Some years ago I went to a Warhol exhibition at the South Bank.
One particular piece was entitled Piss Art. Warhol and friends stood in the middle of a canvas liberally daubed with paint, and pissed on it.
I suddenly understood what Warhol was all about.
High-five.
And if they'd pooped on it, you then would have known what he was full of, too.
agree eoe
Another painting was of a swimming pool. Warhol wanted a swimming pool. So he painted a swimming pool, sold it and with the money bought a.....well you've guessed.
He did the same with cash....
cuts out the middle man
He was very smart. More intelligent than talented, I think. He played them like a fiddle and laughed all the way to the bank.
exactly what I thought
though he was a talented graphic designer.
trouble is my experience of Warhol has clouded my judgement of all modern/conceptual/installation artists as basically shysters.
Even as a designer, to me, he was smarter than he was talented. The Campbell soup can was a brilliant concept but nothing to execute. His portraits were interesting conceptually but artistically they screamed 'GIMMICK' to me. I didn't see art in his work, just concept. More of a commercial artist (heavy on the commercial part) than a designer, IMO.
eoe, steve -- I totally agree with both of you re: Warhol. But he had a lot of prdecessors to learn from. Picasso, for example. A talented journeyman painter who came up with the brilliant idea of simply shocking the general public and thus becoming the darling of the avant garde. He was another one who laughed all the way to the bank after selling a wavy line drawn on a piece of paper for exhorbitant sums of money.
GREATS: Warhol? Pollock? deKooning!!!!
These three artists are important, no doubt...also Rothko, also duchamp...and many others ...BUT let us never confuse historical importance or innovative ability with the ACHIEVEMENT of the finished
piece of art. With historical importance and innovative ability we are into art history; with aesthetic achievement we are into greatness.
I just recently visited New York City, the main purpose of my trip being a visit to the Museum of Modern Art, its new expanded building representing a widening of MOMA's agenda to embrace abstract expressionism and later movements of art.MOMA's collection shows outstanding visual sense for most of the artists represented. Pollock looks puny compared to the eerie power of de Kooning's 1952 Woman. Jasper Johns wears priggish thin, compared to the gutsy power of Rauschenberg's painterly canvasses. And Warhol?...he looks "interesting"; his work, the best case scenario for how culture invades and occupies art, the darling of art historians.
I think it may be wise to remember that Rembrandt wasn't particularly innovative; that he just used the elements given to him by more innovative painters with a great deal of his own singular genius and a very good eye. I would say that de Kooning, once a Dutchman as well, suffered from the same lack. Let us not confuse cleverness with the spiritual genius that marks aesthetic achievement.
No, I am not Dutch.
Florence, your post is a wonderful contribution. We see much discussion about the end of art, meaning the historicism of art history, of course. But there is no end in sight for artistic GREATNESS.
I'm so glad to see Eoe's and Steve's awareness of Warhol (I would say the same of Jeff Koons), but I do not agree with Andrew's characterization of Picasso. He WAS a bit of a charlatan (e.g., his later "wavy" drawings), no doubt. But he also produced great art.
JLNobody wrote:Florence, your post is a wonderful contribution. We see much discussion about the end of art, meaning the historicism of art history, of course. But there is no end in sight for artistic GREATNESS.
I'm so glad to see Eoe's and Steve's awareness of Warhol (I would say the same of Jeff Koons), but I do not agree with Andrew's characterization of Picasso. He WAS a bit of a charlatan (e.g., his later "wavy" drawings), no doubt. But he also produced great art.
JLN, all I meant was that Picasso was every bit as clever at amassing money as was Warhol and used much the same techniques -- the easy and meaningless toss-off that the well-heeled gallery-goers went ga-ga over. That he had legitimate gifts cannot be doubted. Particularly in his Rose and Blue periods, both, he produced some great art. Interestingly, his very early representational paintings hardly even hint at this potential. They are competent, that's all.
Picasso painted some of the landmark images of the 20th Century -- it is the fault of the artists that their art is used a commodity as much as the art dealers who know how to provide that often basically false inflation of art prices.
I guess if one starts thinking of 20th century GREATS, one must think of and mention Picasso, who belongs to an earlier part of that century.
So..o...o, I have started a new thread on Picasso, for admirers and detesters of his work..
Re: Pollock v. Warhol- The Greats
247eyes wrote:Hello everyone.
Why is James Pollock's "drip paintings," and Andy Warhol's "Campbell Soup," considered works of great art?
I have absolutely no clue what the answer is. My guess is probably as good as a rat's guess- I can't really see anything "great" in these paintings. Personally I have no clue why it's even considered art by people. Any and all help would be appreciated.
Neither one is a favorite of mine. Many have already stated some of the reasons. I think art is different things to different people.
