Talk:Look Mickey

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Look Mickey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Look Mickey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 21, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 21, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
September 25, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
December 24, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 21, 2013	Today's featured article	Main Page
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 19, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Roy Lichtenstein's Mural with Blue Brushstroke incorporates elements of his earlier works as does Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, which includes most of Look Mickey, the artist's first work to use Ben-Day dots and a speech balloon?
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 10, 2015, February 10, 2019, February 10, 2022, and February 10, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

"Art"

my ass. The gag itself doesn't even make sense... clearly Donald can SEE that the fishing rod is not at the exact spot he's looking at (!), namely in the water – which is the spot where it MUST be in order to catch a fish. And it doesn't exactly help he's lifting the rod above his head... LOLFAIL – the more you think about it, the less makes sense. This (!) being the breakthrough work of Lichtenstein just goes to show how worthless modern art is most of the time (I do respect Warhol though). And if the absurdity is intended (which I highly doubt), mention it in the article peepz!

concern about copyvio in footnotes

I'm concerned that so much of the article is quotes, especially the exceptionally long footnote quotes. I think such quoting is unnecessary, as the editor should be able to write most information in his own words, leaving the "quotes" for standout phrases. Most of the authors quoted here are also quotes in many of the articles in a series on Lichtenstein's work, meaning substantial chunks of their work on Lichtenstein has been quoted. Why buy their books?

I've brought this up on other articles in the series. e.g. Yellow and Green Brushstrokes, Girl with Ball, Whaam!, Bedroom at Arles, Girl in Mirror, Golf Ball, Little Big Painting, Drowning Girl, Bedroom at Arles, As I Opened Fire, Artist's Studio—Look Mickey

Unlike some of the other articles, the authors with long quotes are more various. In the others, usually Diane Waldman is substantially quoted. Here there is only one from her:

[long quotes redacted. If they are a copyvio in the article, they are a copyvio here. Besides, what on earth could be the point of copying them here in the first place? They need to be removed from the article as well--that would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Is this sort of thing ok? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

"Look Mickey is considered self-referential in the sense that the artist is painting something through which the viewer may see elements of the artist.[29]" - Tony, this is prob my last remaining point on the page, does the source go into much more detail on this, it seems a bit vagure to me. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who owned the painting?

Interesting article, but there is a point which I think needs clarification. The article says that the painting was exhibited in a show in February 1962, where all works had pre-sold, implying that Look Mickey was pre-sold as well; it later says that it was bequeathed to the National Gallery of Art after Lichtenstein's death, which creates the impression that the painter kept it. (There is also the painting's inclusion in Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, although I don't take that as meaning that the work was literally hanging in his studio.) Which is it? Waltham, The Duke of 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Look Mickey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507132503/http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm to http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/frames.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material?

Does anyone know if Lichtenstein asked the Disney Company for permission to paint this? After all, he intended to sell it, so the commercial use was obvious. Or was Disney not yet prosecuting such copies and prohibiting their distribution at the time? Unbefleckte (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]