How can anyone hate on Warhol? The only reason I can think of is because he perfectly pre-empted how the world was going to become with its consumerism ahead of time, and it now seems contrived. But he pretty much defined how the western world would become before it actually happened which is a pretty fucking amazing thing I think, and not something all artists can claim to have done.
Still, that cover is trash, and it kinda looks a bit fruity if you change the bears trajectory...
dude it's not like he was making his art in the 17th century.
post-war America was/is a consumer crapfest.
in fact, Warhol era v. Our Era in terms of consumerism is prolly nothing in comparison to Warhol's younger years vs. Warhol's older years.
he wasn't some sort of oracle; dude was living the consumeristic transformation that was occuring and that he (crudely, exploitatively and unimaginatively) reflected in his art.
dude it's not like he was making his art in the 17th century.
post-war America was/is a consumer crapfest.
in fact, Warhol era v. Our Era in terms of consumerism is prolly nothing in comparison to Warhol's younger years vs. Warhol's older years.
he wasn't some sort of oracle; dude was living the consumeristic transformation that was occuring and that he (crudely, exploitatively and unimaginatively) reflected in his art.
well atleast that sounds smarter than what 33&1/3 wrote, but dude did alot of stuff. And unless youve seen the scope (illustrations, movies, installations, photos, fuck even time capsules) please to not show off your uninformed-ness.
it was an Edan album some of you would be calling it a work of art. True Story.
I wouldn't hate this if it was an Edan cover cause Edan isn't working with Kanye's budget. Dude making a billion million dollars & the best thing he can come up with looks like a Pokeman throwing up?
That's true, but did any other artist actually define it before he did? Or perhaps even turn the packaging/marketing of that art into its own artform? I'm not saying he was the most creative artist ever, but he did manage to take something that was as ubiquitous as consumerism and shine a different light on it. I can see how you'd think Warhol is overrated, I just think that his work was probably greater than the sum of its parts, nah mean? I dunno, a common critique of art like his always seems to be "I could've done that" but the point is you didn't.
dude it's not like he was making his art in the 17th century.
post-war America was/is a consumer crapfest.
in fact, Warhol era v. Our Era in terms of consumerism is prolly nothing in comparison to Warhol's younger years vs. Warhol's older years.
he wasn't some sort of oracle; dude was living the consumeristic transformation that was occuring and that he (crudely, exploitatively and unimaginatively) reflected in his art.
well atleast that sounds smarter than what 33&1/3 wrote, but dude did alot of stuff. And unless youve seen the scope (illustrations, movies, installations, photos, fuck even time capsules) please to not show off your uninformed-ness. Please get off it. I am just calling a spade a spade. If you want to eat up whatever esteemed art critics Dictates as fine art that's your right.
However if you take Warhol's work on its own its as much of a crapfest as the consumerism he was "trying" (and I say trying because it was a stretch for him at that) to talk about in his art. Like I said I will give him credit for marketing his shit and coining the actual "15 minutes phrase", but as far as his actual work, TO ME its shit because without him explaining to the public what it represented NO ONE would have picked that up and in the end without the backing of major art critics cosiging his crapfest then the public would never have bought into it. He is the epitomy of playing to the artworld.
So yes on marketing.
No on artistic merit.
And cosign with rootless on the fact that he was NOT some kind of oracle. He was living in these days and times and just stated the obvious.
I like a lot of Murakami's work, I've been two of his exhibitions (paris/tokyo) but I dont like this album cover, he could have come up with something much better.
I do like that Kanye has a least tried something different (for a hip hop album cover) and he is probably a fan of Murakami so I guess Kanye is chuffed to have dude do hs artwork (even if its not his best output)
and remember: Kanye speaks to you from the future.
I'm the other way around. To me, Murakami's reputation has been hurt / cheapened by his association with Kanye West. Yes, Kanye, you went to college! How many albums does it take to get the trauma out of your system?!? Only a few more than a rape / molestation victim working through their issues...
