Warhol also won the lottery by being sponsored by Smirnoff Vodka. If not for that, no one would remember him and his shitty paintings wouldn't attain any popularity. Related to them, other shitty painters were Jackson Pollock, Marcel Duchamp, and George Rodrique, the last another lucky recipient of a Smirnoff Vodka sponsorship. (Rodrique's only accomplishment is providing the avatar for one of my favorite Internet posters) I love a lot of modern artists. Dali and Picasso are amazing, and even Kandinsky's and Mondrian's works strike me as outstanding. But those guys? Untalented hacks that were lucky enough to be pulled out of obscurity among ten thousand other similarly lousy artists of their time.
Here's the thing about Pop Art that I was vaguely getting at in my first post but didn't go into much detail about since I'm not a huge fan of it anyway so I don't know why I keep defending it. Pop Art really isn't (necessarily) about making good art, and is not (necessarily) about the art itself. Pop Art, like dadaism, is much more about commentary on other art, society, and politics. You can't exactly look at a Pop Art painting and judge it in a vacuum as good or bad. (I mean, sure you can, but that's not really what it was for.) A lot of their message, Warhol in particular, was about how pop culture and iconography of consumerism/advertising/marketing was the new art. And, as many of you have complained about in this thread, they were right. There really hasn't been many famous fine artists since then. Most of our artistic culture is more focused on things like graphic design these days. One of the biggest criticisms of Warhol is that he rubbed people the wrong way for being so up front about his desire for fame and fortune because people are quick to equate starving artist with legitimate artist, and I can understand that. I just personally don't think it's so terrible of artists to "sell out" and agree to things like being commissioned by Absolut (not sponsored by Smirnoff). I think it's especially fitting for someone like Warhol, whose work was about advertising and money anyway. Warhol also is credited as one of the first, if not the first, artists to popularize mediums and techniques that are really prevalent in the art world today, like screen printing and using computers to make art. You don't have to like the first person to do something, but it helps to explain why he's still considered an important artist, and how his work became so valuable. So, yes, like I said, I can understand why someone would not be into art where you need a whole grasp of art history and cultural history in order to "get it." I can understand why someone would prefer art that you can look at and think "That's pretty/moving/sad etc" and move on or why you wouldn't be interested in looking at a reproduction of something that you can look at in real life at the grocery store. I think when you're looking at a Warhol or a Jasper Johns in a museum today, it's more about thinking about that whole part of history and the culture at that time, rather than admiring the work itself. I really like that part of history, so that's its main appeal for me. There aren't any Pop Artists on my top ten list or anything, but I stop to look when I come across a painting. You don't have to like Pop Art, and this isn't about convincing anyone why they should like Pop Art, but there were people who didn't understand why it was important or paid attention to at the time or today. It was one of the most influential movements in art history, so that's why its artists are still considered a bit important.
But I like a lot of dadaist work. Those guys actually painted interesting pieces. Pollock and Warhol did not. Therein lies the difference. While this is all true, I don't care about the message if the art itself sucks. A big problem with a lot of so-called "art" is that its supporters piss themselves with ecstasy over some bullshit "message" that it's supposed to represent. News flash: if it's a shitty piece of art, I don't care. I don't have a problem with him being wealthy or wanting to be. That's human and natural. Picasso and Dali were both fabulously wealthy men during their lifetimes, and both clearly loved money. Do I look upon their masterpieces any less reverently because of this? Of course not. Give me a good wealthy artist over a thousand lousy starving ones any day. Heh, I got my shitty vodka labels confused! Actually, let me clarify my statement, because I think it was represented as hating on Warhol for making money or "selling out" or something. That's not it. My point is that this whole "pop art" movement was basically a way for art dealers and major companies like Absolut Vodka to sell people on shitty American artists. It was a mass media-driven movement, not an organic movement among either artists or individual wealthy patrons who preferred a certain style, like all the other (true) art movements before. In that sense, it was new and unique; for the first time, with the flourishing of the advertising business (60s and onwards, think Mad Men era) an "art movement" was just a clever way to jack up the price of poorly-painted pictures and certain corporate products associated with it by companies and a network of dealers, nothing more. I agree with your last sentence. It was hugely influential. But not in a good way. Just like a band like "New Kids on the Block" was hugely influential on music, but not in a good way.
