Andy Warhol; Great Artist or Con Artist

[The Brain]

He was definitely not a great artist, so poll logic makes him a con artist.

[Queequeg]

A skill for self promotion and being a conman are two different things.  Egon Schiele had the first, Warhol was the second.

It looks effortless because it really was.  Its a gimmick, and not even a clever one like Duchamp or Magritte would produce. 

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I voted "con artist."  He took existing photos and silkscreened them.  What's so original about that?

that's hardly all he did. And even then when he did that he did it better and more innovatively than anyone had ever before. silkscreening like any artistic endeavour stands or fails on the end product, of which Warhol's at the time was unique. Not so much now, in hindsight sure. To my mind what Andy did is no different from those artists who reflected images onto their canvas with mirrors in order to achieve "realism". (Velazquez, Goya, Rembrandt.) or modern Photoshop artists.

[charliebear]

You make a good argument.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

A skill for self promotion and being a conman are two different things.  Egon Schiele had the first, Warhol was the second.

It looks effortless because it really was.  Its a gimmick, and not even a clever one like Duchamp or Magritte would produce. 

pfft FAIL... Both DuChamp and Magritte were total con-artists. That was the whole point of what they were doing.  Urinals as art = also gimmicks. Both the surrealists and the later POP artists like Warhol understood the Zeitgeist and took advantage of it as best they could.

[Queequeg]

I voted "con artist."  He took existing photos and silkscreened them.  What's so original about that?

that's hardly all he did. And even then when he did that he did it better and more innovatively than anyone had ever before. silkscreening like any artistic endeavour stands or fails on the end product, of which Warhol's at the time was unique. Not so much now, in hindsight sure. To my mind what Andy did is no different from those artists who reflected images onto their canvas with mirrors in order to achieve "realism". (Velazquez, Goya, Rembrandt.) or modern Photoshop artists.

Agree on the second, but the first is absurd.  Warhol could not have produced Saturn Eating his Son if he'd lived three thousand years. 

What I don't understand if it is so innovative, why has it aged so remarkably poorly? Duchamp and Magritte's best work are as fresh today as they were eighty years ago, while Warhol's stuff barely manages to induce eye rolling.

[The Brain]

I have yet to feel anything when I see Warhol's shit. Therefore it is fail.

[Queequeg]

A skill for self promotion and being a conman are two different things.  Egon Schiele had the first, Warhol was the second.

It looks effortless because it really was.  Its a gimmick, and not even a clever one like Duchamp or Magritte would produce. 

pfft FAIL... Both DuChamp and Magritte were total con-artists. That was the whole point of what they were doing.  Urinals as art = also gimmicks. Both the surrealists and the later POP artists like Warhol understood the Zeitgeist and took advantage of it as best they could.

My point was that it was cool when DuChamp and Magritte did it, but lame when Warhol did it.  I know they did similar things; that's why I put the two of them together.  I just think that DuChamp and Magritte were far, far, far superior artists, and both went into gimmickry as fantastically accomplished artists (Nude Descending a Staircase being one of my favorite 20th century paintings), while what did Warhol do but the gimmicks?

[grumbler]

I have yet to feel anything when I see Warhol's shit. Therefore it is fail.

  People can mutter on about how innovative, intense, or whatever they wish to claim Warhol is, but I can see clearly that he is a hack with the ability to fool others into thinking his hackery is genius.

And he would agree with me.  I admire the man but loathe the "art."

[Caliga]

I actually kind of like some of Warhol's work, but I don't know if I would (or could) argue that he's a great artist.  Certainly not great in the sense that Michaelangelo was, for example.

[saskganesh]

oh, and Warhol gets points for having the Velvet Underground as a house band and getting them a record contract.

[Savonarola]

oh, and Warhol gets points for having the Velvet Underground as a house band and getting them a record contract.

He gets points subtracted for insisting that Nico sing on their debut album.   

[saskganesh]

oh, and Warhol gets points for having the Velvet Underground as a house band and getting them a record contract.

He gets points subtracted for insisting that Nico sing on their debut album.   

ok, she couldn't sing. if they had rock videos back then it would have maybe worked better.

[jimmy olsen]

I like some of his art, voted artist.

[Admiral Yi]

He gets points subtracted for insisting that Nico sing on their debut album.   

What was the debut album called?