[Closed] Andy Warhol........?!

critics made it work.

Glad it's not just me! Can't stand the man or his 'art'

Not too sure about Picasso either - perhaps you could enlighten me?

I think I know what Geurnica and the painting of the same name are about...

In the absence of modern equivs to the greats, they changed tack....

ton - Member
critics made it work.

How?

Warhol, like all art, either does it for you or he doesn't.

He doesn't do it for me.

critics made it work.

See also Damien Hirst, Banksy, Tracy Emin etc. etc. etc. etc.

he did it for bob hughes........he liked andy.

Used to work at a restaurant in London Called L'Escargot, all warhol going up the stairs to the picasso Room which was named simply because it was full of picasso, when you've seen lots you tend to just accept it, others in the group were filled with other artists.......I remember when I worked at the Belvedere there was a commisioned Hirst piece that was £1.2 million, excess if you ask me as I didn't like it but if you like it and can afford it why the hell not.

We got a painting by this guy a couple of years ago which we love, you can see some for sale they are p.o.a which is a bummer.
http://www.nesegallery.com/parthenon/agora/shopping.php?m_link=78

critics made it work

Andy Warhol was a lot more than just brillo boxes and Monroe though. He was a very good illustrator,changes the way people generally thought about some techniques of applying paint, modernised pictures with his crash pictures and his portraits of pop culture stars, revolutionised film, print and sculpture. Heavily influenced music, performance and fashion and was also extremely influential to other up and coming artists from Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground, Nico to Jean Michel Basquiat et cetera.
Not to mention his own writings and quote but he also supported other wannabe writers. One of whom probably cut his life very short when she shot him.

I think he did quite well considering, and his influence really still is everywhere today in all walks of life.

Back to the OP, "it's shite"?
It just might be that your expectations of art and how you view it are the problem rather than Warhol's ability as an artist.

personal choice in art appreciation shocker

It just might be that your expectations of art and how you view it are the problem rather than Warhol's ability as an artist

+1.

Afaik, Warhol's work was a meta-critique of the aestheticization of the banal - he looked around him and could see (and knew from experience) the design decisions that contributed to the label of a tin of soup. Where does that leave the artist when even soup tins (or bikes, or iTat) are perceived to have aesthetic qualities? They could (a) ignore the world they live in (b) attempt to produce a new art that transcends the historical moment or (c) produce a commentary upon it by turning the artistic eye toward it. Warhol chose the latter route and was a brilliantly cyncal commentator upon the banality of the world of image that we inhabit - what is left for the artist to depict, our contemporary icons, our gods, goddesses and holy objects: celebrities, commodities etc. Well, until he started believing his own hype (unless that was part of his art....)

He carried on a tradition of anti-art that you can, if you so wish, trace back to the dadaists (say, Duchamp and his readymades). Having said all that even generally accepted 'classic' art caused huge division and controversy in their time: Turner (and subsequently the impressionists) was not well received and Courbet's works were met with horror at the Paris Salon.

Having said all that, [url=

Childish and Thee Headcoats asked the timeless question in memorable style[/url]:

"Damien Hirst's got his fish in a tank
Some say it's art others think it's ****."

Ah, punk rock.

a meta-critique of the aestheticization of the banal

😯

its all subjective, but pre warhol, who else painted like that? I can sing better than Bob Dylan, doesn't mean he's rubbish!

Some of Warhols paintings and print pieces are quite impressive, its just the common ones that people know. Same goes for Lichenstein.

[i]a meta-critique of the aestheticization of the banal[/i]

A numb bum.

its all subjective, but pre warhol, who else painted like that?

Ok, something like Tracy emin is shite, but no one paid silly money for one. Warhols Eight Elvises, $100m for a tampered photograph. Surely this is a case of the emperors new clothes....?

Or am I just a phillistine because I don't 'get it'...

No your sensible.

Did You Know...

The Andy and Lou couple on Little Britain ("I want that one") are based on an interview that Matt Lucas saw featuring Andy Warhol & Lou Reed stoned out of their gourds.

The " is it art" or "it's Shite" reasoning or argument is pointless as it's been done to death and resolved. If you are interested, there are lots of books out there you can read to try to get a better understanding of it.

You have a responsibility as a viewer and how you understand the information. If you don't get it try thinking "why don't I get it?" rather than "It's shite". If not you won't understand and there is a chance you are missing out on quite a lot. As I said before the influence of people like Warhol is everywhere, if you don't "get it" you are missing more than just Warhol.

[i]You have a responsibility as a viewer and how you understand the information[/i]

Responsibility, I think I don't thanks.

