Roy Lichtenstein’s Tears: Art vs. Pop in American Culture1 Bart Beaty

He had one curious encounter at camp. He dropped by the chief of staff’s quarters one night and found a young soldier sitting on a bunk, crying like a baby. “He said he was an artist,” Novick remembered, “and he had to do menial work, like cleaning up the officers’ quarters.

“It turned out to be Roy Lichtenstein. The work he showed me was rather poor and academic.” Feeling sorry for the kid, Novick got on the horn and got him a better job. “Later on, one of the first things he started copying was my work. He didn’t come into his own, doing things that were worth- while, until he started doing things that were less academic than that. He was just making large copies of the cartoons I had drawn and painting them.”

—Irv Novick reminisces (Duin and Richardson 332)

Irv Novick’s recollections of a wartime meeting with Roy Lichten- stein intersect with common assumptions about the cultural value of pop art in a number of fascinating ways. Lichtenstein, of course, is an artist who is best known for his ironic reworkings of panels taken from American comic books. Two particular comic book genres were emphasized by Lichtenstein—the war comic, with the scenes of battle that he presumably missed while doing menial work, and the romance comic, with the crying heroines who are subtly recalled above. Novick evokes both of these genres in his anecdote. A jour- neyman artist for DC Comics, who himself specialized in war com- ics, Novick suggests that Lichtenstein’s wartime experiences served as an important psychological test for the artist. Furthermore, the test is one that the artist seems to have failed according to the domi- nant criteria of masculinity. One further intersection bears mention, however, and helps to elucidate further the importance of Novick’s

© Canadian Review of American Studies/Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34, no. 3, 2004 14 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) 1960s, withLichtensteinasacrucialpointforcriticism andcom- of culture.Itisadebatethathasragedincomicbook circles sincethe dered fearsabouttherelationshipbetweenhighand popularforms onstrates, thisdistasteisfundamentallyrootedinsubmerged gen- derided hisownwork.AstheNovickstorycitedabove soablydem- stein asarepresentativeofanartworldthathas consistently doors ofthemuseumorartgallery.Novicklashes out atLichten- egated comicstotheleveloflowbrowculture,never todarkenthe hostility oroutrageagainsttheartestablishmentofAmerica thatrel- and hisoutput,therefore,shouldberegardedasaform ofdisplaced ever fromtherealmofart.Novick’sattemptstoridiculeLichtenstein work ofacreatingsubjectandseeminglybanishedcomicbooksfor- possibility thatthecodifiedworkofIrvNovickmightalsobe subject (Lobel156–7).Thistypeofdistinctiondeniedoutrightthe ized setofrules,whilethelatterisproductaunique,creating codes: thesemioticandaesthetic.Theformerisaconventional- stein’s workcouldbeunderstoodthroughthefunctioningoftwo mind (13–4).Inasimilarvein,MichaelLobelsuggestedthatLichten- the factthatLichtensteinpaintswithideaofmuseumin Mouse andaLichtensteinpaintingofthesamewasarthistory,or suggested thatthedifferencebetweenacomicstripofMickey Harold Rosenbergsummedupthedistinctionsuccinctlywhenhe form intheirownright,theywerefrequentlydismissedoutright. painting practices,comicbooksweresuspecttomostcritics,andasa view remainedaminorityopinion.Assourcematerialforhighart mate “popphenomenon”deservingrespect(Benchley169),butthis As earlyas1966,criticssuggestedthatcomicbookswerealegiti- the tworealms. gender thedistinctioninordertoreversetraditionalvaluationof relationship betweencomicbooksandpopart,whileattemptingto war—and byextensioninart—Novickacknowledgesthefraught characterizing Lichtensteinassomeonewhojustcouldn’tcutitin tion oftherealmpopartinrelationtoworldcomics.In Lichtenstein ascryinglikeababycanbereadfurtherfeminiza- it wasNovickwhotherealman.Novick’sattempttofeminize tenstein thepaintertrumpsNovickcartoonist,onbattlefield own careerhadeclipsed,justasitdrewupon,hisown.WhileLich- story seemstobeanattemptpersonallydiminishartistwhose including “Whaam!”(1963)and“Okay,Hot-Shot”(1963).Novick’s some oftheimagesthatNovickhadcreatedforDCinhispaintings, painting inapopartstyle,Lichtensteindid,indeed,appropriate intentions withregardtothisunusualanecdote.Whenhebegan Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 15 diversity, own , Bob Levin defended Lichtenstein as a greater artist , Bob Levin defended Lichtenstein subtlety, richness, and graphic and literary ambitions. (3) subtlety, richness, and graphic and literary As bracing and exciting as pop art’s celebration of the flatness, As bracing and exciting as pop art’s celebration images was, one of its boldness and ubiquity of contemporary comics art to the unfortunate side effects has been to relegate bricks, and Campbell’s same cultural compost heap as urinals, as an antidote to soup cans. This show is meant at least partly blow-ups and semi- three decades of Roy Lichtenstein panel of comics’ abstract Mickey Mouses—a celebration Here Thompson enunciates one of the two primary charges that Here Thompson enunciates one of that his success has dimin- comic book fans lay against Lichtenstein: ished the possibility that comic art will be taken seriously as a legiti- mate art form in its own right. By reducing comic books to source material, Lichtenstein is accused of having made the legitimatization of comic books—already a difficult task—that much more challeng- ing. Lichtenstein, therefore, is seen not as honouring the comic book form with his paintings but as further devaluing the entire medium, based on the long-standing prejudice against cartoonists that has existed in the world of high art. For comic book fans, this prejudice, as Thompson pointed out in his essay, was exemplified by the Museum of Modern Art’s High and Low show in that same year, which focused on the ways that comics have influenced develop- ments in the fine arts but not vice versa. Nowhere in the exhibit was there an acknowledgement of comics as an art in and of themselves. plaint. Even as comics