Y'all are grouping art together--Pollock and Warhol--that's actually quite different. Abstract expressionism and Pop Art have distant, almost opposite aesthetics. For one, Warhol's art is representational/figurative--he paints pictures of things. Anyways. I guess you can define Pop Art as "stupid" or "shitty" or whatever, but has wholesale dismissal of prominent aesthetic movements ever been a good idea? Maybe with socialist realist art in the Soviet Union. Though some of it's very pretty. Actually, I'd wager a lot of the people on here (probably not KIMaster though) with more 'conservative' tastes incompatible with the avant-garde hootenanny of 20th century American art would much rather enjoy the Communist alternative. USA, 1963: Spoiler USSR, 1963: Spoiler What exactly makes art bad? If 'bad' means 'created without skill or care,' then you are objectively incorrect about Warhol. He had a formidable craft, worked as an illustrator for a long time, and expanded art's technical vocabulary to include, among other things, silkscreening. The seemingly-identical soup cans above are all immaculately created, with minute differences that, rather than being mistakes, illustrate just how exact and meticulous the work was. So is it bad because it isn't 'about' anything? It relies on some extramaterial meaning or message, and thus by itself is worthless/un-engaging? People delude themselves into thinking the work means things that it simply doesn't? This sounds to me like the definition of a 'you' problem. If you tried making love to every girl in the world that wore a vintage tee and thick framed glasses, and you couldn't get it up, would you blame hipster girls for being ugly? Plenty of other people have found fulfillment where you haven't. Are they deluding themselves, or are you? That's a pretty exposed 'argumentum ad populum,' you might think. Not everything popular is good--look at Thomas Kinkaide. The argument for why Kinkaide's work is low on artistic value is pretty straightforward, though. It's kitsch. Kinkaide makes saccharine, purple-prose Hallmark cards. He uses inauthentic means to express inauthentic sentiments--'peacefulness' and 'beauty' are borne out through garish, graceless applications of 'shimmering light' and 'pastoral imagery.' But these concepts and techniques have been done before and better. You really can chalk up a love of Kinkaide to ignorance, brainwashing, or convenience. You say the same about Pop Art, but do you even know what it's trying to say, or how? If you do, how is it failing? What makes you yawn and say "been there, seen that?" Is Pop Art it bad because it doesn't have, in your view, authentic roots as a movement? It's corporate-sponsored or driven by mass-media? Again, that's more an issue with your cognitive dissonance than with the art. That's not how things are supposed to go! That can't be right! Stand in front of the soup cans for longer than fifteen seconds. Or watch the video installations where Warhol films his friends in profile, like moving portraiture. The work is like the terracotta soldiers coated in neon. It shows us our minute differences to show us our sameness. It has no extraneous parts. It doesn't comment. It presents faces, or soup cans, and asks you, "what do you think?" How has that offended you so?
You should re-read the focus. This topic is devoted to "art" people think is crap. It's purely opinion. There isn't an ounce of objectivity in any reply in the entire thread. And with music or paintings, these opinions are even more wildly subjective than they are for movies or books. No one can "prove" in the slightest way that JS Bach is better than Bieber, or that Picasso was an incredible master, while Pollock was a talentless. Thus, I don't even know what the point of your overly long, douchey post was. To tell me you appreciate Pop Art? Good for you. What does it have to do with my views? In my posts above, beyond stating my opinion, I did state a few more objective thoughts, though. I noted that Warhol was sponsored by a major vodka company, and that this whole "Pop Art" movement was started by art dealers and companies. It didn't occur because one day, people realized they actually enjoy the paintings on their own merits, without the hype. I noticed that's also the part you didn't respond to. Why is Kinkaide any worse than Warhol or Pollock? Because a hipster douche like yourself decided he was only for "ignorant, brainwashed" people? While Warhol/Pollock are like, totally deep, man?! Why are you such an elitist asshole? You're projecting too much. I'm not offended by shitty art, nor did I ever write as much. But you are definitely offended by my post expressing this opinion.
You're projecting too much. I'm not offended by shitty art, nor did I ever write as much. But you are definitely offended by my post expressing this opinion.[/quote][/quote][/quote] No YOU'RE offended!! I'm not going to write much in response because you didn't actively engage my points at all, you just kind of called me a lot of different names. That might be a viscerally satisfying style of debate for you, but to listen to it's, frankly, a bore. I would suggest to you, though, that you've created a rather dangerous double standard in which you're just voicing an opinion by calling Pop Art unimportant or worthless, but I am an elitist faggot for making an argument that Thomas Kinkaide's work is inauthentic. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias? Do you have any salient response to my analysis of Kinkaide? Or is "You can't say that, hipster! Art is SUBJECTIVE!" the only profound revelation you'll deign to offer? Do you want to address directly my contentions that Warhol was a master craftsman, and that Pop Art makes unique and unprecedented commentary on modernity by way of minimalism and the blending of high and low culture, or do you want to just continue asserting that "it sucks because it's corporate-sponsored?" I'm not offended by your ignorance--I'm kind of vicariously embarrassed for you, really, because you've made a stink talking shit about something which you know very little about, and now have to backpedal to the cliché, dead-end postmodernist argument of "no art has quantifiable value." Been there, heard that.
