i am sorry, but as a paintor i have long detested much of what Andy Warhol did to the art scene. although there were times he did create definitive pieces in art culture and history (very few in my view) his permissive/lax attitudes on "what constitutes art" and the effects he had on the "Hangers-On" who virtually controlled the galleries of note in the late 60's to early 80's did more damage to the credibility of Fine Art than any other source.
Some of the truely great artists that have come since that did not "lick the boot" of this clique were punished by a lack of representation in the body of art culture/history. Noteables such as David Sally come to mind.
This is not an attempt to start a flame war. It is actually a seriously attempt to start dialogue regarding my feelings. If they are unfounded, let this be discovered through the art of discussion.
thanks.
Some of the truely great artists that have come since that did not "lick the boot" of this clique were punished by a lack of representation in the body of art culture/history. Noteables such as David Sally come to mind.
This is not an attempt to start a flame war. It is actually a seriously attempt to start dialogue regarding my feelings. If they are unfounded, let this be discovered through the art of discussion.
thanks.
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Thu, December 4, 2003 - 10:29 AMYeah, you have a point, but I don't think it's about Warhol trying to subvert the appreciation of art into a dumbed down state of awe, but rather I think he was making a very sardonic statement on what we hold dear in popular culture. He might have gotten caught up in it a little more than he may have originally intended (as did we), but I think what he was trying to say with his art was its own thing, and not a call for any sort of "norm" in artistic expression. Just my thoughts... -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 8:29 AMa valid point in the beginning, but like so many things around him Andy Became more about Andy and less about the art. The biggest problem i have with him is the "anything is art as long as i sanction it" mentality that is still omnipresent in soho and other gallery districts today. Warhol sponsored many artists who were artists only in name and not actual talent.
permissiveness which involved bits of string attached to canvases by people with no context in the timeline of art and no other validation for it than "simply because it was never done before" did alot to errode the credibility of art.
there has to be a point at which art actually means something and has some point of reference in the spectrum of things, otherwise it is self indulgence and trite comentary. unfortunately this opened the door for a range of artists whose soul purpose was to obfuscate any intended message to appear "haute coture" or the outright fraud of sweatshop galleries (pioneered by warhol) where artists toild at works so that a man could simply walk in and sign it ... suddenly giving it value.
at this point art becomes nothing more than a commodity.
thanks andy! -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 8:39 AMYeah, but I still think there's the Warhol cult of personality, or what one might call "the Warhol school" - which might entail all the pretentiousness and disingenuity you mentioned above - and I think there are other very relevent and influential art communities and institutions that don't buy into the whole pop art phenomenon. Blaming Warhol for art=commerce might carry a little bit of weight, but it's like blaming The Clash for mall punk. If the folks who pioneered something knew how bleak their ideas would become decades down the line, would they care? -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, December 5, 2003 - 9:11 AMthat is exactly why i think he was more hype than talent.
(i prefer the green day / gap punk comparison lol)
i seriously think andy warhol did not care what he did to the respectability of art as long as it furthered his end goal of self promotion. there is a modern example of andy warhol in the music scene today called genisis p. orridge (throbb gristle , ptv fame).
at a certain point if you are simply using the trappings of art to wrap around a self promotion machine, then you leave the world of art and into entertainment. unfortunately during the process cheapening alot of good ideas.
but it felt good to get it off my chest. i was lambasted in school for suggesting he was a hack.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Thu, December 11, 2003 - 1:22 PMAnd you'll get lambasted here, too.
It's easy to encapsulate his work and say he was a hack -- on the surface that is what he was doing -- but by doing so, he, among other things, illuminated the absurdity of the art world and ultimately threw the institution on it's ear. When you look at the history of Western art, this is something all the great masters have ultimately achieved. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, December 12, 2003 - 7:53 AMi think you give him more credit than is due. that is the whole problem with Warhol. More Credit than necessary. There are plenty of people who threw the institution of art on it's ear without inherently cheapening the movement.
to say that through hackney work one brings illumination to the body of art is absurd within itself. I think the auction two weeks ago where his infamous $ painting failed to even garner a speculative bid says it all about warhol now.
now that the fan fare is over and we have had a couple of decades to reflect on our choices i think patrons and gallery owners are turning against warhol. well atleast my hope is placed in that basket. hehee.
