Andy Warhol

i respect your appreciation of him, but i dislike this argument, which i've heard over and over again.

people call that damn picture of a soup can "art" because people are told it is art.

it is art in that it is an artist's depiction of a real item...but there is nothing creative, inspired, or thought-provoking about it, imo

in my opinion there is good art and lousy art. just because something is technically art does not make it good. to me, good art, regardless of medium, has some important characteristics....it must be creative in some way, beautiful in some way, inspired, thought provoking, elegant, intriguing and thought provoking....art which doesnt possess any of these qualities, imo, isn't worth considering, though it may technically be "art." and of course there may be no objectivity in looking at things like this - it all depends on the viewer's judgment...

but in my opinion, the artwork of andy warhol has absolutely none of these qualities to any significant degree.

but i dont understand liking something "because he can do ____ and people will call it art"

other people's opinions are irrelevant



i will add that i have never seen his films, and am open to the idea that they may be more worthwhile than the stuff i have seen. it would strike me as a more suitable medium for him, i think.

 

Do you know anything about the guy? He was a fuckin prick, who took people who trusted him.....and destroyed their lives for his own benefit.

 

and what exactly is wrong with doing that?

 

Your right. Its in the andy wharhol museum. My bad.

 

I like it for the arrogance of it. People call landscapes art. I think they are lousy and are only useful for the people that want to put them over their sofas. Everyone's definition of art is different. Andy Warhol was an artist. His early work is overshadowed by the soup can or the brillo pads. But it is still art. It is not a poor representation when you look at the intent behind it. I HATE landscapes, but I won't go so far to call it bad art, or not art at all. Just because I don't like it doesn't deminish the fact that it is art and is considered good for one reason or another. Have you ever seen the sculpture Gnaw? To me, that sculpture is just what is left when a woman couldn't eat everything in front of her.....but it is still art. So you can hate my reasons for liking Warhol, but to an artist he is important. Otherwise cubism was just a movement of artists trying to find their inner child again.

 

I'm an artist. I don't find him the least bit important, or significant.

Anyways, to the rest of your post, good and bad are highly subjective; him calling it bad art does not mean it is actually bad; it means he thinks it is bad. No reason to attack his opinion with your own.