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.
First off I did not mean to be short in my last thread its just that being in the minority that dislikes Warhol i have had this discussion many times.
I don't see art as a sport or having a winner I do see a lack of real critism especially since the creation of the Pop art movement. That was kind of a green light for any schmoe good or bad to say "hey its art" and get away with making bad art (yes Warhol included). Add to that even more recently is a backlash against any kind of criticism of projects because... hey they made something you shouldn't hate... Get out of here, know what I mean?
Its not that warhol or SOME pop art is not worth viewing its the contention that he did something amazing FOR art or that he was some kind of artistic genius that i think is false. the only thing he did amazing IMO is help take Art down a notch by letting people think that by calling something art (even if its an old ashtray full of cigarette butts) that it then become art.
I don't see art as a sport or having a winner I do see a lack of real critism especially since the creation of the Pop art movement. That was kind of a green light for any schmoe good or bad to say "hey its art" and get away with making bad art (yes Warhol included). Add to that even more recently is a backlash against any kind of criticism of projects because... hey they made something you shouldn't hate... Get out of here, know what I mean?
I don't know where you're getting this from, but being a graduate of an art school out here in California you get a mighty fine helping of theory along with the thousands of dollars in debt. If I had tried that sorry response "hey it's art," I would have gotten eatten alive. You had to have hundreds of years of art history, philosophy, and literature at your disposal to keep from sinking when getting critiqued. I've seen a bunch of films, and read from countless books where Warhol is defending his art and it's not some easy fall-back responses. Dude knew his shit.
For more great art critiques, check out Art Forum. They definatly don't mess around. A couple of my teachers write for that and have given both scathing reviews of stuff and praised others. They of course see the exhibit, read the artist statement, and have a discussion with the artist before critiquing which I think is important to get a bearing for the work before coming to a conclusion.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
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).
Yeah, because Kanye can't give his shit away, can he? Too 'hood for white people, makes no attempt to reach beyond the traditional hip-hop demographic, no crossover potential, etc, etc, etc.
Since Thes pointed it out I can't get the skewered perspective of the direction of the bear against where he's being fired from out of my head when I see the pic. It hurts my brain. Love the piece for the Fader, really not feeling the front cover if that is the final submission.
the only thing he did amazing IMO is help take Art down a notch by letting people think that by calling something art (even if its an old ashtray full of cigarette butts) that it then become art.
And that in itself is such a paradigm shift in Art, u need to recognize how this bleeds into artmaking on all levels. He broke a code. Along w/ his comtemporaries. Were talkn bout the POP movement. That language is so much a part of our NOW DNA its crazy. Warhol's influence is a precursor to Hip Hop.
And that in itself is such a paradigm shift in Art, u need to recognize how this bleeds into artmaking on all levels. He broke a code. Along w/ his comtemporaries. Were talkn bout the POP movement. That language is so much a part of our NOW DNA its crazy. Warhol's influence is a precursor to Hip Hop. Thank you. This is what I always thought, but was never able to articulate.
I don't see art as a sport or having a winner I do see a lack of real critism especially since the creation of the Pop art movement. That was kind of a green light for any schmoe good or bad to say "hey its art" and get away with making bad art (yes Warhol included). Add to that even more recently is a backlash against any kind of criticism of projects because... hey they made something you shouldn't hate... Get out of here, know what I mean?
I don't know where you're getting this from, but being a graduate of an art school out here in California you get a mighty fine helping of theory along with the thousands of dollars in debt. If I had tried that sorry response "hey it's art," I would have gotten eatten alive. You had to have hundreds of years of art history, philosophy, and literature at your disposal to keep from sinking when getting critiqued. I've seen a bunch of films, and read from countless books where Warhol is defending his art and it's not some easy fall-back responses. Dude knew his shit.
As a graduate of art /design school myself I get it from experiencing it first hand from all ends (artists to critics to gallery owners) etc. I don't mean to say that EVERY artist says "hey its art" however it is used alot (seemingly more and more) as a pass even by bigger artists where what they are doing is questionable. And where as that excuse would not have worked in my better classes in school, be honest there were a fair amount (especially when the teacher was more interested in modern/pop art) where seriously talentless people would bring in something slapped together to call it art. That segment of artists could hide behind that statement that was really given a foothold by Warhol (IMO) and alot of the pop artists that followed him. Now granted these aspiring artists may be taking the wrong ideas away from Warhol but in the end it becomes a loophole for alot of them to say they are making art.
And of course Warhol is going to defend his art, if he wasn't able to then that would have most likely been it for him when he really started to gain traction. IMO though (and I haven't seen the films) from the defenses he has given they really didn't take for me, sorry I jut wasn't convinced. They all seemed like he had to persuade me too much to see it how he sees it and take on his view.