developed their own avant-garde with the developed their own avant-garde plaint. Even as comics thirty years in the late-1960s and emerged underground movement the hierarchies styles, their marginal position in later with bold new culture still rankles. of American visual came to a relationship to comic books The subject of Lichtenstein’s auctioned industry press in 1990, when Christie’s head in the comic comic book … Los” for $5.5 million. Why, the painting “Torpedos panel from a that painting, based on a single fans wondered, was the entire fifty-two-page comic comic book, valued so highly, when cost only a dime? Writing in the from which it was taken originally Comics Journal but his opinion was not widely than those from whom he borrowed, introduction to the 1991 Misfit shared in comics fandom (3–6). In the Art, Kim Thompson, Lit show at Seattle’s Center for Contemporary comic book publisher in the vice-president of the largest alternative raised the spectre of Lich- the United States, Fantagraphics Books, the notion that comic books are tenstein once again. He challenged when he wrote, simply “semi-anonymous art fodder” 16 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) question thetruecommodityatheartofcomics. The Price Guide widespread useofcomicbookpriceguidessuchas the framed anddisplayedasart—oratleasttemplates forart.The there arealsotheoriginalsofindividualpages, whichcanbe and onelater,whenitisperceivedasavaluablecollector’s item.But itself, whichhastwopossiblevalues—onewhenitis first published, are twodistinctphysicalobjectsthatcanbesold.There isthebook cussed. Forcomics,asahybridofbothprintandvisual media,there enters themarketwhenmonetaryvalueofcomic booksisdis- comic bookart(“Lichtenstein”23).Indeed,anelementofconfusion industry, althoughthemagazinerarelyreportedonsimilarsalesof if thiswerenewswithaparticularrelevanceforthecomicbook the comic booksandpaintingsatauctionintheearly1990s.InJuly1990, driven hometocomicsfandombytherelativevaluesplacedon Lichtenstein andthecreatorsofmanyhissourceimages—was The distinctionbetweencomicbooksandpainting—and a seriouscontributiontocontemporaryartpractices. gingly constantreminderofthefailurecomicbookstobetakenas form. Formanyincomicbookfandom,Lichtensteinservedasanag- expense ofthereputationcomicbookcreatorsandcomics fans thatwhatLichtensteinaccomplishedwithhisartcameatthe derive theirhumourfromthesharedassumptionamongcomicbook Baker’s satiricemphasisontheissuesofcreditandrecompense Alex TothandDonHeck”(8). images rippedofffromJackAbel,VinceColletta,FrankGiacoia, paying theartistswhocreatedhissourcematerialeither.Features how thecomicbookindustryrippedoffitstalent.Hedidthisbynot Man’s VinceColletta.’Lichtensteinmadeaboldstatementabout Museum ofAmericanArtinthisway:“‘RoyLichtenstein:TheRich Kyle Baker’s“GoingsonaboutTown”listsashowattheWhitney clear example).Inhisrecentcomicbookparodyofthe ymous work(thediscussionofthesale“Torpedoes…Los”isa artists whowerepaidextremelylowpageratesfortheirsemi-anon- a thiefwhohasmademillionsexploitingtheworkofcomicbook of respect,comicsfanshavelongchargedthatLichtensteinissimply Groth, actingascurator.Respondingdirectlytothisperceivedlack sponsored theMisfitLitshow,withcompany’sfounder,Gary create it.ItwasbecauseofthisapparentsnubthatFantagraphics Like akindofmutelypassivemuse,theycanonlyinspireart,not Comics Journal and Wizard Magazine reportedonthesaleofLichtenstein’spaintingsas withincomicsfandomhasplacedin New Yorker Overstreet Overstreet , Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 17 #1 Comics Jour- Action Comics , for example, explained the auction process to , for example, explained the auction reports on sales values of hundreds of thousands of dol- of hundreds of thousands of reports on sales values in 1984, when Marvel Comics—at that time the second largest in 1984, when Marvel Comics—at Price Guide sought after comics such as lars for copies of highly (the first appearance of the great American icon, Superman), but of the great American icon, Superman), (the first appearance values. In art pages rarely reach these dollar sales of original comics and Sotheby’s auction houses such as Christie’s the early 1990s, art for sale, comic books and original comics began to place both system more fully into the traditional exchange bringing comics a boon and This was perceived as both associated with painting. signalled a new community. On the one hand, it bane for the comics level of commerce. On the other, level of acceptance—at least at the comics art would be fundamen- it meant that the market for original An article in a 1994 issue of the tally altered and prices would rise. Jack Kirby Collector rapid rise in prices paid for comic book fans, while noting the reached more than US$7000 Kirby’s original art, which had now the prices paid for Kirby’s (“Kirby Original” 26–7). Nonetheless, of which were based drawings and Lichtenstein’s paintings—some spot for comics fans, particularly on Kirby’s drawings—were a sore had been one of the touchstones insofar as the fight over Kirby’s art the medium in the 1980s. of comics fandom’s efforts to legitimate on the pages of the The debate over Kirby’s art erupted nal in the United States— publisher of superhero comic books all of the original art in its ware- announced that it planned to return Marvel had begun returning art- house to the artists who created it. before that date had never work to artists in 1975, but pages drawn plan to return the original art— been retroactively returned. Their in the first place—came with a which legally belonged to the artists significant of these was that number of strings attached. The most waiver that acknowledged artists were required to sign a one-page that the pages had been drawn as part of a work-for-hire agreement. Changes to the work-for-hire legislation in 1978 had called the prov- enance of some of Marvel’s best-known characters into question. If artists who had worked on Marvel’s comics in the 1960s could dem- onstrate that they were freelancers who were not working under a work-for-hire agreement, they could theoretically challenge Mar- vel’s copyright claims when they