How can one even begin to answer such a vague, pretentious statement that has nothing to do with the actual quality of the art? That's why I didn't respond to your so-called "points". You wrote a bunch of hipster BS desperately trying to sound smart, but not once did you mention an actual painting. Essentially, you're claiming that this or this was the work of a "master craftsman" and a "unique and unprecedented commentary on modernity by way of minimalism and the blending of high and low culture". I think Pop Art sucks because its paintings suck. However, on top of this, I noted that it was a "movement" instigated by Absolut vodka and art dealers, not wealthy individual patrons or the art-loving public, as was the case in the past. You were severely butt-hurt by this, and wrote some really long, stupid posts trying to show my subjective opinion was "wrong". As for Thomas Kinkaide, I have no opinions on the guy, but I do prefer the following picture to the two above; At the very least, Kinkaide is unpretentious. No one is under any illusion that he is a great artist, nor does he have rabid defenders on message boards.
I'm all for threads evolving. Especially threads where pretty much every post can be summed up with, "Everything from MY childhood is the best, anything from anybody else's childhood is TERRIBLE." You totally started listening to Zeppelin when you were 13 because of how deep and meaningful they were. Right. And it's not like "I hate Lady Gaga" is original or relevant anywhere, least of which this forum. Anyway: This pop art sucks/doesn't suck really boils down to a few things. If you can appreciate design and layout in a piece of art, then you can appreciate pop art pieces as standalone works. If you can't appreciate design and layout, then you probably aren't going to like it. Artists like Pollocks and Warhols are almost impossible to actually appreciate in a 300x300 pixel image on the internet. Most of these things are huge, and have to be viewed in some sort of gallery setting to actually take them in. This obviously goes for most art, but there's a difference between seeing the Mona Lisa (2.5ftx 1.5ft) and something like Pollock's Mural 1943 (8ftx 20ft) in person. Also, that Pollock you posted is pretty shitty and gaudy. Some of his shit is just cool to look at: Spoiler
Truth. I barely ever like Pollack when I see a reproduction of his paintings, but they are a whole different thing when you see them in a museum and you can see the size and the texture. They can be really hypnotizing.
I completely agree with this. In fact, it's my response to people that dislike Kandinsky or Mondrian; if you see the art live, it provokes an emotional response that simply can't be replicated through a jpeg or gif. You're free to dislike both those artists, but only after observing their works in real life. However, in this case, I HAVE seen both Pollock and Warhol originals in real life. And I still thought they sucked.
I think a lot of these arguments take place in a vacuum, specifically the Warhol/pop art arguments. As has been pointed out in other threads, many of the classical artists, Michelangelo, DaVinci, Brahms, Beethoven, Bach, et. al. took money from other people to produce their art. It was necessary, because otherwise how are they going to eat, sleep and otherwise live while they're busy creating such art. Just because someone else paid for it doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It may have been Warhol that said 'There is no art without money.' The other thing that is vacuumesque is much of art is a snapshot. No more, no less. And sometimes the importance of that snapshot isn't readily apparent without seeing the snapshot before and the snapshot after. For example, many of my guitar friends will say 'Clapton is overrated.' In today's terms, is Clapton a virtuoso on par (technically) with Eric Johnson, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, and Eddie Van Halen? No, probably not. And I'm not including the many great guitar players in many other genres. Does that mean Clapton wasn't important and instrumental (no pun intended) to the development of the medium- in this case blues infused rock? No, because what came before, and what came after Clapton's most influential work is completely changed because of his snapshot. The world changed because of him (in the rock genre sense). So while I'm ready to beat a budding guitar player into oblivion for choppily hammering through 'Sunshine of Your Love' at the local Sam Ash, it doesn't change the fact that Clapton's work with Cream was incredibly important. So important, in fact, that it became its own cliche. But it's a cliche NOW, it sure as hell wasn't then. And I think a lot of pop art and culture comes down to that discrepancy. What seems obvious now, may well have not been that obvious when the 'shitty artist' or 'corporate tool' came up with it. But yes, I agree, some of it is subjective, but some of it isn't. For instance, 'Fair Warning' by Van Halen is my favorite Van Halen album, but 'Van Halen 1' is by far the most influential album of the late 70's. Why? Guitar playing before it and after it were drastically different. Therein lies part of its greatness, though many of the songs today sound incredibly obvious. But in 1978? Yeah, it sounded like a fucking alien plugged into your brain.
