that is necessary but you do need to support it with WP:RS and modify the rationales to reflect accurately the "purpose". Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Original comics
Should we include the original comics artwork in these articles. In responding to the above thread, I moved the original artwork for Whaam! from Roy Lichtenstein to the page for the work. Should I get a FU image of each original source if possible?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion we don't. Appropriation has been litigated and although we included one image related to Whaam! I think in a tight article like the one we have it blows the issue out of proportion. I think it's well placed in the article about Whaam!. I think it can and should be discussed in the text. I'm curious how the Chicago Art Institute handles the situation in the upcoming show...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As to FU imagery of the original comics - if you can - why not?...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have found 10 source files. Currently, I still need another 6 comics source files: Girl in Mirror, Happy Tears, I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!, I Know...Brad, Oh, Jeff...I Love You, Too...But..., M-Maybe. I expect to find a few of these when I go back through some of these books again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just found source for Look Mickey.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Further Improvements
I have two suggestions for the improvement of this article. The first is to add a link to the website below that displays Lichtenstein's work beside earlier published comic book panels that have the same layout and content, while also listing their artists. This would allow readers to understand more easily the plagiarism controversy around Roy Lichtenstein and his art, which is very relevant for his biographical page. The second suggestion is when discussing his technique, to have a little more than links to the Ben-Day dot Wikipedia page. Ben-Day dots are a mechanical process used in production for printing color images using a minimal color palette, most often times found in comic books, magazines, and newspapers. So Roy Lichtenstein just took this pre-existing mechanical technique and increased the dot size to make his stylized pictures. I think this addition would help readers understand what influenced him and how he made his artwork, as well as the main contribution Roy Lichtenstein brought to the art world by introducing Ben-Day dots in a large scale to Pop Art and the mass public.

The article is DECONSTRUCTING ROY LICHTENSTEIN, which would be useful for those ignorant of the topic to see the artwork side by side and form their own judgement on the controversial matter. David Barsalou (NYPOP) has been going through comic books for 32 years to do a comparative analysis of them with Roy Lichtenstein's works. This article Deconstructing Lichtenstein: Source Comics Revealed and Credited - ComicsAlliance has further information if you would like to know more, as well as quotes from David Barsalou and others. --Sarahild (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues?
Having just seen a BBC documentary on Lichtenstein, I am curious as to how he avoided being sued for copyright infringement for his 'appropriation' of existing art works. Of course, his paintings based on comic strips or advertisements were not identical to the originals, but they were close enough that 'copying' could hardly be denied. Indeed, according to the BBC documentary, he started his paintings by projecting the original in large scale onto his canvas, then tracing round it. So how did he get away with it? I am not an expert on US copyright law, and I have not found any clear answer from Google. One possibly relevant point I did find was that in 1965 the British 'Op' artist Bridget Riley visited the US and was appalled to see the widespread use of her work in commercial design. She reportedly tried suing but was not successful, but it has been claimed that the law was subsequently changed as a result of her complaints (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/nov/27/bridget-riley-national-gallery-review ). If this is true, it might help explain both how Roy Lichtenstein avoided being sued, and why he stopped using comic book images in the late 60s! But I have not found any confirmation that the law was in fact changed in any relevant way at this time. I can only guess that the rather loose US doctrine of 'fair use' saved him109.158.46.125 (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is some discussion of this at Portrait of Madame Cézanne.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexual affairs

 * (Contentious content): Erika Wexler, daughter of Norman Wexler, has stated that she was Lichtenstein's lover from 1991 to 1994, and that she was the inspiration for his move into painting nudes and is shown in Large Interior with Three Reflections, Nude with Yellow Flower and Nudes with Beach Ball. She described the relationship for the first time in mid-February 2013 on the eve of a retrospective exhibition at the Tate Modern gallery. She reported that Lichtenstein "had his parallel thing with a lover or whatever and she [Lichtenstein's wife Dorothy] had her thing. It worked for them. They had a lot of homes, which helps."

This is a ridiculous bid for attention by someone selling an album...We don't add every affair every artist has or had or every muse, how absurd is this nonsense becoming?..Modernist (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the proposed content be distilled to an encyclopedic fact?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why this should be removed. This is a biographical article. We have similar information in articles on other artists. Indeed Marie-Thérèse Walter, one of Picasso's many lovers, has her own article, in spite of the fact her sole notability is that fact that she bedded Pablo. The same is true of Fanny Cornforth, one of Rossetti's lady-loves. It's arguable how relevant such material is. In the case of Picasso and Rossetti, it's directly linked to their art (the models/lovers affect the style of the paintings inspired by them). With other artists, lovers or partners may be almost irrelevant. In this case it seems to be relevant, but the weakness is that, unlike Fanny and Marie-Thérèse, we have little or no information beyond the interview. Still, my inclination is to keep the material as it gives us some insight into his life and work. Paul B (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lichtenstein ain't Picasso. Leave any mention of Mrs. Lichtenstein out of this; it's hearsay and potentially libelous. If you want a short version - then make it short...Modernist (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, this isn't even remotely an argument. It's just assertion. What on earth does "Lichtenstein ain't Picasso" even mean? Picasso's love-life can be discussed because, what, he's more famous? What kind of an argument is is that (if that is what you are saying)? And, no, it is not "hearsay". Hearsay is rumour. This is direct assertion from someone who says she participated. WP:BLP obviously does not apply, and the libel comment is ridiculous. He's dead. There would be no libel issue even if he were not, as we are merely reporting what she says, which has already been published in a WP:RS source. Paul B (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sourcing for Picasso as a sexual person would be more substantial than what passes for sourcing here. This could be a function of the times in which Picasso produced artwork or this could be a result of actual sexual activity and its relevance to the work for which he is notable. Do we have reason to think sexual or other emotional liaisons have bearing on artistic direction concerning Lichtenstein? Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already addressed that point. Clearly the sourcing for Picasso is more substantial. All that is being proposed is that her statements are included in the section on his personal life. No one is suggesting that she should get her own article like Marie-Thérèse on the strength of this. I merely used this as an example to indicate that comparable information is often included in articles on artists, writers etc. The interview does indeed make a claim about the impact on his art. Paul B (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Dorothy Lichtenstein is very much alive and the statement concerning her is unverified, unsourced and potentially libelous - it is the opinion of the woman claiming to have an affair with an artist who is now dead. Marie Therese Walter was the mother of one of Picasso's children by the way. Leave Dorothy out of any of this nonsense...Modernist (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For someone who's been here a long time, you seem to have a hazy understanding of what "unsourced" means. This has already been published in a reliable source. It is sourced to the Standard. It is not an "opinion". It's a statement made by someone about her own experience. Marie Therese being the mother of one of Picasso's children is wholly irrelevant. Dora Maar had no children by him. Fanny Cornforth had no children by Rossetti. That's not what makes the subject relevant or irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What if we discard the last sentence with the quote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim of the impact on the art seems insubstantial to me. I am doubting its relevance to this article. How does the information in question relate in any meaningful way to the art? Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * She is claiming he was inspired by youth (which does seem related to his eternally "adolescent" form of art, as it were) and that he started painting nudes when he was knocking around with her. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Her claim is self-serving regarding an artist dead since 1997...Modernist (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's been dead for a few years. I fail to see why that's relevant. Yes, it is to some extent self-serving, but that does not alter its interest. Often people have books to sell. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. The reader can make up his/her mind whether they want to think it's of real importance. This article is not overlong. There is very little on the relation between his personal life and his art. This offers one view, that's all. Paul B (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But we have virtually no sourcing connecting his "personal life and his art." The sourcing provided is insubstantial opinion by someone without credentials that might allow her to make connections between his "personal life and his art." Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have we looked to see if this claim is affirmed by multiple sources, which would sort of require us to summarize them. I see it in a wide range of RS although I didn't look to see if they are independent stories or rehashing of an original.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter to the reader if in Erica Wexler's opinion "she was the inspiration for his move into painting nudes"? Would the inclusion of such material tend to lead the reader into a better understanding of Lichtenstein's paintings? Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am talking about adding the content back to Roy Lichtenstein not a Understanding Roy Lichtenstein's paintings article. There is more to Lichtenstein than paintings. Personal relationships shaped him in many ways that are reflected through his paintings. A muse certainly is a relevant topic to understanding the man. I know both of the paintings that I have created detailed articles about were greatly shaped by his personal relationships. Look Mickey was shaped by his relationship with his kids and his colleagues. Drowning Girl was very likely shaped by the dissolution of his marriage. We need to teach the reader about his relationships when possible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But the wording suggests a possible understanding or interpretation of the artwork. In my opinion we need a better source for that understanding or interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind Wexler is the primary source; what is reported is her unverified (by any secondary sources) opinion regarding the affair and his wife and his work. Every art historical word that I've read regarding Roy's nudes of the 90s say he did not work from models or living people but returned to comic book imagery. She offers her opinion of herself as the muse - I have not seen any verification anywhere of that assertion. Wikipedia is not a gossip column...Modernist (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wexler on her own website would be a PRIMARY source. Wexler in the Evening Standard is a secondary source, even as quoted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now had some time to run through a lot of the secondary sources. Wexler does not claim to have "sat" for the nudes. My mediocre understanding of Spanish from El Mundo is that she was his girlfriend and always running around nude. Going back to April 2012, Evening Standard and August 2012, Female First there are secondary sources presenting her claim as a muse. In early Feb 2013, Female First again presented Wexler as the muse. A few weeks later both the Evening Standard (Feb 2013) and Daily Mail (Feb 2013) presented her as his muse. The Daily Mail presentation makes a very strong link. The BBC also presents her as his muse. Wikipedia must admit this content, even though no books make this link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is "muse" a meaningful term? Just because some reliable sources call her his "muse", should we be using that term? What would it mean in relation to Lichtenstein? Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that wikipedia has no obligation to discuss Lichtenstein's girlfriend - a minor character in his life; (countless other artists have sexual liasons - some of which sourced - with no obligatory inclusions here); my main objection is any mention of Roy's wife as seen in the above quote verges on libel to a living person and is both unverified and outrageous...Modernist (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Every cite above is a re-hash of Wexler telling her story and promoting her career; there are no secondary sources that have appeared - you know - like I met Roy and his girlfriend at the bank last Monday - other people discussing Wexler with Lichtenstein would help verification; we don't need this at all...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the point of WP:RS was to say that an editorial process confirmed content at some level. Are we now saying that we can't rely on a fact corroborated by El Mundo, Evening Standard, Daily Mail and BBC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gossip repeated is still gossip...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. I agree with Modrnist that Wexler is essentially a primary source, and even if not, out of respect to the living, apart from good taste, we should not include the salcious claim about the affairs. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tony, but I also tend to agree with Modernist. Unlike, perhaps a poet or novelist, this salacious detail adds little to our understanding of his work. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a day when this content is in published books, I will take this argument up again.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In the mean time, Nudes with Beach Ball seems like it should include the Daily Mail (Feb 2013) content on this matter. What do you guys think about mentioning this stuff in individual works articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally, we can't possibly use such an unreliable tabloid gutter rag. Ahem, um, actually that's an interesting little piece and I think perfectly relevant to that article. Might even be useful at Andy Partridge! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think in articles on specific works its ok to incorporate elements. Thats very differnt to adding supposedly biographical info. Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Yes, it's a good source as it shows part of the picture. But there's a full one here: ). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with adding one of those paintings as an example of his late work...Modernist (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made this edit; I hope that's acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Exhibit at Tate Modern
I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but fwiw, I do know there is a major retrospective exhibit currently at the Tate Modern: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/lichtenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.106.176 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The dates of that exhibition are 21 February – 27 May 2013. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox problem
I'm just a casual internet surfer, so I don't really know how to fix it myself. Just a heads up if anyone can help out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.189.126 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done...Modernist (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Roy Lichtenstein. 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/20130606071341/http://lichtensteinfoundation.org/lfchron1.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lfchron1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112223049/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518225317/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/ to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/

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) 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Roy Lichtenstein. 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/20131104111859/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002013823/http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2013/may/image-duplicator-pop-arts-comic-theft to http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2013/may/image-duplicator-pop-arts-comic-theft
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002102214/http://blog.comicsgrid.com/2011/04/whaam-becoming-a-flaming-star/ to http://blog.comicsgrid.com/2011/04/whaam-becoming-a-flaming-star/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924143840/http://www.sothebys.com/en/catalogues/ecatalogue.html/2012/contemporary-art-evening-n08853 to http://www.sothebys.com/en/catalogues/ecatalogue.html/2012/contemporary-art-evening-n08853

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) 20:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)