I you have a book you would like to recommend (I haven't read it yet) I would be more than down to read it, and get back to you.
And DEEJ please to shut the fuck up and stick to your Wine spritzers and Jogging alternative lifestyle. This is a real discussion not one of your EVERYTHING any ARTIST created is great, Don't hate rollover puke fests.
Since Thes pointed it out I can't get the skewered perspective of the direction of the bear against where he's being fired from out of my head when I see the pic. It hurts my brain. Love the piece for the Fader, really not feeling the front cover if that is the final submission.
This thread is hilarious.
Does anyone want to argue the specifics of WHY it sucks, or the mechanics of what makes it not good or not?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Since Thes pointed it out I can't get the skewered perspective of the direction of the bear against where he's being fired from out of my head when I see the pic. It hurts my brain. Love the piece for the Fader, really not feeling the front cover if that is the final submission.
This thread is hilarious.
Does anyone want to argue the specifics of WHY it sucks, or the mechanics of what makes it not good or not?
Since Thes pointed it out I can't get the skewered perspective of the direction of the bear against where he's being fired from out of my head when I see the pic. It hurts my brain. Love the piece for the Fader, really not feeling the front cover if that is the final submission.
This thread is hilarious.
Does anyone want to argue the specifics of WHY it sucks, or the mechanics of what makes it not good or not?
Does this mean you generally find the Pop Art movement to be suspect as a whole (vs. it being only about Warhol)?
My wife's the working art critic/journalist, not me, but I was always under the impression that the whole "hey, it's art" defense (if one wants to call it that) has a lot of different roots that go far beyond the popularity of Warhol or Pop Art in general. The influence of post-structuralist theory would have weakened appeals to the more formalist, aesthetic judgments you're making (and mind you, I'm not an anti-formalist) but when I think of "hey, it's art," I always go back to Duchamp. Again, I'm not an art historian by any means but I just don't know how Warhol gets the blame on this one, regardless if you think his art rocks or sucks.
As a graduate of art /design school myself I get it from experiencing it first hand from all ends (artists to critics to gallery owners) etc. I don't mean to say that EVERY artist says "hey its art" however it is used alot (seemingly more and more) as a pass even by bigger artists where what they are doing is questionable. And where as that excuse would not have worked in my better classes in school, be honest there were a fair amount (especially when the teacher was more interested in modern/pop art) where seriously talentless people would bring in something slapped together to call it art. That segment of artists could hide behind that statement that was really given a foothold by Warhol (IMO) and alot of the pop artists that followed him. Now granted these aspiring artists may be taking the wrong ideas away from Warhol but in the end it becomes a loophole for alot of them to say they are making art.
And of course Warhol is going to defend his art, if he wasn't able to then that would have most likely been it for him when he really started to gain traction. IMO though (and I haven't seen the films) from the defenses he has given they really didn't take for me, sorry I jut wasn't convinced. They all seemed like he had to persuade me too much to see it how he sees it and take on his view.
I you have a book you would like to recommend (I haven't read it yet) I would be more than down to read it, and get back to you.
And DEEJ please to shut the fuck up and stick to your Wine spritzers and Jogging alternative lifestyle. This is a real discussion not one of your EVERYTHING any ARTIST created is great, Don't hate rollover puke fests.
Does this mean you generally find the Pop Art movement to be suspect as a whole (vs. it being only about Warhol)?
My wife's the working art critic/journalist, not me, but I was always under the impression that the whole "hey, it's art" defense (if one wants to call it that) has a lot of different roots that go far beyond the popularity of Warhol or Pop Art in general. The influence of post-structuralist theory would have weakened appeals to the more formalist, aesthetic judgments you're making (and mind you, I'm not an anti-formalist) but when I think of "hey, it's art," I always go back to Duchamp. Again, I'm not an art historian by any means but I just don't know how Warhol gets the blame on this one, regardless if you think his art rocks or sucks.
As a graduate of art /design school myself I get it from experiencing it first hand from all ends (artists to critics to gallery owners) etc. I don't mean to say that EVERY artist says "hey its art" however it is used alot (seemingly more and more) as a pass even by bigger artists where what they are doing is questionable. And where as that excuse would not have worked in my better classes in school, be honest there were a fair amount (especially when the teacher was more interested in modern/pop art) where seriously talentless people would bring in something slapped together to call it art. That segment of artists could hide behind that statement that was really given a foothold by Warhol (IMO) and alot of the pop artists that followed him. Now granted these aspiring artists may be taking the wrong ideas away from Warhol but in the end it becomes a loophole for alot of them to say they are making art.
And of course Warhol is going to defend his art, if he wasn't able to then that would have most likely been it for him when he really started to gain traction. IMO though (and I haven't seen the films) from the defenses he has given they really didn't take for me, sorry I jut wasn't convinced. They all seemed like he had to persuade me too much to see it how he sees it and take on his view.