Andy Warhol was a master self promotor who came in at the wrong time at the right place. counter culture mentality was willing to embrace many ideas absurd - thru - profound as long as they were AntiEstablishmentarian. any credit as to his talent i think is far over rated. -
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, December 12, 2003 - 9:04 AMI consider Warhol to be a true artist. Perhaps, a distinction needs to be made in your use of the term 'fine art'. To try and make a comparative assessment of say DaVinci and Warhol is fruitless.
Warhol is most certainly a product of his times. Perhaps because he started in advertising (specifically shoes), he was keenly aware of mass consumerism and the beginning of an overwhelming information age. His work reflects a repitition and banality of time his short career spanned. I think he gets short shrift by being pegged a celebrity as opposed to an artist. Of course, the fact that his personal life was filled with an entourage and celebrities is the main reason for this.
His subjects on the surface seem to show indifference. But, below that is a real fascination Warhol had with the subject. Whether it was the repetition of the Campbell's Soup cans or Marilyn Monroe's face--his work spoke to the enveloping mass-consumerism.
His use of color and the imperfections in his silkscreens are fascinating to me. I suppose, in the end, art is a subjective creature. I don't think society would still be fascinated by 'pop culture' if it were not due (in great part) to Warhol's influence and art. In my eyes, he fills a key part of art history as a whole. I find nothing hackneyed about his work. As far as self-promotion goes, that is an art unto itself. I also believe he and his work were much less about propagating counter-culture and more about reflecting what was happening around him. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, December 12, 2003 - 9:18 AMi think his works were more about propagating his self created propaganda machine and less about any specific artistic end goal. i did not claim he was there to promote counter culture he was merely the lucky benefactor of its permissiveness. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 8:31 PMwhat do you think of Thomas Kinkade?
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Mon, December 15, 2003 - 2:46 PMActually, I didn't say that his work was hackneyed -- you did. I think he created a very rich body of work that stands on its own very well.
Now that he's dead and the fanfare of his PR machine has quieted, interest in his work still continues to grow. In fact, critics and institutions that were resistant to his work when he was alive now almost all unanimously accept and praise it.
Asserting that patrons and gallery owners are turning their backs on him is just wishful thinking on your part. Price of his works continue to skyrocket and cultural intrest in him and his crew continue to grow and grow. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Mon, December 15, 2003 - 3:04 PMBin Laden used to hang out at the Factory, didn't he?
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 5:44 AMHis work to me is like a saying:
you speak a lie long enough and loud enough, it eventually becomes the truth. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 10:27 AMyou could really say that about anything, now, couldn't you? -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 11:35 AMi guess if we get into the One Hand Clapping / Tree Falling In the woods realm of conversation, then yeah you would be right. hehehe. being "Made" by a time and circumstance does does not give something inherent credibility. i think that is what i was saying. i am not here to make enemies though... just explore a thought about the man i have so much disdain for as an artist. this seemed like the fitting venue for said discussion. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 11:37 AMNo need to feel unloved or attacked - you brought up some interesting points. I happen to agree with them, and when you post something contrarian in a forum dedicated to celebrating the very person you don't like, you're bound to get some dissent. I don't agree with what you're saying, but I "get" your argument, I respect it, and I think you worded your thoughts intelligently. Amen. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 11:38 AMOoops, at the beginning of that last post of mine, I meant to say "I happen to DISagree with them". Too much yerba mate makes the fingers go all wonky on the keyboard. Tra la la! -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 11:53 AMok i have to know... Yerba? you threw a word at me i am not familiar with and must know meaning...
this Ciz-herb? Chronic? just a guess.
if so AHMEN to that brother!
i was kind of hoping someone could persuade me i am wrong in a convincing manner. i catch alot of flack locally for my views in local art forums.
i keep wanting to be like everyone else.. enamoured with warhol, but just cant force myself to swallow the lie...... someone help!!! lol -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 1:14 PMYerba mate is a fabulous South American tea that in its roasted form has kicked the ass of all forms of caffeinated beverages (in my humble opinion). It is my Chronic du jour.
As for disproving your Warhol lie POV, I'm not really understanding what the "lie" is, other than a word you're connecting to your criticisms of Warhol. What was so deceptively, horrendously sinister about his ideas? I get your arguments, but I don't get what exactly is "hidden" or "dishonest" about your view of Warhol. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 1:39 PMto me the lie.... warhols importance/talent it was shoved down our throat by an "Atta Boy Mentality" driven gallery system that was doing anything to appear "hip" to the 60's counter culture. in the process, the lie was spoken so often it became the truth - defacto! does that clear up that one?