came up for the initial twenty- eight-year renewals. The first of these renewals was for the Fantastic Four, a canonical superhero team created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, which would come due in 1989. By pressuring artists to sign a retroactive work-for-hire agreement in exchange for the return of their property, Marvel hoped to thwart potential challenges to their 18 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) In thehistoryofAmericancomicbooks,therehasbeen nosingletal- were echoedbythecartoonistFrankMiller: become sopopularovertheyears”(“Marvel”8).Similar sentiments tality thatlaidthefoundationforMarvelimage thatwasto comics: “ItwasKirby’svisualdynamismandstructural monumen- himself affirmedtheimportanceofartist’srolein thehistoryof as “thegreatestartistwhoworkedincomics”(“House” 6).Groth nal Writing ontheimportanceofreturningKirby’sart, style thatisassociatedwiththegloryyearsofsuperherorevival. genre. KnownaffectionatelyasTheKing,Kirbyhadauniquevisual considered thesinglemostimportantartistinhistoryof stein. AmongfansofAmericansuperherocomicbooks,JackKirbyis ing ofcomicbookfanresentmentfiguressuchasRoyLichten- The fightforthereturnofKirby’sartplayedakeyroleinshap- credit inthebookswhosecharactershehadoriginated(Fryer15). work-for-hire agreement,Kirbyvowedtocontinuefightingfor conventions. Atthesametimeasheagreedtosignretroactive ees overtheyears,astheycirculatedopenlyatcomicbooks sumed tohavebeenstolenfromthewarehousebyMarvelemploy- of hisoriginalart.Mosttheremaining11,000pageswerepre- Kirby agreedtosign,andthecompanyreturnedalmost1,900pages mately, thetwosidescametotermsonanew,one-pagewaiverthat immediate returnofKirby’sart(“We,theUndersigned”27).Ulti- prominent comicbookcreatorssignedapetitioncallingforthe fans andprofessionalsintheensuingmonths,hundredsof press. The unprecedented publicbacklashagainstthecompanyinfan strong-arm Kirbyintosigningthespecialagreementledtoan “bully,” Kirbyrefusedtosign(Heintjes13).Marvel’sattempts agreement asa“humiliatingexperience”andtothecorporation have tothecharactersthathehadhelpedcreate.Referring cially writtenfour-pagewaiverrenouncinganyclaimthathemight had drawnforthecompanyin1960s—ifheagreedtosignaspe- small portionofhisart—88pagesoutmorethan13,000thathe that hecouldnot.Accordingly,MarvelofferedKirbyareturnof the rightstothesecharactersincourt,itwasalsonotclearMarvel Hulk andtheX-Men.WhileitisnotclearthatKirbycouldhavewon writer StanLee,hadalsocreatedsuchpopularcharactersasthe particularly pressinginthecaseofJackKirby,who,alongwith copyright (Heintjes8–9).Theimportanceofsuchanagreementwas ’s editor-in-chief,GaryGroth,acknowledgedthatpeople seehim Comics Journal printeddozensofoutragedlettersfrom Comics Jour- Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 19 that most Comics Journal ent of more importance or influence than that of Jack Kirby. It would or influence than that of Jack ent of more importance of the his contribution to the evolution be impossible to exaggerate advanced exactly how much he personally superhero or to calculate bedrock upon with Stan Lee, the creative the art form. He created, developed the was built. Single-handedly, he which Marvel Comics comic. He and spirit of the modern superhero visual dialect, tone, to a genre operatic drama and mythological scope brought a sense of be argued that old, and dying. It could easily that was fat, bloated, industry alive lifeblood kept the comics his vigorous creative apathetic management, and through decades of editorial infertility, dwindling distribution (Miller 63). of comic book fandom, Mar- For Miller, Groth, and a large segment they considered to be a monu- vel’s shabby treatment of the man medium was appalling. The mental figure in the history of the the history of comics publishing situation recalled, as Groth noted, cheap grafters, and oppor- as a “snakepit, populated by racketeers, laborers and treated them tunists, who regarded artists as cheap actions highlighted, for many, accordingly” (“House” 6). Marvel’s in the comics medium faced, the lack of respect that artists working low status of the comic book art- even from their own kind, and the of the ist. Interestingly, the same issue dispute also contained a mani- directly addressed the Kirby–Marvel Dave Sim. He called for an end festo by Canadian comic book artist altogether, in favour of self-pub- to the publisher–artist arrangement made him one of the wealthiest lishing, a business strategy that had (87–90). The debate over crea- cartoonists working in comic books was foreshadowed by Marvel’s tor’s rights in the comics field, which by the success of Dave Sim as treatment of Jack Kirby and focused much of the discourse about an independent publisher, structured fandom over the course of the comics as a legitimate art form within next decade. It was within this framework of debate about the recognition of the importance of the comics artist that Lichtenstein’s work came into prominence—or more appropriately, notoriety—within comics fan- dom. While comic book artists were struggling within their own industry to achieve greater levels of recognition, it galled many in comics that Lichtenstein should appear so successful, while accord- ing the artists upon whose work his paintings were based no credit. It didn’t help that many artists, including Kirby, were financially strapped and had to hock their original art across the country at comic book conventions in order to make a living. Further, the fact 20 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) cated, simple,standardized,andofnoparticularrelevance tothe ble” (144–5).Forthecriticsofpopart,comicbookswere uncompli- ways), becauseareferencetothegeneralstyleof comicsislegi- invented orcopiedparticularcomic-bookimages(he workedboth Alloway arguedthat“itmakesnodifferencewhether Lichtenstein standard elementsillustratesentiments”(136). Lawrence basis ofhispaintings,“asimpleimageinwhich,a standard space, (167). OttoHahnsuggestedthatLichtensteinchose clichésforthe matter, whichhefound“bothuncomplicatedand commonplace” for risingthroughtechniquebeyondthelimitations ofhissubject not