Yellow Rose Clip Art

'Pop'd from the Panel' explores fine art's ongoing appropriation of the funny ...

As a child, a sickly Andy Warhol spent long winters in bed, entertained by the medium of the day—comic books. Years later, when the future "prince of pop art" abandoned commercial illustration, he famously painted a can of Campbell's tomato soup that would forever change the perception of what is considered art. Further appropriating commonplace cultural images, in 1981, Warhol returned to comics for his Myths series, using Mickey Mouse and Superman as subjects of large-scale paintings.

Stories like this inspired Schulz Museum curator Jane O'Cain as she procured art for "Pop'd from the Panel," a group exhibition opening June 25. "Pop'd" explores how comics have influenced artists like Warhol, Wayne Thiebaud, Christo and Jean-Claude, and Roy Lichtenstein, as well as contemporary artists.

"For many of that generation, comics were their entrance into art, and that early influence rose up later in their lives," says O'Cain, as she shares a sneak preview of a Jose Ramon Lerma piece in a bright-lit room off the Schulz museum's main gallery. Titled The Missing Moustache: An Homage to Duchamp , the collage portrays a Mona Lisa playfully entwined with a shadowy Mickey Mouse. The Disney mouse is an image that Lerma returned to in his abstract paintings and collages throughout the years. "Growing up in the Central Valley in the 1930s, comics were one of the first ways that [Lerma] experienced art," says O'Cain.

While researching for the exhibit, O'Cain also came across a Smithsonian Museum interview with Wayne Thibeaud—painter of pasteled cakes, pies, lipsticks and gumball machines—in which he recalled his artistic origin myth.

"He would clip comics out of the paper and he would try to trace and draw them," O'Cain relates. "He started to enter competitions in Life magazine. He would create the cartoon and send it in. He was actually published a couple of times."

O'Cain steps outside to show off Suzanne Morlock's large-scale installation piece Sweater , which looms over the museum courtyard, glittering in the summer sunlight. Morlock used the mylar byproducts from a sequin and spangle factory as material for the nine-foot-tall, 13-foot-wide piece, an ingenious appropriation of Charlie Brown's famous black and yellow zigzag shirt. The Wyoming-based artist utilized six-feet-long PVC pipes as knitting needles to knit the metallic threads into a giant sweater, a public-art commission for Jackson Hole, Wyo.

qegooyqy: rose border clipart

Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation? This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious. But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;) BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers. I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.

Old-House Journal

Ladies' fancy work, a manual of designs & instructions in all kinds of needlework

Gardening illustrated

Memories in Miniature, Creating Small Photo Gifts and Keepsakes That Make Big Impressions

HortIdeas