Crying Girl

1963 · Print

Peut-on la contempler ?

Elle ne reçoit pas en ce moment

National Gallery of Art

Washington, États-Unis

Elle appartient à la collection, mais n’est pas présentée en ce moment.

Vérifié: il y a 3 jours
Dans cet état depuis: 19 août 2026
Source: Le musée

Sur la carte Page du musée

Notice

Numéro d’inventaire: 1996.56.136

Ce qu’elle montre

Girl Face

Au catalogue

Estampes Impression photomécanique Art d’après-guerre XXe siècle American Pop

Sources

National Gallery of Art
Image : National Gallery of Art — © the artist or rights holder

Pendant ce temps, chez Roy Lichtenstein

La vie entière

1961
The turn to Pop Art: a challenge from his son
In 1961 Lichtenstein began his first Pop paintings, using cartoon images and techniques derived from commercial printing; the first work to use hard-edged figures and Ben-Day dots on a large scale was “Look Mickey”. The push came from his son, who, as the artist told it, pointed to a Mickey Mouse comic book and doubted that his father could paint as well.
1961
Leo Castelli begins showing his work
In 1961 Leo Castelli began displaying Lichtenstein’s work at his gallery in New York.
1962
The Castelli show sells out before it opens
Lichtenstein’s first one-man show at the Castelli gallery took place in 1962: the entire collection was bought by influential collectors before it even opened. The Leo Castelli Gallery has represented him exclusively since then.
1963–1964
Leaves Rutgers and returns to New York
In September 1963 Lichtenstein took a leave of absence from Douglass College at Rutgers; in 1964 he moved back to New York to be at the centre of the art scene and resigned from Rutgers to concentrate on his painting.
1964
The first American to exhibit at the Tate Gallery
Lichtenstein became the first American to exhibit at the Tate Gallery in London, in the show “’54–’64: Painting and Sculpture of a Decade”.
1964
Life magazine asks: “Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?”
When Lichtenstein’s work was first exhibited, many critics challenged its originality and called it vulgar and empty; a Life magazine article of 1964 was headed “Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?”. The artist replied that the closer his work is to the original, the more threatening and critical its content.