shyonthisfront.GeneBaro,forexample,praisedLichtenstein line theproblemwithcomicbooksmoregenerally.Artcriticswere subject matterforhighart,itbecamenecessary,byextension,toout- ter. Inobjectingtotheuseofcomicbookpanelsasinappropriate associated withthepopartmovementbutalsooftheirsubjectmat- elled byLichtensteindrewcriticismnotonlyoftheindividualartists Throughout the1960s,challengetoestablishedconventionslev- esthetic conventionsateverylevelofformandsubjectmatter”(50). seems tomakeanactivefrontalassaultonallofourestablished noted, in1963,that“thenewartstirssuchpolarresponsesbecauseit feminine trait—throughitschoiceofsubjectmatter.AlanSolomon lem wasthewaythatpopartforegroundedconsumerism—a ings failedtorisethelevelofaestheticseriousness.Thecoreprob- drawing onimagesderivedfromcomicbooks,Lichtenstein’spaint- critics. Thebasisforagreatdealofthecriticismwasfactthatin Lichtenstein’s canvaseswerewidelycriticizedbyestablishedart abstract expressionismremainedadominantAmericanaesthetic, say withhispaintings.Arrivingatamomentintimewhich lery in1962,thecountrywasnotyetquitereadyforwhathehadto Roy Lichtensteinheldhisfirstone-manshowatLeoCastelli’sgal- its rootsinmassculture,furtherdisdainingcomicsasnot-art.When who challengedthelegitimacyofpopartdidsoinpartbycriticizing A furtherirritantformanycomicbookfanswasthefactthatthose nor usedandabusedbyartistslikeRoyLichtenstein. ence wasnolongerwillingtobecasuallydismissedbytheartworld of Americanculture.Inshort,anewlyawakenedcomicbookaudi- the historyofmediumitself,whichhadprovidedsomanyicons respect fortheartistswhowerebreakingnewground,aswell movement hadgalvanizedaudiencesintodemandinggreater cized comicbookindustry.Theundergroundandalternativecomics openly whiledenigratinghissourcematerialgratedonthepoliti- that theAmericanartestablishmentcelebratedLichtensteinso Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 21 in 1963, Douglas McClellan took this line in 1963, Douglas McClellan took this Artforum Lichtenstein has seemingly rearranged nothing, he has stayed reverently close to the originals except for greatly enlarging the scale. He has avoided the risks of transformation and he has picked a cripple for a target.… In the funnies, the world of human happenings is comfortably simplified by flaccid drawing, the only dimension is conveyed by mechanical dots, and life is represented by triumphant balloons of platitudinous speech ris- ing from the mouths of the characters. It is like shooting fish in a barrel to parody a thing that has so long parodied itself. (47) general conception of the work. These observations clearly derived of the work. These observations general conception recognize no popular cultural forms that would from a bias against the parame- culture produced beyond merit in the commercialized that system. Indeed, the taint of commercialism ters of the gallery a problem for pop art brought to the gallery was comic books and Hilton Kramer on Andy Warhol, for example, many critics. Writing that art was a form of aesthetic consumerism suggested that pop between high culture as a gag (49). The tension threatened to expose outright insult- was perfectly obvious, if not pop art and its sources of comic books. It was clear that ing, to those involved in the world to the work that was regarded it was the comic book’s contribution of the high art world, and this as the greatest threat to the sanctity comics themselves might some- flatly ruled out the possibility that contribution to American day be regarded as a significant aesthetic culture. in the art establishment of The ability of pop art to find champions to incorporate elements of the 1960s was dependent on its capacity was regarded as transformative popular culture in a manner that has pointed to the significant and enlightening. Carol Anne Mahsun of originality through the use of ways that pop art disturbs notions calls into question the ten- found images. This disturbance further and personal encounter, the dency to link originality with a private (78). Lichtenstein’s paint- root of individualism and self-discovery as critics could demonstrate ings were validated, therefore, insofar of the source material. For the significance of his transformations was nearly impossible. Peter critics of Lichtenstein’s approach this works leave us thoroughly dis- Selz, for example, wrote that “these at all to say … They are satisfied … most of them have nothing a real work of art demands” hardly worth the kind of contemplation (314). Writing in of attack further, arguing that Lichtenstein’s canvases fail to trans- form already weak material: 22 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) at Marvel.In“ImageDuplicator,”Lichtensteincombines elements text ofthisdiscussion,drawing,asitdoes,onthework ofJackKirby 1963 painting“ImageDuplicator”isparticularlyrelevant inthecon- order toachievevariouseffects.Lobel’sreadingof Lichtenstein’s heightened ordiminishedkeyelementsofhissource materialin particularly focusingonthesignificanceofways thattheartist He providesanumberofintriguingreadingsLichtenstein’s work, tion oftheartist’stechniques,inhisrecentbookabout Lichtenstein. sitional structure(205).MichaelLobeloffersamuch fullerelabora- the dialogueenclosedinwordballooninterests ofcompo- that inpaintingssuchas“Torpedo…Los!”Lichtensteinexploited word balloonasthecentralcommunicativedevice.Boimeargued the comicbookpanelonartist’sparticulardeploymentof Albert BoimefocuseshisexaminationofLichtenstein’sreworking reduced tocomicswereitleavethesafeenclosureofgallery. painted. Inotherwords,thatitwouldremainasartandnotbe which Lichtensteinthoroughlyreworkedthematerialthathe ans havebeenatpains,therefore,todemonstratethedegree power ofthegallerysystemwasnotuniversallyshared.Arthistori- plative” (66).Nonetheless,thisperspectiveonthetransformative isolating forcontemplationanobjectthatoriginallywasnotcontem- that popwrenchesitscommercialmodelfromnormalcontext, and highart.