[i]The " is it art" or "it's Shite" reasoning or argument is pointless as it's been done to death and resolved. If you are interested, there are lots of books out there you can read to try to get a better understanding of it.[/i]

Surely the question is -
"Is it good art, or is it shite art?" - getting it doesn't make it good. I 'get' John Grisham, but the process of 'getting it' doesn't lead to it being a better piece of work though. 🙂

Someone once came up with the skip test for defining great art which I rather like.
That is, imagine you're walking past a builders skip one day and you see the venus de milo lying in it (it's a big skip), you'd at the very least do a double take and maybe wonder about how you could retrieve it. Would you look twice if you came across a skip with some women's grubby bed and a urinal lying on top of it?

one mans meat is anothers poison and all that.. venus de milo I couldn't give a flying duck for.. but if I saw the pretty bright acidic colours of the warhol (or similar) I would nab it..

simples phillistines... simples

[img] [/img]

Andy who ?

If I saw the Venus de milo, I'd think it was broken and leave it be, assuming I had no prior knowledge of the thing. 😉

To me, what makes great art (in all forms) is originality.
Warhol was original, no-one thought of it before.
Stuff like that is usually of it's time, has been reprinted, copied, displayed everywhere so much [i]since[/i] that it's difficult to "get it" later.

Surely the question is -
"Is it good art, or is it shite art?" - getting it doesn't make it good. I 'get' John Grisham, but the process of 'getting it' doesn't lead to it being a better piece of work though

I mostly disagree.
Deciding if it is good depends on what you use as comparison or what you are looking for in it. "getting it doesn't make it good" is true, but the process of you getting it [u]does[/u] leed to it being better for you, as you will have a better understanding of the whats, whys, wheres and how's of it.
The skip test is a good example of misunderstanding or bringing too many preconceived ideas to a different idea.
look at it this way. Imagine walking through an old traditional gallery full of large oil paintings one after the other from hundreds of years ago. Then suddenly walking into a room with "some women's grubby bed and a urinal lying on top of it". "at the very least do a double take and maybe wonder...."

Wonder what the **** is that doing there.

IMO any art, whether it is a technically perfect Constable, an abstract such as a Pollock splash on canvas, a bunch of lines a la Mondrian or something your kid painted for you at school is only good if the viewer likes it. Whether or not one person likes it does not alter the fact the next may not.

Warhol's work interests me in that the use of paint, the composition on the canvas, the particular choice of colours etc combine to make visually interesting art.

I also enjoy the work of Paul Klee, Turner, Robert Crumb and Klimt. I also like Ansel Adams and the Weston's photography.

At home we have a couple of pieces we commissioned ourselves, one from an artist at a car boot sale and one by a local artist.

I don't expect everyone else to enjoy the same work as I do - each person enjoys different art just as each person enjoys different music or film or sport or cars or clothes or...

You have a responsibility as a viewer and how you understand the information. If you don't get it try thinking "why don't I get it?" rather than "It's shite". If not you won't understand and there is a chance you are missing out on quite a lot. As I said before the influence of people like Warhol is everywhere, if you don't "get it" you are missing more than just Warhol.

Which is effectively just saying "if you don't get it, change the way you think so you do get it". Not really the point. If the art doesn't evoke feelings, emotions or replay a place or time to someone who isn't the creator, it's failed in my view. While my view is clearly not art qualified, that's sort of the point to me. IMO art should be something that speaks to people and doesn't require translation and an altered state of mind to understand. If you have to alter your way of thinking to appreciate the art you can effectively call anything art, mass murder and posed bodies, a calculator, some paper - all would just require you to "get into the head" of the person doing it.

Totally agree with coffeeking.

[i]Totally agree with coffeeking.[/i]

I don't. What's wrong with changing your thinking to understand something you previously didn't?

Depends whether you look at things in terms of the thinking behind them or whether you just like the end result.

Myself, I'm fairly ignorant of art, so I go by the end result, and I'm partial to the odd bit of pop art & constructivism.

Some (most?) artists produce stuff that really does range from ace to gopping - take Hockney - a bigger splash is ace, but some of his other stuff is just bad drawings on the theme of being gay...

The other issue is that this stuff is pricey & sought after, so if you go to a public exhibition of a well known artist (particularly at a less well known/funded gallery), a lot of their better work is in private hands, which means that you'll perhaps get one of their better pictures surrounded by ten of their more poxy works.

