Poll
Question:
Andy Warhol was
Option 1: A Great Artist
votes: 10
Option 2: A Con Artist
votes: 22
I was watching Sister Wendy Beckett last night and when she got to Warhol she said something like "Andy Warhol; great artist or con artist? The jury is still out on that." If there's one jury I wouldn't want to try me, it's Languish. So I thought I'd post the question here.
I think this is a false alternative. All artists are con-artists from a certain perspective, and the greatest of artists are also the most successful con-artists.
After all, who in their right mind would pay millions of dollars for a collection of natural pigment splashes, on a piece of rag woven out of common plant, and nailed to four pieces of wood, yet we are perfectly happy to do so for Mona Lisa. If that's not con-art, I don't know what is.
Edit: Btw, I absolutely adore Sister Wendy Beckett. If all Christians were like her, I'd convert back.
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2009, 10:24:22 AM
Edit: Btw, I absolutely adore Sister Wendy Beckett. If all Christians were like her, I'd convert back.
Thank God we're not all like her, then.
Great artist.
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2009, 10:24:22 AMAfter all, who in their right mind would pay millions of dollars for a collection of natural pigment splashes, on a piece of rag woven out of common plant, and nailed to four pieces of wood, yet we are perfectly happy to do so for Mona Lisa. If that's not con-art, I don't know what is.
Mona Lisa is painted on wood, not canvas. :smarty:
Great con artist.
Both. I also love Sister Wendy.
Both. Materially, no one in their right mind would pay for the art. It's the innovation of the concept that you're paying for, and it takes a great con artist to make you see that innovation as such.
tough. he did iconic stuff, but was overshadowed by his own vacuous celebrity. voted con, with misgivings.
Con. I've yet to really "get" any art after the New Objectivity, to be honest, none of it connects the same way.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 06, 2009, 11:35:32 AM
Con. I've yet to really "get" any art after the New Objectivity, to be honest, none of it connects the same way.
Word son.
Speaking of Sister Wendy, does anyone know where I can get her TV series in Region 2 encoding? I checked around but amazon.co.uk only offers to import it from the US (in Region 1 encoding) and HMV does not have it at all.
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2009, 10:24:22 AM
I think this is a false alternative. All artists are con-artists from a certain perspective, and the greatest of artists are also the most successful con-artists.
After all, who in their right mind would pay millions of dollars for a collection of natural pigment splashes, on a piece of rag woven out of common plant, and nailed to four pieces of wood, yet we are perfectly happy to do so for Mona Lisa. If that's not con-art, I don't know what is.
Can't agree here, at all. The best works of art require months-years-of daily work. Even the best Expressionist and Avant-Garde usually took some thought, work and skill. Lichtenstein and Warhol? Not so much. I'd argue they'd have a tough time even claiming creativity, seeing as how the Russian Avant-Garde was doing similar things, only a lot better, 30 years before.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 06, 2009, 12:16:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2009, 10:24:22 AM
I think this is a false alternative. All artists are con-artists from a certain perspective, and the greatest of artists are also the most successful con-artists.
After all, who in their right mind would pay millions of dollars for a collection of natural pigment splashes, on a piece of rag woven out of common plant, and nailed to four pieces of wood, yet we are perfectly happy to do so for Mona Lisa. If that's not con-art, I don't know what is.
Can't agree here, at all. The best works of art require months-years-of daily work. Even the best Expressionist and Avant-Garde usually took some thought, work and skill. Lichtenstein and Warhol? Not so much. I'd argue they'd have a tough time even claiming creativity, seeing as how the Russian Avant-Garde was doing similar things, only a lot better, 30 years before.
It's still not worth it.
And, in music, it's even more ridiculous to think that way - Mozart allegedly spent minutes writing some of his pieces, and they went into history as the work of genius. Your approach would make Salieri a greater artist than Mozart, because he took pains to produce his work.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 06, 2009, 12:16:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2009, 10:24:22 AM
I think this is a false alternative. All artists are con-artists from a certain perspective, and the greatest of artists are also the most successful con-artists.