Angelique asked, " why is James Pollock's" drip paintings" and Andy Warhol's "Campbell Soup", considered works of great art?"
She doesn't think they are "works of great art", nor does she understand why others would even think they are art. She asks for help.
Okay...hopefully, here are some answers. She is utterly correct in seeing that art is "different things to people".
But because she has NO UNDERSTANDING of the field of art history, she doesn't understand the social context of both Pollok and Warhol, and WHY they are important artists.
The question of greatness in art may be seen as
(1)subjective, hah, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" OR more truthfully, as I think it should be seen (2) knowledgeably based on a mature visual appreciation of the content of beauty...that level of mature visual appreciation that can see as much beauty in a wooden African carving from Ife as a goddess from the Parthenon.
But returning to the question of WHY Pollock (correction of first name JACKSON POLLOCK) and Warhol are IMPORTANT ARTISTS in the history of western and American art...Pollock recognized the
importance of instinct and spontaneity in painting, ushering in new textural effects (using traditional Indian methods of applying paint). His works actually flattened spatial qualities, leading to later "flatter" more decorative painting, an important trend in American painting given impetus by Pollock's work. His work, unlike most abstract art, is not rooted in any image of reality, but almost
completely abstract; the gesture is the message. This was quite new. Although other abstract work seemed unrelated to any reality, most abstract work was ultimately derived from reality.
Re: Warhol. Until Warhol's pop images, advertising or commercial art had been a hand servant of the fine art of painting, the best of it using the fine arts as part of its imagery in an attempt to gain status and ensure the reliability of its products. With Warhol, there was a reversal...to the actual truth of how business is conducted in the west. The imagery of commercial products and the techniques of advertising became ART itself. The fine arts are subservient to commercial imagery and techniques in Warhol's art. One doesn't have to go any deeper into it, to find its raison d'etre.
(altho in certain works, i.e. electric chair, Jacqueline Kennedy's grieving face, Warhol does reach, I think, for something further...but his commercial method of work certainly cancels out his deeper intentions.
If one may find something common in the work of these two EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT artists (note I did not write "great" or "beautiful" or "good"; I spoke art historically) it is that feeling or emotional expression is unimportant. or nil.
Angelique didn't ask the why question, 247 eyes did...
Sorry, angelique.
thankyou for the question, 247 eyes.
You are really belovedly sharp, ossobuco.
Otherwise, I take all your points, Goodstein-Shapiro.
(I'm belovedly sharp except when I am exceedingly dullish - it is sort of a rondelay I pace.)
A great way to be, ossobuco...
goodstein-shapiro wrote:Angelique asked, " why is James Pollock's" drip paintings" and Andy Warhol's "Campbell Soup", considered works of great art?"
She doesn't think they are "works of great art", nor does she understand why others would even think they are art. She asks for help.
Okay...hopefully, here are some answers. She is utterly correct in seeing that art is "different things to people".
But because she has NO UNDERSTANDING of the field of art history, she doesn't understand the social context of both Pollok and Warhol, and WHY they are important artists.
The question of greatness in art may be seen as
(1)subjective, hah, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" OR more truthfully, as I think it should be seen (2) knowledgeably based on a mature visual appreciation of the content of beauty...that level of mature visual appreciation that can see as much beauty in a wooden African carving from Ife as a goddess from the Parthenon.
But returning to the question of WHY Pollock (correction of first name JACKSON POLLOCK) and Warhol are IMPORTANT ARTISTS in the history of western and American art...Pollock recognized the
importance of instinct and spontaneity in painting, ushering in new textural effects (using traditional Indian methods of applying paint). His works actually flattened spatial qualities, leading to later "flatter" more decorative painting, an important trend in American painting given impetus by Pollock's work. His work, unlike most abstract art, is not rooted in any image of reality, but almost
completely abstract; the gesture is the message. This was quite new. Although other abstract work seemed unrelated to any reality, most abstract work was ultimately derived from reality.
Re: Warhol. Until Warhol's pop images, advertising or commercial art had been a hand servant of the fine art of painting, the best of it using the fine arts as part of its imagery in an attempt to gain status and ensure the reliability of its products. With Warhol, there was a reversal...to the actual truth of how business is conducted in the west. The imagery of commercial products and the techniques of advertising became ART itself. The fine arts are subservient to commercial imagery and techniques in Warhol's art. One doesn't have to go any deeper into it, to find its raison d'etre.
(altho in certain works, i.e. electric chair, Jacqueline Kennedy's grieving face, Warhol does reach, I think, for something further...but his commercial method of work certainly cancels out his deeper intentions.
If one may find something common in the work of these two EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT artists (note I did not write "great" or "beautiful" or "good"; I spoke art historically) it is that feeling or emotional expression is unimportant. or nil.
Thank you osso. GS I did not ask any questions just made a statement. But, I understand where your coming from.
