"The borrowed technique was "representing tonal variations with patterns of colored circles that imitated the half-tone screens of Ben Day dots used in newspaper printing, and surrounding these with black outlines similar to those used to conceal imperfections in cheap newsprint."[52] Rebecca Bengal at PBS wrote that this is similar to the ligne claire style associated with Hergé.[53]"—The "this" in the second sentence seems to imply things in the first sentence not associated with the ligne clair style. For one thing, the style was an aesthetic choice, as the printing quality of Tintin was far higher than that of American comics—it was not printed on "cheap newsprint" (except in its original serilizations, in which case it was in black-and-white, and thus had no Ben Day dots). This appears to be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. I also still think the Hergé is out-of-scope and quite probably anachronistic.
Saying things are similar in appearance does not imply any sort of temporal relation, especially not contemporaneity. Anachronistic means that there is at temporal incongruity. I do not understand this complaint. We have a reliable enough source that she is employed by PBS saying A is like B. She does not say A inspired B or any similar relation. How does sequential concern arise out of this comparison?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The writer's argument comes down to "à la Hergé", which is hardly a committed appraisal, but whatever. The real problem is the WP:SYNTHESIS. It wasn't "à la Hergé" because it used "black outlines similar to those used to conceal imperfections in cheap newsprint" (demonstrably false), and your sources don't back that statement up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing about your perception of WP:TRUTH on a very subjective issue. We have a PBS source that presents an interesting claim ("à la Hergé"). We are a tertiary resource tasked with summarizing quality WP:RSes. Let's leave it in and let the reader judge for himself if the short statement has meaning to him/her.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I actually saw that before I supported. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read Priego's article, the more relevant I think it is to the article, particularly how he distinguishes the contexts of comics and fine art. He talks of how the original panel is a part of the composition of the whole page (or multicadre in French theories), and talks of the emphasis fine art puts on the image-as-icon in contrast to comics emphasis on image-as-narrative. I think some talk of this can clarify for the reader how and why this painting is not comics, and shine light on how Lichtenstein transformed the image aside from mere "appropriation" (and why comics folk such as Gibbons don't see any kind of "improvement"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing the same points you are seeing in this work. However, if you wish to summarize what you want included in the article in one or two sentences and want to point out what part of the article it should be placed in, I would be glad to include it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like: "Ernesto Priego wrote that while the work adapts a comic-book source, WHAAM! itself is not a work of comics, and "not even a comics panel". It derives meaning post hoc by referencing its audience to features such as genre and printing methods. Visually and narratively, the original panel was the climactic element of a dynamic page composition. Lichtenstein emphasizes the onomatopoeia while playing down articulated speech by removing the speech balloon. According to Priego, "by stripping the comics panel from its narrative context, Whaam! is representative in the realm of fine art of the preference of the image-icon over image-narrative". Neither my intention, nor Priego's, is to denigrate the painting, but to clear up misperceptions. I'm sure there's a clearer, more compact and elegant way to put it, but this is my first stab. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you thought about adding all those higher quality sources you mentioned. I think you mentioned multiple such sources and I only noticed you adding one without removing any. I thought you were going to add some and remove some.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I referred to were ones that were already in the article that mentioned attribution issues but not royalties issues. The best of those was the BBC, and I slapped that one on that sentence a few days ago. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of these dots, which were invented by Benjamin Day to "recreate gradations of shading", was considered Lichtenstein's "signature method".—It's really not surprising that a system called "Ben Day" would be invented by a guy named Ben Day. there really is no compelling reason to state it. And why is "recreate gradations of shading" in quotes?
I have moved that sentence up three paragraphs where it has more meaning/relevance. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "obvious" in the least to me—the act of quoting lends weight to the quote, which made me wonder if the man himself uttered it. Who did say it, and why did it need to be quoted rather than paraphrased? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"recreate gradations of shading" now paraphrased as "simulate the color variation and shading" (not in quotes though).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"training programs for languages, engineering, and pilot training" A training program for pilot training? My grandfather did exactly that, but somehow I doubt that's what you intended to say.
"According to the Tate, Lichtenstein claimed that "this was his first visualisation of Whaam! and that it was executed just before he started the painting."" Is this Lichtenstein speaking? Referring to himself in the third person?
The paragraph beginning: "According to critic Priego,"—is this not "Analysis" rather than "Legacy"? Also, I don't know who added "the panel itself is not a just limited by the conventions opf comics, but takes on a life of its own", but does it reflect what Priego actually wrote? Are we attributing things to Priego that he didn't actually write? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there so much space given to the opaque projector, when it's clear it was never used for this painting? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source (Roy Lichtenstein Foundation website) timeline for 1963 says: "Autumn. R.L.begins to use opaque projector to render images. Pencil marks disappear from his compositions". But look above it; the 1962 timeline says: "Creates his first paintings based on All-American Men of War comics, such as Blam, Takka Takka, and Live Ammo. His works often begin with a detailed preliminary colored pencil drawing, but not a straight copy of the source. Employs an opaque projector to enlarge the drawing on canvas. Works are then outlined quickly in pencil and re done again in pencil, so they could be easily erased." I think they are making this distinction: in 1962 he used a projector and pencilled the image; in autumn 1963 he stopped pencilling and instead brushed paint into the projected image (i.e. "us[ing] opaque projector to render images"). Ewulp (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
