News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Andy Warhol; Great Artist or Con Artist

Started by Savonarola, April 06, 2009, 10:13:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Andy Warhol was

A Great Artist
10 (31.3%)
A Con Artist
22 (68.8%)

Total Members Voted: 32

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

Savonarola

#30
April 06, 2009, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 03:05:44 PM
What was the debut album called?

The Velvet Underground & Nico
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

Admiral Yi

#31
April 06, 2009, 03:09:44 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 06, 2009, 03:08:50 PM
The Velvet Underground & Nico
With the banana on the cover?

Savonarola

#32
April 06, 2009, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 03:09:44 PM
With the banana on the cover?

That's the one.
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

Savonarola

#34
April 06, 2009, 03:19:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 03:12:01 PM

Fantastic album.

It is, and it really wouldn't be the same album if Nico didn't sing on it.  The Velvet Underground had better singles then what's found on VU & Nico, but that's their best album.
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

Queequeg

#35
April 06, 2009, 04:31:04 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 06, 2009, 03:19:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 03:12:01 PM

Fantastic album.

It is, and it really wouldn't be the same album if Nico didn't sing on it.
Yeah, it'd be the best album ever rather tan one of the best.

I was going to mention his cover of VU&N as something I actually liked, but figured someone else would mention it.
Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2009, 05:58:55 PM
"Dysthymia?  Did they get some student from the University of Chicago with a hard-on for ancient Bactrian cities to name this?  I feel cheated."

Savonarola

#36
April 07, 2009, 07:57:49 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 06, 2009, 04:31:04 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 06, 2009, 03:19:26 PM

It is, and it really wouldn't be the same album if Nico didn't sing on it.
Yeah, it'd be the best album ever rather tan one of the best.


I don't think Lou singing lead on "I'll be Your Mirror" would have worked out quite as well.   ;)
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

Warspite

#37
April 07, 2009, 07:59:55 AM
" SIR – I must commend you on some of your recent obituaries. I was delighted to read of the deaths of Foday Sankoh (August 9th), and Uday and Qusay Hussein (July 26th). Do you take requests? "

OVO JE SRBIJA
BUDALO, OVO JE POSTA

Jos Theelen

#38
April 07, 2009, 08:32:07 AM
I thought he was a con Artist, until I visited a exposition about him.

PDH

#39
April 07, 2009, 08:52:16 AM
The fact that what he did is still being discussed in the sense of art/non-art likely means he was great, if only in the sense of impact and questions that arise.
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
-Umberto Eco

-------
"I'm pretty sure my level of depression has nothing to do with how much of a fucking asshole you are."

-CdM

Pedrito

#40
April 07, 2009, 10:05:48 AM
Quote from: PDH on April 07, 2009, 08:52:16 AM
The fact that what he did is still being discussed in the sense of art/non-art likely means he was great, if only in the sense of impact and questions that arise.

I totally agree with you. and for me Warhol was a great artist.

L.
b / h = h / b+h


27 Zoupa Points, redeemable at the nearest liquor store! :woot:

Warspite

#41
April 07, 2009, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: PDH on April 07, 2009, 08:52:16 AM
The fact that what he did is still being discussed in the sense of art/non-art likely means he was great, if only in the sense of impact and questions that arise.

Dude I was like TOTALLY about to post the same thing
" SIR – I must commend you on some of your recent obituaries. I was delighted to read of the deaths of Foday Sankoh (August 9th), and Uday and Qusay Hussein (July 26th). Do you take requests? "

OVO JE SRBIJA
BUDALO, OVO JE POSTA

BuddhaRhubarb

#42
April 07, 2009, 12:01:40 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 06, 2009, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on April 06, 2009, 12:38:27 PM
Quote from: charliebear on April 06, 2009, 12:31:02 PM
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.

Yawn...  speaking of eyerolling. Dude if it doesn't speak to you, then it doesn't.

I don't really like Picasso. Doesn't mean I don't understand his art or that it sucked. It doesn't. It just for the most part doesn't move me the same way others' art does. That doesn't mean I discount him as an artist, or even a great artist. Just not my thing. I feel slightly more in tune with Warhol, but not by much. In either case I do however know that both of them are extremely important figures in 20th c. art. And Andy could draw and paint as well, It's his secret actually... that he was an artist. His trick is making you think he was faking it. He wasn't.

But if it doesn't speak to you, his art that is... then well fine.

Also The VU were of course a better band without Nico. But they did as well as possible with her in the band also.
:p

derspiess

#43
April 07, 2009, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on April 07, 2009, 08:32:07 AM
I thought he was a con Artist, until I visited a exposition about him.

I didn't have an opinion on him until I visited the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh.  After that, I thought he was a con artist :P   

This is his only work I really like:



The wife loves him, though.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Josquius

#44
April 07, 2009, 12:12:31 PM
I too will go with both.
Most modern artists are con artists pretty much but he had some actual good stuff.
██████
██████
██████
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions