Your question should read 'does belong to.'
Lichenstein got his fame and recognition through the 'Pop Art' movement where he imitated comic book styles. That was his gimmick.
Interesting enough, though, is that Roy Lichenstein, if you study his other created works outside the more famous comic book art, was a pretty damn good artist capable of the finest realism if he chose. And his abstract fugitives from the 1950s were pretty impressive to me.
2006-10-01 06:47:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doc Watson 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
His style was Pop Art. The 20th Century had much garbage passing as Art. What is so wonderful about large copies of stuff from kids' comic books? It is copying, and Occidental Art is supposed to be original. The artists who made the pictures in comic books are better artists than Pop Artists who copy their works on a larger scale.
2006-10-01 03:33:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by miyuki & kyojin 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pop art, but he didn't simply "copy" and enlarge the images. Printmaking is an art on its own and requires a great deal of effort and precise registration and perfect cmyk colour to acheive what he did. The images he made portray meaning behind them, not just random comic book images.
2006-10-01 18:04:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by ronnie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Roy Lichtenstein was a master of pop art.
2006-10-01 01:39:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by curiouszoey01 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pop Art. I consider him a hack, because he gained fame by simply enlarging and copying comic book panels.
2006-10-01 01:37:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