“Thedifferencebetweencommercialartpopis gallery systemitselfthatcausedthedistinctionbetweencommercial Writing insupportofpopart,AllanKaprowarguedthatitwasthe world ofAmericanartsandletters. to furthersolidifythemarginalstatusofmediumwithin that wasostensiblyaboutcomicbooks,adevelopmenthelped detached manner.Thisrequiredthedisavowalofcomicbooksinart dency toreworkfoundimagesfromAmericancultureinanironicor the pathwaytovalidationforpopartwouldbefoundinitsten- Kozloff’s article,whilecriticalofpopartgenerally,suggestedthat lems, theiruseofirony,andinvestigationcreativity(34–6). works ofthepopartists,includingtheirconcernwithformalprob- tion toanumberofsignificantelementsthatcouldbefoundinthe the sources.Asearlyas1962,MaxKozloff,forexample,drewatten- mentary onAmericanathatcouldbefoundinthetransformationsof failed tograspthetoneofpaintings,overlookingironiccom- more closely,itwaspossibletoconcludethatMcLellanandSelzhad interesting withthatmaterial.Forcriticswhoexaminedpopart his sourcematerialisawfulandthathehasfailedtodoanything McLellan’s criticismofLichtensteinrestsontheunderstandingthat Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 23 , Wertham had charged that #1 (September 1963), although Lichten- #1 (September 1963), X-Men Seduction of the Innocent of two distinct comic book panels in the creation of his painting of book panels in the creation of of two distinct comic painting’s text, of a masked supervillain. The an extreme close-up my image you ask that? What do you know about “What? Why did panel. The from an unidentified comic book duplicator?” is taken Kirby drawing the mask, is derived from a Jack image, particularly in that can be found the character’s somewhat by exposing more of stein has altered this from the which are seemingly borrowed forehead and eyebrows, painting, there- text (Lobel 1–15). Lichtenstein’s same image as the of the scale of the image, as fore, is not simply an enlargement would charge, but a full-scale McClellan and many comic book fans that results in an entirely new reworking of two distinct images the High and Low show at the image. Writing in the catalogue of and Adam Gopnik go so far Museum of Modern Art, Kirk Varnedoe from three distinct comic as to argue that, in combining elements Hot-Shot” (1963), Lichtenstein book images in the creation of “Okay, which looks more like a “assembles them into a kind of super-cliché way, art historians are able to comic than the comics” (203). In this paintings is that they are suggest that the reality of Lichtenstein’s book sources. Much more cru- only marginally related to their comic artist’s own creative way of cially, they are the product of the of new methods of looking that approaching the material, the result of the artist while continuing to privilege the aesthetic individuality book producers such as Jack marginalize the cultural value of comic Kirby and Irv Novick. is to consecrate the paint- One result of this type of transformation audience exclusively. Initial hos- ings for a serious and legitimated focus on the possibility that the tile reactions to pop art tended to element—that is, comic book works might tend to attract the wrong or museums. In 1962, for exam- fans—to contemporary art galleries ple, Max Kozloff wrote that “the truth is, the art galleries are being invaded by the pinheaded and contemptible style of gum chewers, bobby soxers, and worse, delinquents” (35). For those involved in the comic book industry of the time, this charge would necessarily recall the critique levelled eight years prior by Dr. Fredric Wertham. In his book comic books were a contributing factor in juvenile delinquency. In the ensuing debate about the effects of comic books on American youth, the Kefauver Senate subcommittee investigated the moral contamination that comic books threatened. The association of comic book–derived paintings with pinheaded delinquents, there- fore, sent a strong signal to those interested in the production of 24 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) line counterparttoWarhol’sfeminizeddandy;inthe faceofWarho- observes, forinstance,thatLichtenstein“canbeseen asthemascu- gendering processinwhichLichtenstein’sworkwas engaged. Lobel tion, whilereservingthesenseofdistanceimperative tothespecific association ofpopartwithtraditionallylegitimatedhigh artproduc- edge,” withitsunmistakablymasculineovertones, reinforcesthe one removefromactuality”(2).Lippard’schoiceofthe term“hard- “hard-edge, commercialtechniquesandcolours,”while working“at Lippard, whoarguesthatthefirstwaveofpopartists employed sumer objectsisexplicitlymasculinizedbycritics suchasLucy ist asbringingtothecanvas.Thisdetachmentfromdisparagedcon- derives fromthesenseoftransformationthatcriticsseepopart- wise. Thedistinctionbetweenpopartanditscomicbooksources pop art’srelationshiptocomicbookswouldseemindicateother- ture havelargelyabandonedthistendency,althoughtheexampleof activities” (47).Huyssengoesontosuggestthattheoriesofmasscul- ditional ormodern,clearlyremainstheprivilegedrealmofmale culture andthemassesasfeminine,whilehighculture,whethertra- the turnofcenturyconsistentlyandobsessivelygendersmass gests that“political,psychological,andaestheticdiscoursearound “popular” canacquireconnotationsofthefeminine.Huyssensug- Andreas Huyssennotesthatbroadtermssuchas“commercial”or In hisessay“MassCultureasWoman:Modernism’sOther,” realm ofartisticproduction. another way,Lichtenstein’spaintingsthreatenedtofeminizethe distinction betweenhighandlowtothedetrimentofhigh.Put others inthepopartmovementheldpotentialtodissolve related tomassculture.Inshort,theworkofRoyLichtensteinand gether andreplacedwithadegradedsensibilitymorecommonly tional statusreservedforthefineartsmightbedoneawaywithalto- Indeed, thesuccessofpopartraisedpossibilitythattradi- archies ofthearts,aswelltoestablishedsocialhierarchies. American masssociety,constitutedathreattotheestablishedhier- art, whichpaidcloseattentiontothecommercializedaspectsof termed “thedecadenceanddestitution…ofmodernart”(61).Pop that theywerethemostobviousculpritsinwhatSidneyTillim society. Whatmadethesepeoplesoconspicuouslyundesirablewas stratum oftheAmericanpopulationthatwasunwelcomeinpolite reminder thatcomicbookswereseenasashorthandforanentire charges levelledagainstcomicbooksinthe1950sandservedasa previous decade.Criticismofpopartinthe1960sclearlyechoed American