I think Takashi Murakami would be better served by designing a 50 cent or Rhianna album cover. That would go along with his aesthetic / artistic / world-is-flat worldview much better. He needs to design for someone who's more pop(ular).
dude it's not like he was making his art in the 17th century.
post-war America was/is a consumer crapfest.
in fact, Warhol era v. Our Era in terms of consumerism is prolly nothing in comparison to Warhol's younger years vs. Warhol's older years.
he wasn't some sort of oracle; dude was living the consumeristic transformation that was occuring and that he (crudely, exploitatively and unimaginatively) reflected in his art.
well atleast that sounds smarter than what 33&1/3 wrote, but dude did alot of stuff. And unless youve seen the scope (illustrations, movies, installations, photos, fuck even time capsules) please to not show off your uninformed-ness. Please get off it. I am just calling a spade a spade. If you want to eat up whatever esteemed art critics Dictates as fine art that's your right.
However if you take Warhol's work on its own its as much of a crapfest as the consumerism he was "trying" (and I say trying because it was a stretch for him at that) to talk about in his art. Like I said I will give him credit for marketing his shit and coining the actual "15 minutes phrase", but as far as his actual work, TO ME its shit because without him explaining to the public what it represented NO ONE would have picked that up and in the end without the backing of major art critics cosiging his crapfest then the public would never have bought into it. He is the epitomy of playing to the artworld.
So yes on marketing.
No on artistic merit.
And cosign with rootless on the fact that he was NOT some kind of oracle. He was living in these days and times and just stated the obvious. dude, all I was trying to say was by reading your comments you didnt really know the whole spectrum of warhol's shit, just the most famous. simple as that, not saying you should like him or not, just saying labeling his stuff as purely comercial rip offs mean you dont know the dudes art. go to the fucking warhol in pittsburgh if you ever get a chance or cop a book from the library, again, not saying you'll love it, you just won't come off as avergage joe-ignorant is all- saying it's all soup cans, screen prints and shit.
I think Takashi Murakami would be better served by designing a 50 cent or Rhianna album cover. That would go along with his aesthetic / artistic / world-is-flat worldview much better. He needs to design for someone who's more pop(ular).
i acctually completely agree with that. that was thoughtful.
However if you take Warhol's work on its own its as much of a crapfest as the consumerism he was "trying" (and I say trying because it was a stretch for him at that) to talk about in his art. Like I said I will give him credit for marketing his shit and coining the actual 15 minutes phrase, but as far as his actual work, TO ME its shit because without him explaining to the public what it represented NO ONE would have picked that up and in the end without the backing of major art critics cosiging his crapfest then the public would never have bought into it. He is the epitomy of playing to the artworld. .
This whole statement is pretty embarassing...
Warhol was a genius and most of us are not. Get used to it.
I would love to know who you think is a great artist or what your favorite work is. I'm seriously curious.
I don't understand what the thing with the big mouth is supposed to be.
plz II essplane.
I am by no means a graphic designer but I am the only one who notices that there is a serious perspective problem here? The angle at which the kanye bear is flying at is all fucked up. The Canon would need to be to the left and pointing more at us. Or am I just drunk. Actually I am a little but that is neither here nor there. Carry on.
The trajectory is all wrong from a physical standpoint.
dude it's not like he was making his art in the 17th century.
post-war America was/is a consumer crapfest.
in fact, Warhol era v. Our Era in terms of consumerism is prolly nothing in comparison to Warhol's younger years vs. Warhol's older years.
he wasn't some sort of oracle; dude was living the consumeristic transformation that was occuring and that he (crudely, exploitatively and unimaginatively) reflected in his art.
well atleast that sounds smarter than what 33&1/3 wrote, but dude did alot of stuff. And unless youve seen the scope (illustrations, movies, installations, photos, fuck even time capsules) please to not show off your uninformed-ness.
