Roy Lichtenstein’s 1965 painting “Brushstroke” has been called a parody of Abstract Expressionist’s habit for expressive and direct use of brush strokes. Lichtenstein himself said the series had a “built-in absurdity” stemming from his process of depicting the organic nature of brush strokes in a mechanical fashion, sampling comic book imagery to enhance his concepts. “Brushstrokes” used stencils, a common instrument within prominent Pop art works, Lichtenstein used specialized patterned stencils to create his dotted backgrounds, brushing his paint over top the stencils to get perfect circles. To create his strokes he borrowed imagery from “Strange Suspense Stories” comics and increased the outline of the brushstrokes to create a bolder image. Within the image, the vibrating blue dot pattern is contrasted by the slick primary yellow encapsulated by the thick black lining.
How much do you believe an artist has to change someone else’s image to call it theirs?
prattmwp20thcentury 
April 4, 2016 at 10:34 am
I believe that if you can take an image and improve the visual and aesthetic feel of the piece, then it is yours and yours to keep.
LikeLike
April 4, 2016 at 5:51 pm
if your going by Richard Silver’s standards, only a small detail must be changed or skewed. I think that could be true, but personally it wouldn’t be mine unless I was contributing a piece of myself to it, an idea, my spontaneous emotions whatever.
LikeLike
April 4, 2016 at 11:35 pm
To be respectful to the original artist, enough should be changed to make the distinction between the two and not be confused by who’s work is who’s. If making a parody/political statement, only enough has to be changed to work around the copyright laws (which are very loose).
LikeLike
May 2, 2016 at 7:02 pm
I think that visually not that much has to change but the way that I am seeing it has to change. The meaning has to be completely different and I will appreciate it if it makes me see something in a new way.
LikeLike