comicbooksthatwerestillreelingfromtheattacksof Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 25 Lichtenstein’s persona as the white-collar professional and affa- as the white-collar professional and Lichtenstein’s persona description of the typical middle-class ble father recalled the emasculated American male. Yet Lichten- man, of the potentially in the role of the cool and disciplined artist stein’s performance responsibilities or profes- could also allay fears that his domestic detached artist could be sion effeminized him. The cerebral and a cool, masculine seen to reinfuse the normative male with in formalist terms that veneer. Likewise, his paintings, defended Expressionism, abandoned some of the precepts of Abstract that the professional could demonstrate the masculine control artist exerted over his medium. (132) lian excess Lichtenstein provides the figure of the hard-working provides the figure of the lian excess Lichtenstein of the stu- returns to the quiet, painstaking work artist who dutifully that, in offers a similar reading, suggesting dio” (30). Cécile Whiting re-mas- reading of Lichtenstein’s paintings particular, the formalist culinized the artist: success stemmed, at least It was clear, therefore, that Lichtenstein’s which his work was associated in part, from the particular ways in legitimated—values, while his with masculine—that is to say, of the feminized traits in source material was held up as an example had successfully recovered and American culture that the artist repatriated. as an artist during the 1960s, While Lichtenstein was masculinized a number of assumptions his paintings further called into question Whiting calls attention to the about the role of gender in the arts. emphasize gender distinc- specific ways that Lichtenstein’s images between masculinity and tions and thus polarize the opposition that is based on comic book femininity. Most of the artist’s output images of war and images images can be placed into two categories: of the home. These images, which predominantly feature men in the former and women in the latter, correspond in obvious ways to tra- ditional American gender norms. Whiting’s analysis of Lichten- stein’s paintings suggests that the artist locates gender at the heart of the relationship between high art and consumer culture because “they exaggerate the difference between the proper space, voice and affect of masculinity and femininity as they are expressed in the war and romance comic books” (101–2). This is accomplished largely through the selection of images. Lichtenstein’s image of masculinity is derived from war comic books, although the artist focuses exclu- sively on moments of triumph in which the soldier confronts and defeats his enemy. However, in the stories from which Lichtenstein 26 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) that stemmedfromtheindustrialrevolution: argues thatkitschistheresultofcommercialized massculture seminal article,“Avant-GardeandKitsch,”Clement Greenberg arrows ofartcriticswhohavedismissedthemouthand.Inhis comes asnosurprise.Comicbookshavelongsufferedtheslingsand For thoseinterestedinthecomicbookform,thiscasualdismissal producers andconsumers. gendered insuchawayastodiminishtheinterestsofcomicbook book formandthecomicaudience,adistinctionthatisclearly and popularcultureisplayedoutastheinadequacyofcomic accept asnatural”(117).Onceagain,thedistinctionbetweenhighart sentation andgenderthatthereadersofcomicbooksostensibly the opportunitytoperceiveandparodyconventionsofrepre- discussion bynotingthat“thepaintingstherebyoffertheirviewers tive structureandrealisticrendering(115–6).Whitingconcludesher the gendercodesthatcomicbooksseektonaturalizethroughnarra- edge aboutthemandtheirgenreconventions.Hedrawsattentionto sources frompopularculture,whileassertingspecializedknowl- ized genderconventions.Thus,Lichtensteinisabletoincorporate ventions thatcanbefoundinthecomicbooksandhighlightingstyl- artifice ofgenderconventionsbydownplayingthenaturalistcon- these typesofpaintingsthattheartist’sworkscallattentionto social world(114).Whitingconcludesfromthedistinctionbetween their ownprivatepsychologicalproblems,attheexpenseof association tendstoturnLichtenstein’swomeninwardtowards facial expressionsintheseworks(165),andWhitingnotesthatthis there isacloserelationshipbetweenthewomen’swordsandtheir resented bythethoughtandwordballoons.Steinerobservesthat women inLichtenstein’spaintingsaretroubledbyinnervoices,rep- figures enjoyfindsitscorollaryinthefailuresofwomen.The ican culturemorebroadly.ThesuccessthatLichtenstein’smale plexity ofcomicsconsiderablyinordertomakeapointaboutAmer- excised fromthecanvases.Thus,Lichtensteindowngradescom- show momentsofsetbackorpsychologicalweaknessthatare borrows, masculinityisconsiderablymoreinflux.Thecomicbooks their time.(40) demand nothingofitscustomersexcepttheirmoney—not even that isspuriousinthelifeofourtimes.Kitschpretendsto style, butremainsalwaysthesame.Kitschisepitomeof all ous experienceandfakedsensations.Kitschchangesaccording to Kitsch ismechanicalandoperatesbyformulas.vicari- Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 27 -published comic strip “Little Playboy television show, which drew heavily on a camp aes- Batman Annie Fanny,” drew attention to the camp perception of comic books in a story that found Annie and Benton Battbarton “camp- ing” with his pop art cartoon blowups and his complete set of unex- That Greenberg listed comic books as self-evidently a form of kitsch, comic books as self-evidently a That Greenberg listed offer any sort to elucidate the observation or without even bothering and from mid- obvious both from his definition of proof, should be forms. Those commercialized cultural century biases towards from the comic book industry have rarely suffered involved with the high culture is well regarded among the illusion that the medium is the is, perhaps, more surprising, however, cognoscenti. What threatened to taint of the comic books seemingly degree to which the culture—as legitimated face of commercial corrupt pop art—the pop—or what he termed well. Greenberg, for instance, dismissed arguing that “whatever neo-Dada—on