Please get off it. I am just calling a spade a spade. If you want to eat up whatever esteemed art critics Dictates as fine art that's your right.
However if you take Warhol's work on its own its as much of a crapfest as the consumerism he was "trying" (and I say trying because it was a stretch for him at that) to talk about in his art. Like I said I will give him credit for marketing his shit and coining the actual "15 minutes phrase", but as far as his actual work, TO ME its shit because without him explaining to the public what it represented NO ONE would have picked that up and in the end without the backing of major art critics cosiging his crapfest then the public would never have bought into it. He is the epitomy of playing to the artworld.
So yes on marketing.
No on artistic merit.
And cosign with rootless on the fact that he was NOT some kind of oracle. He was living in these days and times and just stated the obvious. dude, all I was trying to say was by reading your comments you didnt really know the whole spectrum of warhol's shit, just the most famous. simple as that, not saying you should like him or not, just saying labeling his stuff as purely comercial rip offs mean you dont know the dudes art. go to the fucking warhol in pittsburgh if you ever get a chance or cop a book from the library, again, not saying you'll love it, you just won't come off as avergage joe-ignorant is all- saying it's all soup cans, screen prints and shit. I have studied his work, by means not in depth and never been to the warhol because after viewing it in books, in classes and online (both his Commercial work and his "art") I came to this conclusion. He was a trained commercial artist ie. graphic designer so he knew all the tricks to getting people hooked an he used them to his advantage. His later stuff is trash TO ME and his earlier commercial work is mediocre at best. Yes I know he won at least one award as a commercial artist but there are a ton of Design firms that win deign awards that I look at sideways.
To me he is completely over-rated and simply a media darling.
However if you take Warhol's work on its own its as much of a crapfest as the consumerism he was "trying" (and I say trying because it was a stretch for him at that) to talk about in his art. Like I said I will give him credit for marketing his shit and coining the actual 15 minutes phrase, but as far as his actual work, TO ME its shit because without him explaining to the public what it represented NO ONE would have picked that up and in the end without the backing of major art critics cosiging his crapfest then the public would never have bought into it. He is the epitomy of playing to the artworld. .
This whole statement is pretty embarassing...
Warhol was a genius and most of us are not. Get used to it.
I would love to know who you think is a great artist or what your favorite work is. I'm seriously curious.
its only embarressing if you actually think he is talented. As a designer/illustrator he was mediocre but nothing I would say was THAT amazing. Pleae note the post above.
As far as artists I appreciate more? God damn there are hundreds if not thousands I would put in front of him but do you mean only in the pop art style or what about abstract or cubist or avant garde? I would put Pollock above him, Rothko, Clement, Ernst, Miro, Duchamp, (who I feel that Warhol sort of ripped off), Cezanne, Van Gogh and thats just modern painters off the top of my head... And not including classical Reubens period painters, and Italian greats, and yeh maybe played out but Picasso who shits all over him. ALL of which TO ME have much deeper impact than Warhol's work ever could.
There is so much BETTER art than what Warhol output its just that Warhol was probably the last artist that the media and in turn the world really blew up. I will give him credit for his work with the Velvet Underground though. But beyond that... Nada.
^^^^ Pollock? Nah man, that dude just dripped shit onto canvasses...
See how easy it is to take a different approach to art? Eitherway, I don't think I've ever hated on an artist or their work. I either enjoy it or keep on moving.
^^^^ Pollock? Nah man, that dude just dripped shit onto canvasses...
See how easy it is to take a different approach to art? Eitherway, I don't think I've ever hated on an artist or their work. I either enjoy it or keep on moving.
Thats definately a feasible argument unless you actually have studied the artist and their works PAST the surface. In fact you don't even have to look that far.
I am talking about their WHOLE bodies of work, how they developed their style etc. Try studying Pollock's whole body of work before talking about dripping on canvas. I am not saying he is for everyone but at least have an informed argument before using that as an example ok?