After all, who in their right mind would pay millions of dollars for a collection of natural pigment splashes, on a piece of rag woven out of common plant, and nailed to four pieces of wood, yet we are perfectly happy to do so for Mona Lisa. If that's not con-art, I don't know what is.
Can't agree here, at all. The best works of art require months-years-of daily work. Even the best Expressionist and Avant-Garde usually took some thought, work and skill. Lichtenstein and Warhol? Not so much. I'd argue they'd have a tough time even claiming creativity, seeing as how the Russian Avant-Garde was doing similar things, only a lot better, 30 years before.
I disagree. It takes a lot of skill to achieve what both Lich and Andy created. It looks effortless. but is far from it. I also agree that most great artists have a bit of the grifter in them. or like say Van Gogh, they don't. And we know how that turned out.
I voted "con artist." He took existing photos and silkscreened them. What's so original about that?
He was definitely not a great artist, so poll logic makes him a con artist.
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.
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.
You make a good argument.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 06, 2009, 12:35:02 PM
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. :contract: Both the surrealists and the later POP artists like Warhol understood the Zeitgeist and took advantage of it as best they could.
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.
I have yet to feel anything when I see Warhol's shit. Therefore it is fail.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on April 06, 2009, 12:42:01 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 06, 2009, 12:35:02 PM
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. :contract: 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?
Quote from: The Brain on April 06, 2009, 12:45:58 PM
I have yet to feel anything when I see Warhol's shit. Therefore it is fail.
:yes: 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."
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.
oh, and Warhol gets points for having the Velvet Underground as a house band and getting them a record contract.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 06, 2009, 02:43:43 PM
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. :P
Quote from: Savonarola on April 06, 2009, 02:47:59 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 06, 2009, 02:43:43 PM
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. :P
ok, she couldn't sing. if they had rock videos back then it would have maybe worked better. :D
I like some of his art, voted artist.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 06, 2009, 02:47:59 PM
He gets points subtracted for insisting that Nico sing on their debut album. :P
What was the debut album called?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 03:05:44 PM
What was the debut album called?
The Velvet Underground & Nico
Quote from: Savonarola on April 06, 2009, 03:08:50 PM
The Velvet Underground & Nico
With the banana on the cover?
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.
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: 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. ;)
I thought he was a con Artist, until I visited a exposition about him.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fomgreds.com%2Fuploaded_images%2FAndyWarholPeteRose-767971.jpg&hash=092b6f77d463a7b3ad7288ed0850ab39bbfed99c)
The wife loves him, though.
I too will go with both.
Most modern artists are con artists pretty much but he had some actual good stuff.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 06, 2009, 02:47:59 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 06, 2009, 02:43:43 PM
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. :P
Actually it was Nico that got the album produced at all.
:blink:
Peter Jello Lemon? :unsure:
:mad:
Jesus, not even a con artist, just a con. Along with Lichtenstein and Dali.
Can not believe people paid money for their schtick.
Quote from: Habsburg on June 08, 2009, 07:00:17 PM
:mad:
Jesus, not even a con artist, just a con. Along with Lichtenstein and Dali.
Can not believe people paid money for their schtick.
What do you have against Dali?
To quote a Foals song: Modern Art is for Pricks
Give me Mona Lisa any day over some cans of beans! We learnt Pop-art in year 5! That's how easy and pathetic it is!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2009, 07:02:41 PMWhat do you have against Dali?
I'm with Habs, though I sort of like Warhol. Dali on the other hand is just :bleeding:
Quote from: Martinus on April 06, 2009, 10:24:22 AM
After all, who in their right mind would pay millions of dollars for a collection of natural pigment splashes, on a piece of rag woven out of common plant, and nailed to four pieces of wood, yet we are perfectly happy to do so for Mona Lisa. If that's not con-art, I don't know what is.
That's silly, and you know it. If I break a person down to their atoms, I couldn't sell the residue for enough to buy a beer. And given that a computer is made out of some pretty simple materials, surely noone would ever pay more than ten dollars for one, right?
Sometimes, an item is worth more than the sum of it's raw materials.