I am not sure where your last part is directed about Hidden or Dishonest. you will have to expand upon that thought before i can address it. too ambiguous at the moment. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 1:44 PMBut what's the lie? Warhol seemed to believe in his art, the galleries seemed to believe in his art, and the mass media seemed to believe in his art. I mean, isn't what you're criticizing exactly what Warhol was satirizing with his work? If you did a send-up of everything you find fault with in the art community, and that send-up became wildly popular, and you enjoyed that popularity, would you then become a liar? -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 2:05 PMyou see, i never saw him sincerely believe in his work. it just never struck me as a view he held. i never saw sincerity in anything the man did. all of it seemed only to serve to promote himself in Haut Coture(SP?) and Counter Culture Art Circles? For What Purpose... perhaps an extension of HIS 15 mins of fame. I was unfortunately forced in school to work on a project about the man which slowly lead me to dislike him and eventually see him as part of a central "flaw" in gallery and critical thinking across the board.
again i may give him to much credit. the LIE as i see it could have been fostered from the outside by a gallery system desperate to embrace the counter culture and grasping at straws as to what to like. yes he did strike a chord with people. but was that strike artificially provoked? was warhol and his credibility foisted on us so that we would greedily consume a product in the name of defiance against the main stream? and if so, is that a valid art expression?
unfortunately once he was established (either by his marketing skills or the Intellegencia) the permissiveness of the time allowed him to make statements and take actions that fundamentally wrecked the credibility of the modern artist movement. again my view. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 7:09 PMYou should really, really read a book he wrote called "THE Philosophy of Andy Warhol" It's a short, fun read where he tries to explain his work in the most round-about way. Its a great read. One of my favorite books of all time.
I always liked Warhol the person, but not the artist. After I read the book, I gained a tremendous amount of insight and respect for his work too.
-
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Tue, December 16, 2003 - 10:42 PMLet me say outright - I love that book, but I"d say it exposes Warhol for the businessman he was. Warhol inspires more fascination in me than respect or admiration. The book shows how shallow he truly was and how little art actually meant to him. What really struck meis how detache he was from everything but his own interests. He completely ignored all the people around him. He seemed like more of an observer than a participator. He seemed like he was laughing at everyone who followed him religiously. He just like surrounding glamorous people because it made him look glamorous whether he actually was or not. i could go more indepth, but this will do for now.
And let's face it, if Warhol hadn't done it someone else would have. Everything in our society is fake and plastic nowadays. Look at the music industry! Look at reality TV! If anything Warhol was in the right place at the right time. If he were trying to create some big art movement today he'd probably be bought out by some bastardized conglomerate.
but yes, definitely check out the Philosophy of Andy Warhol. It will probably only add fuel to your Warhol-hating fire. I think he's more interesting socialogically than artisically anyway. I also believe there's enough room in the artworld for everyone. To use the music analogy again, Britney sure is popular, but classical isn't dead by any means.
Besides, Warhol gave us the Velvet Underground, and that's not so bad is it? -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Wed, December 17, 2003 - 5:17 AMlooks like i have a "Second That" on my argument. -
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Wed, December 17, 2003 - 7:34 PMHey now, don't get me wrong. I like Warhol's art, and pop art i general. That's why I joined this tribe in the first place. But even so, Warhol was a squirrely fellow. i don't think he destroyed the art world, though. his work has artistic value, at least in my opinion. It may not be the epitome of classic art, but pop art has worth, just a different kind of worth. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Wed, December 17, 2003 - 8:30 PMi like pop art... when it is good. i was actually taught by one of the fathers of british pop art. not a bad chap actually. dont know how he ended up in a texas public college though!
-
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Wed, December 17, 2003 - 7:34 PMHey now, don't get me wrong. I like Warhol's art, and pop art i general. That's why I joined this tribe in the first place. But even so, Warhol was a squirrely fellow. i don't think he destroyed the art world, though. his work has artistic value, at least in my opinion. It may not be the epitome of classic art, but pop art has worth, just a different kind of worth. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Wed, December 17, 2003 - 8:31 PMmy biggest beef is the attitude and permissive behaviour he brought to the gallery scene that justified ANYTHING as art as long as the right people said it was. some things like Kenneth Noland should never have been.. and i dare say the same for ROTHCO! -
-
don't beat yourself up over it
Thu, December 18, 2003 - 3:54 AMwhoa whoa there tiger. ok well here is my say and i don't know if anyone has said this cos i read the first couple of messages and couldn't hold my peace much longer.
so you are an actual painter. wow good for you. if you know anything about warhol you'd know he had an artistic background too went to the carnegie inst. and graduated - did graphic design work and was an experienced draftsman. so he was an actual painter too.
also to understand modern art you have to realise that every movement (starting with impressionism if you will) is always passing a torch on to another generation and it's ideas that evovle with the art. and you have to understand the lineage of art before warhol and how pop was reacting against the extreme masculinity of ab ex and ess. a revivial of a lot of dadaist ideas.
i am going to cut this short as i have a lecture to do in a couple of minutes but you have your own opinion that's cool but understand the whole picture in order to understand warhol. also warhol was 'the common man'- a freak from pittsburgh who was gay. he made it and had some very radical ideas at the time (like his all cokes are good statement which i love) that speak for a lot of the 'american' ideal at the time of equality of different social classes.
i'll comment on the mark rothko comment later. wow. it's getting juicy round there here parts. -
-
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Thu, December 18, 2003 - 3:57 AMps the artist as a business man makes for a successful artist. jesus we cant have tons of van goghs and even rothkos running around killing themselves and not making a dime off their work while they are still alive. look at jeff koons (i have a tribe about him if anyone is interested) ... also look at the classic example of salvador dali. modern art has introduced the artist to profit whilst being still alive. and i for one think that's fucking great. -
-
Unsu...
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Thu, December 18, 2003 - 3:59 PMPeople who post shit-talking posts about Warhol in the Warhol Tribe are PLAYAH HATAHS. Straight up. Go form your own "I HATE WARHOL" tribe, and see if ANYONE joins.
PEACE! -
-
Unsu...
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Thu, December 18, 2003 - 4:01 PMWell, true to the title of this topic, it IS never-ending! -
-
Unsu...
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Fri, December 19, 2003 - 6:14 AMDon't worry, I plan to end it now christopher. i am starting to see posts that will eventually degenerate into a flame war instead of constructive dialgue.
(Andy Warhol Conversation Mode - Terminated)
<End Transmission>
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Fri, December 19, 2003 - 6:12 AMTHis torch was not passed with any sound reasoning to warhol. it was taken, with no concern for rhyme or reason. it was practically given to warhol simply because of the time period - not because he actually contributed to the body of art - but because he could create a Bullshit factory and maintain it.
As for an opinion, well that is what i have stated from the start. it would be nice if someone could change it or atleast debate the point successfully to the contrary. there have been some well put points in this discussion (noting to change my view so far) and i am happy with the results of the discussion.
however i think a few of these posts have driven my point off topic a bit. the main thrust of this discussion (atleast for me) was the destructive nature of the whole Andy Warhol Cult on the world of art and its credibility. It turned the art world away from a dialgue in paint - to a cheap and empty banter.
-
-
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Fri, December 19, 2003 - 8:40 AMThanks a lot, this was a grest discussion while it lasted. It was like a little art soap opera for me! hehe You're obviously intelligent and awesome, even if you don't have the same taste in art as the rest of us. This is the best place to discuss something like this because you get both sides of the story. If you discussed in in an "i hat warhol" tribe everyone would just be like "i hate warhol, all the time!! he was worthless!"
-
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Fri, December 19, 2003 - 8:41 AMThanks a lot, this was a grest discussion while it lasted. It was like a little art soap opera for me! hehe You're obviously intelligent and awesome, even if you don't have the same taste in art as the rest of us. This is the best place to discuss something like this because you get both sides of the story. If you discussed in in an "i hat warhol" tribe everyone would just be like "i hate warhol, all the time!! he was worthless!" -
-
Unsu...
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Fri, December 19, 2003 - 8:55 AMSo what have you got to say that would defend Noland? hehehe.
-
-
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Sat, December 20, 2003 - 7:05 AMi thought you weren't going to talk about it anymore!
oh well long live your opinion, it's great to think something rather than nothing. i just think that if you fail to see the whole picture then it's hard to understand.
don't be hatin! -
-
Unsu...
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Mon, December 22, 2003 - 5:51 AMsometimes, when you say nothing at all, it is best nothing is said at all.
-
-
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Mon, December 22, 2003 - 5:52 PMi'll always say something i can promise you that much love. -
-
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 1:22 PMRemember that time when we didn't want this to be come a childish flame war? -
-
Re: don't beat yourself up over it
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 2:18 PMi'm not flaming. just stating my opinion!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 8:40 PMArt has always ben commercial to some degree or another, it used to be controlled by the church, or the medicis or royalty, art for it's own sake is a realtively new concept, that is why I like pop art so much, It throws the commercialisim of art back at itself.
-
-
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 8:36 PMBut what if it needed to be wrecked? -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 10:26 PMat one time art was about respect. it was about a union of your times, ideas and building off the traditions of the past to forge into the new. this includes everything from symbolic art of our monkeyboy ancestors to the surrealists and cubists.
along the way though, we lost our status. we became relegated to a commodity and along with it our livelyhood and our self respect were robbed from us. Dearest Andy helped make this world hostile towards artists and devalued our skills as something that is easily faked and reproduced. yet people laud it. this i dont understand. now instead of the respect deserved for the mirical of creative insight, we looked down on as the undesireables and unemployables unless we pedal a steady stream of bullshit infront of an illusion of art simply because the commodity sells.
my war is very specific with warhol and his Chin Feeders that had a stranglehold on the gallery system. i even think some of the pop artists are credible. i studied under one for some time in my college years.
-
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Sat, January 3, 2004 - 12:56 AMOh come on. I thought you studied art history, but clearly you are either baiting me or you don't know it as well as you think you do. Artists have never been treated with respect. you have got to be kiding me. Even in the renasance artists were consdiered merely skilled craftsman, and were always at the hands of those who had more money/ power, you cant serioudly be informed about art history and think the gallery system of the 60's was wholly responsible for artists loosing a "status" that they never had.
Atists have more or less been seen throughtout history as nothing more than skilled craftsman. Do you even know How Michalngelo was discovered? He was a stonecarvers son who got caught making fake antiques. He didn't even want to do the sistine chapel, the pospe forced him to do it, patialy to pay off his father's debts, to his death, he maintained he was a sculptor, not a painter. Even Leonardo worked at the whim of Wealthy Merchants and royalty, and certainly dont tell me that the impressionists got any respect! "Impressionist" was a derogatory term. As was "Gothic", basicly any new development in art was shunned by the status quo at some point or another, if you ask me, it is the ridiculous notion about creating art for it's own sake or the pure joy of it that really ruined art, my clients tend to assume they are doing me a favor by hiring me, but that isnt my own work or my own pure idea, that is what they want in their houses in a horrible corruption of some horrible antiquated style (usualy victoritan) that was just a rip off of everything that came before it to look "pretty". What sells, is usualy something far, far worse than pop art. It's fucking Thomas Kinkade.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 8:34 PMOk, now I'm interested in what you think of Peter Maxx. -
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 8:44 PMoh, man, got in on this one too late, I've ben in this argument before, but not with someone quite so well informed. I'm kind of tired of it though. I've even been published regarding Peter Maxx.
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Fri, January 2, 2004 - 10:29 PMpeter max is and always shall be a product of this permissiveness. his work serves to degrade and humiliate as much as it does to revolt the senses.
kenneth noland is "a hunter with a paint brush" hehehhe. sorry kenny but a bullseye painted several dozen times with no sense of context is ... well several dozen bullseyes waiting to be shot at. -
-
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Sat, January 3, 2004 - 1:04 AMHa hA, at least Peter Maxx has an original Idea and runs with it. I admire him for figureing out how to make a living from his art, without having to resort to "spirituality" as a gimmik, Yep, Peter Maxx Has a gimmick, but he IS respected, and he can do his own work, I see nothing wrong with art being a product, Art is was, and always has been a product, even the Venus Of Villindorf was a sexual fetish, so by your logic, saying that our "monkyboy" ancestors had some kind of Status, as creators of a higher order, erotic blow up dolls are also high art. Your agument doesnt hold water when confronted with history. -
-
Unsu...
Re: my never ending war with Warhol
Sat, January 3, 2004 - 10:50 AMmiddendorf.
actually there is a good article on figurative expression that includes that figurine - once thought to be one of the earliest expressions of human symbolism. they found something at a french neanderthal site which may push symbolic art quite a ways back from cromagnons (our ancestors). apparantly we were not the on
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