purely formal grounds, in their works, not one of them novel objects they represent or insert that the Cubists or Abstract has taken a chance with colour or design (“After Abstract” 32). Two Expressionists did not take before them” a “new episode in the history years later, he suggested that pop was new episode in the evolution in of taste” but not “an authentically 64). For Peter Selz, the problem contemporary art” (“Post Painterly” Greenberg’s definition of kitsch with pop art coincided neatly with was too easy to assimilate, as pre-digested art. Pop art, Selz argued, intellectual effort to create or requiring neither sensibility nor pop was that it depended on a admire (313–6). The problem with its source. While proponents of form of kitsch—the comic book—as to elucidate the clichés found pop argued that the paintings served maintained that any contamina- in the comic book form, opponents essentially rendered the new tion by kitsch elements in the paintings to the debate from the per- works kitsch as well. For those coming there were few opportunities to spective of the comic book industry, pop art was deemed kitsch, defend the medium. Whether or not the comic books were irredeema- there was no doubting the fact that ble on their own merits. What was worse for many parties approaching the pop–comics divi- sion was the possibility that comic books would be revealed not sim- ply as kitsch—as beyond the boundary of good taste—but as feminized kitsch, or camp. The spectre of camp haunted comic book creators and readers in the 1960s, particularly owing to the success of the thetic, influenced by the quick success of pop art. Harvey Kurtzman and Will Elder, creators of the 28 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) examples ofcomic-stripsandadvertising;notinthe patronizing would be“inevitable…thatmuseumsandcollectors willacquire change thefunctioningofartworldtosucha degreethatit In 1967,AllanKaprowarguedthatthesuccessof pop artwould chal gendernorms. war andromancecomicsalike,withtheirrigidadherence topatriar- in question:thered-bloodedAmericanmasculinity thatinformed with theoneelementthatcomicbookfansassumed would neverbe suggestions. Popart,therefore,wasathreatbecause itabsconded boundaries andchafingatwhattheydeemedtobeinappropriate thwart suggestionsofhomosexualitywherevertheyarose,policing culture, comicbooksfansandproducersworkeddiligentlyto entirely untenableandterrifying.Asanextremelymasculinistsub- the homo-socialworldofcomicbookproducersandfansfound a degradedkitschpositiontogay-associatedcampthat intervention intothedebateaboutpopart,comicbooksmovedfrom camp, whichisacelebrationoffeminizedculture.WithSontag’s nihilistic” (292).Thatistosaythatpopartmoremasculinizedthan is moreflatanddry,serious,detached,ultimately “embodies anattitudethatisrelated,butstillverydifferent.Popart but thensoughttorecuperateitattheexpenseofcomics.Popart art’s authoritybyassociatingitwiththisemasculatedtasteculture linity inoneofitsmostpublicvenues.Sontagproblematizedpop Ward’s novelinwoodcuts, examples thatSontaggaveasthecanonofcampwerecomics:“Lynn element ofsomeobjects,includingcomicbooks.Indeed,twothe Sontag, campwasnotsimplyapoint-of-viewbutanintrinsic from kitschbutdidnotcoincidewithitexclusively.Accordingto defined asacertainmodeofapoliticalaestheticismthatextended phenomenon thatencompassedaloveoftheunnatural.Campwas ‘Camp.’” Sontagarguedthatcampwasanunmistakablymodern of course,fromthewell-knownSusanSontagessay,“Noteson purgated GreenLanterncomics(118).Thisstripdrewitsinspiration, the pagesof comic bookartistslikeKurtzmanandWoodwouldridiculecampin tocrats oftaste”(290).Withthischarge,itisperhapseasytoseewhy shared by“mainlyhomosexuals,whoconstitutethemselvesasaris- tantly, however,Sontagsuggestedthatcampwasa“snobtaste,” the fansofcomicbooksincreasinglyfeared.Perhapsmostimpor- medium, andwiththeadventoftelevision,thatwassomething out-of-date, somethingthatthecriticsofcomicbooksargued comics” (278).Sontagmaintainedthatcampwasold-fashionedand Playboy , shoringuptheboundariesofnormativemascu- God’s Man , andtheoldFlashGordon Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 29 , Art Artforum , depicted a decomposing Lichtenstein woman thinking, “Oh, , depicted a decomposing Lichtenstein manner of a Museum of Modern Art’s ‘Good Design’ show, but as of Modern Art’s ‘Good Design’ manner of a Museum in the collec- spirit occupying a first-class place works of the human original comic has largely not happened. While tions” (68). This by museums. collected, it is rarely collected book art is increasingly into museums, and comic books have entered When comic strips works, viewed merely as a source for consecrated they are generally as in the Lichtenstein. When this has happened, like those of Roy 1990, there are Art’s High and Low show in Museum of Modern have gained from the few comics artists who occasional outbursts high art world. In a comic strip some measure of respect from the commissioned by review of the High and Low show Prize-winning comic book Spiegelman, the creator of the Pulitzer Maus low art! … The real political, Roy, your dead high art is built on dead popular culture passes you by. sexual and formal energy in living by museums!” (64). Maybe that’s—sob—why you’re championed review of the MOMA The indignity that characterized Spiegelman’s industry’s response generally to show was typical of the comic book there is a level of outrage in pop art and Roy Lichtenstein. Certainly, of envy, tinged with a deep the response, but also a strong sense of the comic book undercurrent of misogyny. The resentfulness of institutional legitimization industry is a response to the processes Roy Lichtenstein as a masculi- that have championed the work of while dismissing the cultural nized saviour of commercial culture, as sentimental and feminized. and aesthetic import of popular forms show, Varnedoe and Gopnik In the catalogue to the High and Low saved the comics,” citing the go so far as to argue that “Pop Art collaborator on all of the early- efforts of Stan Lee—Jack Kirby’s draw on the ironic detach- 1960s Marvel superhero comic books—to to new audiences as