This lack of criticism (that your post insinuates) in all forms of art is what softens shit down. Don't hate... at least they are trying... well everyone else likes it... FUCK that. Shit NEEDS to be criticized in order for the BEST to rise to the top.
^^^^ Pollock? Nah man, that dude just dripped shit onto canvasses...
See how easy it is to take a different approach to art? Eitherway, I don't think I've ever hated on an artist or their work. I either enjoy it or keep on moving.
Thats definately a feasible argument unless you actually have studied the artist and their works PAST the surface. In fact you don't even have to look that far.
I am talking about their WHOLE bodies of work, how they developed their style etc. Try studying Pollock's whole body of work before talking about dripping on canvas. I am not saying he is for everyone but at least have an informed argument before using that as an example ok?
This lack of criticism (that your post insinuates) in all forms of art is what softens shit down. Don't hate... at least they are trying... well everyone else likes it... FUCK that. Shit NEEDS to be criticized in order for the BEST to rise to the top.
Thanks for playing though.
I actually agree with Kwality, and think both his post and his attitude of either enjoying or walking leaves you
You pretty much backed up his argument by showing that its ignorant to just write off ANY artist on face value. Perhaps if he'd used Bansky or someone else who it seems kosher to hate on, it would be different.
...thanks for playing though j/k
Your last paragraph definitely resonates me with, we all need to question whether or not you like something because its the accepted position, or because you actually appreciate something in the work itself.
Criticism vs tall poppy syndrome... its easy to confuse one with another.
But you're looking at art like it's a sport or an election - like after careful scrutiny there will be a clear winner in the event. History has shown that even critics don't always get it right, so why can't it all just exist? Surely the better artists will rise to the top by virtue of their work anyway? Literature is a great example of that - Baudelaire was judged to be worthless by his peers... yet years later he's one of the best that ever did it. How could critics possibly be expected to dictate what is worthy of viewing and what's not? What gives them that authority? That expertise? That foresight?
I don't expect everyone to love someone like Warhol, I just don't really understand how you could write him off so easily. And I think you kinda misread my Pollock reference, but that's probably my fault.
I do like that Kanye has a least tried something different (for a hip hop album cover) and he is probably a fan of Murakami so I guess Kanye is chuffed to have dude do hs artwork (even if its not his best output)
i hear you man. i do think that kanye is the only one who would go this route and actually have murakami do the cover. the mixing of both thier 'brands' is pretty cool.
Comments
Yes! This thread already had the feel of a race thread now somebody opened the door for it!
IMG SRC=http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/formpager3xk.gif>
TIMELESS CLASSIC.
no, because edan makes beautiful artwork and that cover is a piece of shit.
thats the difference.
It's a bagina.
Is this the bootleg version or something?
Still, that cover is trash, and it kinda looks a bit fruity if you change the bears trajectory...
dude it's not like he was making his art in the 17th century.
post-war America was/is a consumer crapfest.
in fact, Warhol era v. Our Era in terms of consumerism is prolly nothing in comparison to Warhol's younger years vs. Warhol's older years.
he wasn't some sort of oracle; dude was living the consumeristic transformation that was occuring and that he (crudely, exploitatively and unimaginatively) reflected in his art.
dude it's not like he was making his art in the 17th century.
post-war America was/is a consumer crapfest.
in fact, Warhol era v. Our Era in terms of consumerism is prolly nothing in comparison to Warhol's younger years vs. Warhol's older years.
he wasn't some sort of oracle; dude was living the consumeristic transformation that was occuring and that he (crudely, exploitatively and unimaginatively) reflected in his art.
well atleast that sounds smarter than what 33&1/3 wrote, but dude did alot of stuff. And unless youve seen the scope (illustrations, movies, installations, photos, fuck even time capsules) please to not show off your uninformed-ness.
I wouldn't hate this if it was an Edan cover cause Edan isn't working with Kanye's budget. Dude making a billion million dollars & the best thing he can come up with looks like a Pokeman throwing up?
And again, that cover is not great.
man, that shit is about as ugly as this or that Miss Ladybug jawn
dude it's not like he was making his art in the 17th century.
post-war America was/is a consumer crapfest.
in fact, Warhol era v. Our Era in terms of consumerism is prolly nothing in comparison to Warhol's younger years vs. Warhol's older years.
he wasn't some sort of oracle; dude was living the consumeristic transformation that was occuring and that he (crudely, exploitatively and unimaginatively) reflected in his art.
well atleast that sounds smarter than what 33&1/3 wrote, but dude did alot of stuff. And unless youve seen the scope (illustrations, movies, installations, photos, fuck even time capsules) please to not show off your uninformed-ness.
Please get off it. I am just calling a spade a spade. If you want to eat up whatever esteemed art critics Dictates as fine art that's your right.
However if you take Warhol's work on its own its as much of a crapfest as the consumerism he was "trying" (and I say trying because it was a stretch for him at that) to talk about in his art. Like I said I will give him credit for marketing his shit and coining the actual "15 minutes phrase", but as far as his actual work, TO ME its shit because without him explaining to the public what it represented NO ONE would have picked that up and in the end without the backing of major art critics cosiging his crapfest then the public would never have bought into it. He is the epitomy of playing to the artworld.
So yes on marketing.
No on artistic merit.
And cosign with rootless on the fact that he was NOT some kind of oracle. He was living in these days and times and just stated the obvious.
I do like that Kanye has a least tried something different (for a hip hop album cover) and he is probably a fan of Murakami so I guess Kanye is chuffed to have dude do hs artwork (even if its not his best output)
and remember: Kanye speaks to you from the future.
I think Takashi Murakami would be better served by designing a 50 cent or Rhianna album cover. That would go along with his aesthetic / artistic / world-is-flat worldview much better. He needs to design for someone who's more pop(ular).
well atleast that sounds smarter than what 33&1/3 wrote, but dude did alot of stuff. And unless youve seen the scope (illustrations, movies, installations, photos, fuck even time capsules) please to not show off your uninformed-ness.
Please get off it. I am just calling a spade a spade. If you want to eat up whatever esteemed art critics Dictates as fine art that's your right.
However if you take Warhol's work on its own its as much of a crapfest as the consumerism he was "trying" (and I say trying because it was a stretch for him at that) to talk about in his art. Like I said I will give him credit for marketing his shit and coining the actual "15 minutes phrase", but as far as his actual work, TO ME its shit because without him explaining to the public what it represented NO ONE would have picked that up and in the end without the backing of major art critics cosiging his crapfest then the public would never have bought into it. He is the epitomy of playing to the artworld.
So yes on marketing.
No on artistic merit.
And cosign with rootless on the fact that he was NOT some kind of oracle. He was living in these days and times and just stated the obvious.
dude, all I was trying to say was by reading your comments you didnt really know the whole spectrum of warhol's shit, just the most famous. simple as that, not saying you should like him or not, just saying labeling his stuff as purely comercial rip offs mean you dont know the dudes art. go to the fucking warhol in pittsburgh if you ever get a chance or cop a book from the library, again, not saying you'll love it, you just won't come off as avergage joe-ignorant is all- saying it's all soup cans, screen prints and shit.
i acctually completely agree with that.
that was thoughtful.
This whole statement is pretty embarassing...
Warhol was a genius and most of us are not. Get used to it.
I would love to know who you think is a great artist or what your favorite work is. I'm seriously curious.
I am by no means a graphic designer but I am the only one who notices that there is a serious perspective problem here? The angle at which the kanye bear is flying at is all fucked up. The Canon would need to be to the left and pointing more at us. Or am I just drunk. Actually I am a little but that is neither here nor there. Carry on.
The trajectory is all wrong from a physical standpoint.
Please get off it. I am just calling a spade a spade. If you want to eat up whatever esteemed art critics Dictates as fine art that's your right.