What happens when someone becomes a famous artist is that the equivalent of what would be a writer's first drafts and jotted notes are suddenly seen as important, and become valuable. Some choose to destroy the stuff they're not happy with, some flog it regardless 😆

coffeeking, I think you misunderstand what I'm saying as we half agree with each other.
It is not up to anyone to tell the viewer what they should or should not think about a piece of art. This is partly why the " is it art" kind of debates are pointless. At the same time though, the viewer should be open to new ideas, thoughts and interpretations. You shouldn't always believe what you think. Otherwise you will only ever understand or enjoy one type of art in one way.

With regards to "you can effectively call anything art, mass murder and posed bodies, a calculator, some paper..." all been done. There are people who find these subjects do "evoke feelings, emotions or replay a place or time to someone who isn't the creator".

I don't. What's wrong with changing your thinking to understand something you previously didn't?

50 years for you to finally vent an opinion on andy warhol? congratulations! 🙄

roper - not sure...

At the same time though, the viewer should be open to new ideas, thoughts and interpretations. You shouldn't always believe what you think. Otherwise you will only ever understand or enjoy one type of art in one way.

That depends what level you're looking for art to feed back on, if your interest is not in the story of the art but the end result and whether that is immediately pleasing to your thoughts, then why would you want to understand more than that type of art? I can see that X did this in this way to show this, but it still isn't pleasing to look at, I just understand its origin. I think thats the crux of it, if you're looking for a story or to understand someone, then maybe all sorts of art are your friend and learning to read into them is important. If you're looking for something that is asthetically pleasing to you and immediately gives you a warm smile without needing to think about what the creator was thinking/going through/trying to portray then the more controversial arts are not really for you and neither is it necessarily a good thing to try to learn to love them.

I don't. What's wrong with changing your thinking to understand something you previously didn't?

Nothing, if there's a point. If I have to change my thinking to understand someone's point of view and somehow help them through life/help change thigns to make something better then sure. But its just art, it either appeals or it doesnt. If I have to work on it to enjoy it it's pointless to me - it's art, not a job. It's art, not a challenge. I want to put it in a corner and go "ooh, isnt that lovely" or "that reminds me of summer" not "I think bob was trying to talk of the pains of the people suffering at the hands of feudal system, his use of reds and yellows suggest anger"

[i]Nothing wrong in it, but I don't think art should require you to - you either like it or not. A bit like Marmite.[/i]

Well I personally, can take or leave Marmite.
So a kid sees an Andy Warhol - say the soup cans. Thinks "Thats just a pic of soup cans". Then someone explains the relevance of it, who its by and what he's about - the kid then has understanding (ie has changed his way of thinking). The "art" hasn't worked?

So a kid sees an Andy Warhol - say the soup cans. Thinks "Thats just a pic of soup cans". Then someone explains the relevance of it, who its by and what he's about - the kid then has understanding (ie has changed his way of thinking). The "art" hasn't worked?

For example, I can understand why Damien Hirst chopped up animals and put them in formaldehyde (he wanted to make people look at everyday things differently IIRC) but it doesn't make me like it artistically.

Conversely I have no idea why Klimt painted The Kiss but I find it a beautiful piece of work.

So a kid sees an Andy Warhol - say the soup cans. Thinks "Thats just a pic of soup cans". Then someone explains the relevance of it, who its by and what he's about - the kid then has understanding (ie has changed his way of thinking). The "art" hasn't worked?

Depends. What has the kid gained other than an appreciation of what the creator was thinking, which ultimately doesn't mean much. He still won't think the image is nice to look at, he'll just know the background. I wouldn't have the cans up in my living room, I might be vaguely interested in their origin but only from a "it's so crap there must be a story behind it" way and that would not motivate me in any way shape or form. M_f put it more elloquently than I could.

[i]Art isn't about understanding surely?[/i]

You must be talking specifically about [i]paintings[/i] surely?
Of course it is! (Partly!)

You must be talking specifically about paintings surely?
Of course it is! (Partly!)

Physical art, paintings, sculptures etc. I can see that drama etc are there to convey a story. I just don't see that paintings and sculptures are. That's just a fundamental part of my make-up - paintings/photos/sculpture should be immediate, it cannot intelligently interact to tell a story, it should not need to be explained. It's like a joke, if it needs explaining it's not a very good joke. If I like it I'll want it in my house based on its looks. If it's too big to fit I'll want a bigger house to put it in, but if it has no immediate appeal and needs work to like it, I won't want it in the house maybe other than as a talking point to make me look "smarter" than someone else who visits 😀

You must be talking specifically about paintings surely?
Of course it is! (Partly!)

Of course this is only my opinion, but as someone who works in the creative field, I strongly believe (and always have) that when I present a piece of work (a logo design, a website, a brochure etc) that I shouldn't expect the client to need to 'understand' what I have done, simply like it or not. If I need to justify something I don't think I have done my job properly.