the decade ment of pop art to sell his own work comic books owe a debt of grati- wore on (208). The suggestion that tude to pop art—rather than the other way around—infuriates many in the comic book industry to this day. Further, comic book fans and professionals—like Spiegelman—are alert to the fact that the ongo- ing critical success of pop art means that comic books cannot achieve artistic legitimacy. Roy Lichtenstein’s success stems from the degree to which he worked to make comic book images strange and unfa- miliar. If the status of comic books were to be elevated, the status of Lichtenstein would be thrown into question and possibly imper- illed. From the point of view of someone like Spiegelman, the rise of the underground generation of cartoonists should have significantly altered the status of comic books, as even Varnedoe and Gopnik admit Robert Crumb to the MOMA show as an artist in his own 30 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) Baker, Kyle. the SixtiesandBack.”Coplans143–7. Alloway, Lawrence.“RoyLichtenstein’sPeriodStyle:FromtheThirtiesto 1 tears. book productionultimatelyrevolvesaroundRoyLichtenstein’s world ofhighartandthefeminizedarenacommercializedcomic seems, therefore,thatthevexedrelationshipbetweenmasculine To thischarge,Lichtensteinbluntlyresponded:“Iamcrying.”It Oldenburg in this issueina1966interviewwithLichtenstein,Warhol,andClaes altered thestatusofworkotherartists.BruceGlaserraised that Lichtensteinhas,asIrvNovick’squotesuggests,unfairly simply existingalongsidehim—derivesprimarilyfromthefeeling desire toeffaceLichtenstein’scontributionhighart—ratherthan and takehisplaceinthemasculinizedworldofhighculture.The ical step,accordingtoSpiegelman,isknockoffRoyLichtenstein result ofthecontributionsCrumbandhisinheritors,nextlog- right. Ifcomicbookshaveseensomechangeintheirfortunesasa 15. Fryer, Kim.“MarvelReturnsArttoKirby,Adams.” New York:DarkHorseComics,1998.331–2. Duin, Steve,andMikeRichardson.“Novick,Irv.” Coplans, John,ed. Boime, Albert.“RoyLichtensteinandtheComicStrip.”Madoff 203–5. Benchley, Peter.“SpecialReport:TheStoryofPop.”Mahsun 167–74. Baro, Gene.“RoyLichtenstein:TechniqueasStyle.”Coplans 167–5. Works Cited assistance. draft ofthisarticle.IamalsogratefultoMikeRhodeforhisresearch I wouldliketothankRebeccaSullivanforhercommentsonanearlier Notes sure madepublicinthegalleriesandmuseums.(145) vately enjoyedaspectsofthecomics,todayonefindsthisplea- are ordinarilymistakenasbanalsubjects.Forexample,ifonepri- plundered theprivatepleasureofdiscoveringinterestinwhat has givenrisetotheobjectionthatPopartencroachedonand Glaser : Well,evenifthereisatransformation,itslight,andthis The NewBaker Artforum: Roy Lichtenstein. . Woodstock,NY:KyleBaker,2003. NewYork:Praeger,1972. Comics BetweenthePanels Comics Journal July1987: . Revue canadienne d’études américaines 34 (2004) 31

After Vol. 1.

. July 1963: 6.5 (1939): . Chicago: February July 1985: September July 1990: 23. Bloomington: August 1985: 7–8. October 1962: 24– Artforum Summer 1964: 63–5. Than Ghastly Ingels.” . Berkeley, CA: U of Encounter Partisan Review Comics Journal Comics Journal February 1986: 6–8. Comics Journal Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research, Comics Journal Art International Greater Artist Art International Playboy’s Little Annie Fanny The Collected Jack Kirby Collector Comics Journal Pop Art: A Critical History . New York: Praeger, 1966. Pop Art and the Critics. February 1962: 34–6. Pop Art Image Duplicator: Roy Lichtenstein and the Emergence of Pop April 1990: 3–6. Art International . New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2002. Lippard, Lucy R. Raleigh, NC: TwoMorrows Advertising, 1997: 26–7. Raleigh, NC: TwoMorrows Advertising, Disgust, and the New Vulgari- Kozloff, Max. “‘Pop’ Culture, Metaphysical ans.” Warhol.” Kramer, Hilton. “End of an ‘ERA’: Andy 1973: 48–50. Kurtzman, Harvey, and Will Elder. Playboy, 1972. Levin, Bob. “Why Roy Lichtenstein is a Comics Journal “Lichtenstein Painting Sells for $6 Million.” Lobel, Michael. Art Madoff, Steven Henry, ed. California P, 1997. Mahsun, Carol Anne. 1987. McClellan, Douglas. “Roy Lichtenstein, Ferus Gallery.” 47. Groth, Gary. “Marvel Crush Puny Artist.” Groth, Gary. “Marvel Glaser, Bruce. “Oldenburg, Lichtenstein, Warhol: A Discussion.” Madoff Lichtenstein, Warhol: A Discussion.” Glaser, Bruce. “Oldenburg, 140–8. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch.” Greenberg, Clement. 34–49. Expressionism.” ———. “After Abstract 32. Abstraction.” ———. “Post Painterly ———. “House of No Shame.” 136–43. Hahn, Otto. “Roy Lichtenstein.” Coplans Art.” Heintjes, Tom. “Marvel to Return Original 1985: 8–10. Art.” ———. 1985b. “Marvel Withholds Kirby’s 13–5. Modernism’s Other.” Huyssen, Andreas. “Mass Culture as Woman: Post-modernism. the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Indiana UP, 1986. 44–62. and Future.” Mahsun 61–74. Kaprow, Allan. “Pop Art: Past, Present “Kirby Original Art at Sotheby’s.” 32 Canadian Review of American Studies 34 (2004) Miller, Frank.“GodSavetheKing.” bridge: CambridgeUP,1997. Whiting, Cécile. “We, theUndersigned.” Wertham, Fredric. Culture Varnedoe, Kirk,andAdamGopnik. March 1963:59–62. Tillim, Sidney.“NewYorkExhibitions:MonthinReview.” Groth. Seattle,WA:Fantagraphics,1991.1. Thompson, Kim.Introduction. erature Steiner, Wendy. Maus toNow. Spiegelman, Art. 1966. Sontag, Susan. Solomon, Alan.“TheNewArt.”Mahsun49–60. 87–90. Sim, Dave.“ADeclarationofIndependence.” 6. Selz, Peter.“PopGoestheArtist.” Dell, 1969. Rosenberg, Harold.“ArtandItsDouble.” . Chicago:UofChicagoP,1988. . NewYork:MuseumofModernArt,1991. NewYork:RawBooksandGraphics,1999. Against Interpretation,andOtherEssays. Pictures ofRomance:FormAgainstContextinPaintingandLit- A TasteforPop:PopArt,GenderandConsumerCulture Comix, Essays,GraphicsandScraps:FromMaustoNow Seduction oftheInnocent Comics Journal Misfit Lit:ContemporaryComicArt Partisan Review Comics Journal High andLow:ModernArtPopular August1986:27. Artworks andPackages . NewYork:Rinehart,1954. Comics Journal 30.2(Summer1963):313– February1986:63–8. NewYork:Farrar, Arts Magazine February1986: . NewYork: . Ed.Gary . Cam-