However if you take Warhol's work on its own its as much of a crapfest as the consumerism he was "trying" (and I say trying because it was a stretch for him at that) to talk about in his art. Like I said I will give him credit for marketing his shit and coining the actual "15 minutes phrase", but as far as his actual work, TO ME its shit because without him explaining to the public what it represented NO ONE would have picked that up and in the end without the backing of major art critics cosiging his crapfest then the public would never have bought into it. He is the epitomy of playing to the artworld.
So yes on marketing.
No on artistic merit.
And cosign with rootless on the fact that he was NOT some kind of oracle. He was living in these days and times and just stated the obvious.
dude, all I was trying to say was by reading your comments you didnt really know the whole spectrum of warhol's shit, just the most famous. simple as that, not saying you should like him or not, just saying labeling his stuff as purely comercial rip offs mean you dont know the dudes art. go to the fucking warhol in pittsburgh if you ever get a chance or cop a book from the library, again, not saying you'll love it, you just won't come off as avergage joe-ignorant is all- saying it's all soup cans, screen prints and shit.
I have studied his work, by means not in depth and never been to the warhol because after viewing it in books, in classes and online (both his Commercial work and his "art") I came to this conclusion. He was a trained commercial artist ie. graphic designer so he knew all the tricks to getting people hooked an he used them to his advantage. His later stuff is trash TO ME and his earlier commercial work is mediocre at best. Yes I know he won at least one award as a commercial artist but there are a ton of Design firms that win deign awards that I look at sideways.
To me he is completely over-rated and simply a media darling.
its only embarressing if you actually think he is talented. As a designer/illustrator he was mediocre but nothing I would say was THAT amazing. Pleae note the post above.
As far as artists I appreciate more? God damn there are hundreds if not thousands I would put in front of him but do you mean only in the pop art style or what about abstract or cubist or avant garde? I would put Pollock above him, Rothko, Clement, Ernst, Miro, Duchamp, (who I feel that Warhol sort of ripped off), Cezanne, Van Gogh and thats just modern painters off the top of my head... And not including classical Reubens period painters, and Italian greats, and yeh maybe played out but Picasso who shits all over him. ALL of which TO ME have much deeper impact than Warhol's work ever could.
There is so much BETTER art than what Warhol output its just that Warhol was probably the last artist that the media and in turn the world really blew up. I will give him credit for his work with the Velvet Underground though. But beyond that... Nada.
That Daft Punk sampling track is fucking awful.
Pollock? Nah man, that dude just dripped shit onto canvasses...
See how easy it is to take a different approach to art? Eitherway, I don't think I've ever hated on an artist or their work. I either enjoy it or keep on moving.
Thats definately a feasible argument unless you actually have studied the artist and their works PAST the surface. In fact you don't even have to look that far.
I am talking about their WHOLE bodies of work, how they developed their style etc. Try studying Pollock's whole body of work before talking about dripping on canvas. I am not saying he is for everyone but at least have an informed argument before using that as an example ok?
This lack of criticism (that your post insinuates) in all forms of art is what softens shit down. Don't hate... at least they are trying... well everyone else likes it... FUCK that. Shit NEEDS to be criticized in order for the BEST to rise to the top.
Thanks for playing though.
way better, on the other hand.
I was under the impression he was being facetious?
I actually agree with Kwality, and think both his post and his attitude of either enjoying or walking leaves you
You pretty much backed up his argument by showing that its ignorant to just write off ANY artist on face value. Perhaps if he'd used Bansky or someone else who it seems kosher to hate on, it would be different.
...thanks for playing though
Your last paragraph definitely resonates me with, we all need to question whether or not you like something because its the accepted position, or because you actually appreciate something in the work itself.
Criticism vs tall poppy syndrome... its easy to confuse one with another.
I don't expect everyone to love someone like Warhol, I just don't really understand how you could write him off so easily. And I think you kinda misread my Pollock reference, but that's probably my fault.