I you have a book you would like to recommend (I haven't read it yet) I would be more than down to read it, and get back to you.
And DEEJ please to shut the fuck up and stick to your Wine spritzers and Jogging alternative lifestyle. This is a real discussion not one of your EVERYTHING any ARTIST created is great, Don't hate rollover puke fests.
Hell yes the on the pop art movement being suspect as hell. I agree that Duchamp is more of the actual source/point where it began to emerge (ie. my comment that warhol ripped his core ideas off and took it to the mass media), but the thing is, Duchamp made his point and that was it. I don't see it as his main philosophy even though "Fountain" is what he gets alot of credit for. Its an idea that Duchamp created, and he let people take it from there going on to play chess for the rest of his life.
I have more issues with Warhol because even though he embraced Duchamp's idea, I think his actual work is just weak and created more for his own marketing efforts. You can say, well the people like it so its really not warhols fault, but again i would point to the marketing machine that Warhol was and his ability to stir controversy. He was doing what banksy and 50 Cent do now for the same reasons (Fame and or Fortune) IMO.
I have more issues with Warhol because even though he embraced Duchamp's idea, I think his actual work is just weak and created more for his own marketing efforts. You can say, well the people like it so its really not warhols fault, but again i would point to the marketing machine that Warhol was and his ability to stir controversy. He was doing what banksy and 50 Cent do now for the same reasons (Fame and or Fortune) IMO.
Warhol helped create the "Artist/Art" Fusion. Where one cant separate the two ala....
Not a Kanye fan, but I thought the artwork featured in that Fader spread was cool. What happened to that?
way better, on the other hand.
WOW, who is this? some very nice work here.
DAMN.
why didnt he have THIS dude do his cover?! this shit is gorgeous.
I think this is just as cliche and overdone as the cover they decided to go with. With that being said, I can really do without seeing these album cover visuals ever again...
'pink black and white' color schemes 'neon lettering' and 'graffiti-random-spatterpaint-diarrea collages' (as above).
If only one artists did it, it would be ok, but it has become a very overused formula that has been played to death. It is just a fad. but then again, so is Kanye, so maybe covers like these are fitting after all.
And quite the baller, too. Kanye cover still looks silly, though.
End of last year a massive billboard was put up in LA for the exhibition of Takashi Murakami. Not long after it went up it was tagged by Augor and Revok of MSK and Seventh Letter Crew. Somebody send pictures of it to Murakami. He liked it so much, that he had the billboard removed and shipped back to his Kaikai Kiki studio in Tokyo.
I think this is just as cliche and overdone as the cover they decided to go with. With that being said, I can really do without seeing these album cover visuals ever again...
'pink black and white' color schemes 'neon lettering' and 'graffiti-random-spatterpaint-diarrea collages' (as above).
If only one artists did it, it would be ok, but it has become a very overused formula that has been played to death. It is just a fad. but then again, so is Kanye, so maybe covers like these are fitting after all.
And quite the baller, too. Kanye cover still looks silly, though.
End of last year a massive billboard was put up in LA for the exhibition of Takashi Murakami. Not long after it went up it was tagged by Augor and Revok of MSK and Seventh Letter Crew. Somebody send pictures of it to Murakami. He liked it so much, that he had the billboard removed and shipped back to his Kaikai Kiki studio in Tokyo.
I have more issues with Warhol because even though he embraced Duchamp's idea, I think his actual work is just weak and created more for his own marketing efforts. You can say, well the people like it so its really not warhols fault, but again i would point to the marketing machine that Warhol was and his ability to stir controversy. He was doing what banksy and 50 Cent do now for the same reasons (Fame and or Fortune) IMO.
Warhol helped create the "Artist/Art" Fusion. Where one cant separate the two ala....
I'm pretty sure the cult of personality came well before Warhol.
Comments
First off I did not mean to be short in my last thread its just that being in the minority that dislikes Warhol i have had this discussion many times.
I don't see art as a sport or having a winner I do see a lack of real critism especially since the creation of the Pop art movement. That was kind of a green light for any schmoe good or bad to say "hey its art" and get away with making bad art (yes Warhol included). Add to that even more recently is a backlash against any kind of criticism of projects because... hey they made something you shouldn't hate... Get out of here, know what I mean?
Its not that warhol or SOME pop art is not worth viewing its the contention that he did something amazing FOR art or that he was some kind of artistic genius that i think is false. the only thing he did amazing IMO is help take Art down a notch by letting people think that by calling something art (even if its an old ashtray full of cigarette butts) that it then become art.
I don't know where you're getting this from, but being a graduate of an art school out here in California you get a mighty fine helping of theory along with the thousands of dollars in debt. If I had tried that sorry response "hey it's art," I would have gotten eatten alive. You had to have hundreds of years of art history, philosophy, and literature at your disposal to keep from sinking when getting critiqued. I've seen a bunch of films, and read from countless books where Warhol is defending his art and it's not some easy fall-back responses. Dude knew his shit.
Yeah, because Kanye can't give his shit away, can he? Too 'hood for white people, makes no attempt to reach beyond the traditional hip-hop demographic, no crossover potential, etc, etc, etc.
Jesus fucking Christ.
DAMN.
why didnt he have THIS dude do his cover?! this shit is gorgeous.
And that in itself is such a paradigm shift in Art, u need to recognize how this bleeds into artmaking on all levels. He broke a code. Along w/ his comtemporaries. Were talkn bout the POP movement. That language is so much a part of our NOW DNA its crazy. Warhol's influence is a precursor to Hip Hop.
And that in itself is such a paradigm shift in Art, u need to recognize how this bleeds into artmaking on all levels. He broke a code. Along w/ his comtemporaries. Were talkn bout the POP movement. That language is so much a part of our NOW DNA its crazy. Warhol's influence is a precursor to Hip Hop.
Thank you. This is what I always thought, but was never able to articulate.
As a graduate of art /design school myself I get it from experiencing it first hand from all ends (artists to critics to gallery owners) etc. I don't mean to say that EVERY artist says "hey its art" however it is used alot (seemingly more and more) as a pass even by bigger artists where what they are doing is questionable. And where as that excuse would not have worked in my better classes in school, be honest there were a fair amount (especially when the teacher was more interested in modern/pop art) where seriously talentless people would bring in something slapped together to call it art. That segment of artists could hide behind that statement that was really given a foothold by Warhol (IMO) and alot of the pop artists that followed him. Now granted these aspiring artists may be taking the wrong ideas away from Warhol but in the end it becomes a loophole for alot of them to say they are making art.
And of course Warhol is going to defend his art, if he wasn't able to then that would have most likely been it for him when he really started to gain traction. IMO though (and I haven't seen the films) from the defenses he has given they really didn't take for me, sorry I jut wasn't convinced. They all seemed like he had to persuade me too much to see it how he sees it and take on his view.
I you have a book you would like to recommend (I haven't read it yet) I would be more than down to read it, and get back to you.
And DEEJ please to shut the fuck up and stick to your Wine spritzers and Jogging alternative lifestyle. This is a real discussion not one of your EVERYTHING any ARTIST created is great, Don't hate rollover puke fests.
This thread is hilarious.
Does anyone want to argue the specifics of WHY it sucks, or the mechanics of what makes it not good or not?
This one's easy.
a) It's Kanye.
b) It's Kanye.
Ja Ja Ja Ja.
Does this mean you generally find the Pop Art movement to be suspect as a whole (vs. it being only about Warhol)?
My wife's the working art critic/journalist, not me, but I was always under the impression that the whole "hey, it's art" defense (if one wants to call it that) has a lot of different roots that go far beyond the popularity of Warhol or Pop Art in general. The influence of post-structuralist theory would have weakened appeals to the more formalist, aesthetic judgments you're making (and mind you, I'm not an anti-formalist) but when I think of "hey, it's art," I always go back to Duchamp. Again, I'm not an art historian by any means but I just don't know how Warhol gets the blame on this one, regardless if you think his art rocks or sucks.
Hell yes the on the pop art movement being suspect as hell. I agree that Duchamp is more of the actual source/point where it began to emerge (ie. my comment that warhol ripped his core ideas off and took it to the mass media), but the thing is, Duchamp made his point and that was it. I don't see it as his main philosophy even though "Fountain" is what he gets alot of credit for. Its an idea that Duchamp created, and he let people take it from there going on to play chess for the rest of his life.
I have more issues with Warhol because even though he embraced Duchamp's idea, I think his actual work is just weak and created more for his own marketing efforts. You can say, well the people like it so its really not warhols fault, but again i would point to the marketing machine that Warhol was and his ability to stir controversy. He was doing what banksy and 50 Cent do now for the same reasons (Fame and or Fortune) IMO.
Warhol helped create the "Artist/Art" Fusion. Where one cant separate the two ala....
I think this is just as cliche and overdone as the cover they decided to go with.
With that being said, I can really do without seeing these album cover visuals ever again...
'pink black and white' color schemes
'neon lettering'
and 'graffiti-random-spatterpaint-diarrea collages' (as above).
If only one artists did it, it would be ok, but it has become a very overused formula that has been played to death. It is just a fad. but then again, so is Kanye, so maybe covers like these are fitting after all.
And quite the baller, too. Kanye cover still looks silly, though.
^ Seen it all, done it all. Must be an Artist.
thats rad.
I'm pretty sure the cult of personality came well before Warhol.