Yep! (However, I should note that the jpg of the Mondrian above is an extraordinarily shitty one, even by jpg standards, since it cuts off a portion of the piece) I don't lump all modern art into the same tea kettle. I judge it based on its own merits, after seeing it in real life. Have you seen a Mondrian in real life, ssycko? It had an intense emotional and psychological effect on me after. I didn't get that from real life Warhols or Pollocks. They were just boring shit that did nothing for me no matter how long I stared at them. This is my opinion. However, to add an objective layer, Mondrian was never sponsored by a major vodka company, nor was his art so heavily pushed by a group of art dealers.
You're right, I mentioned not one, but two works: You don't read too good, huh? Look at that paragraph, and then my 'vague, pretentious statement' (lol'd at that one) and try and figure out how they are saying the same thing. If you don't get it at first, keep trying! (Though it is rather unfortunate that I wrote 'it doesn't comment' and then 'it offers commentary.' Dang words! There's a difference that I'd clarify, but I don't care enough.) That's embarrassing. But coming from a guy who can't be bothered to understand why Warhol and Pollock are any different, it makes sense. (Seriously, why do you keep bringing up Jackson Pollock? He was the figurehead for Abstract Expressionism, an aesthetically opposite movement from Pop Art. Check the second sentence of his wikipedia article <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock</a> , and while you're at it do a control+F for 'Pop Art' and see what you get) I'm getting all these reputation points entreating me not to argue with you because you A) never learn and B) get off on being pissed off, so I'm gonna duck out now. You're a pretty stubborn dude, though. And your posts have this hilarious inferiority complex about prestige. But I don't care enough about you to explain what that means. Keep on keepin' on, hating shit!
This era of unpeddled art succeeding on its own merits is a fiction in modern civilization. Does Michelangelo being sponsored by the church invalidate the Sistine Chapel? If Pop art and abstract expressionism are mass-media-driven movements and therefore illegitimate, can we invalidate High Renaissance art as an organized-religion driven movement? And if I were to say I got that emotional/psychological effect from Warhol & Pollock but not Mondrian (not true, but suppose), wouldn't that undercut your argument? Does anything about your argument go beyond "On a visceral level, I like this but not that; therefore this is good art and that is not"? There's nothing wrong with having that as a basis for preferences, but it does seem wrong to universalize that sentiment as an "argument." You seem to be attempting to find intellectual coherence where there is none and doesn't need to be any. Re: Kinkade, the issue is that within the art community, being boring is seen as a mortal sin. It is better to be bad but interesting than boring. And Kinkade's work is absurdly boring. It shows little to no innovation in subject matter, message, or technique, and its craft is unexceptional and inferior to both contemporary and preceding artists. It's one virtue is that it gives a certain sort of people warm fuzzies in the same way that cat posters do, and thus they buy it. Perhaps it's pretentious to deny hominess as an artistic virtue, but there are pretty clear and coherent reasons why Kinkade is looked down on while Warhol & Pollock are not.
My "argument" is only about myself and my own taste. No one else's. If you get an emotional/psychological effect from Warhol and Pollock, good for you. But it has nothing to do with what I think. So I guess the answer would be "no". Edit- I don't know where you're getting this, but it's definitely not from my posts. I've stated several times that just like every other reply in this topic, my tastes are purely subjective. There is nothing "intellectual" or "objective" about them. As for Michelangelo being sponsored by the Vatican, it's not the same. I would consider them the "wealthy private donor" I mentioned above. Also, consider their motivations. They didn't hire him to sell some shitty vodka or get rich selling crappy paintings from a bogus movement. No, they hired him because most people back then thought his works were beautiful masterpieces and made the church look grander. I can respect such motivations far more. If you could suck your own dick, you would never take it out of your mouth. That was the perfect Internet equivalent of self-fellatio. I don't think I've ever read a more passive-aggressive, whiny, douchetastic reply on here yet. And that's saying a lot. Yes idiot, I'm aware that Pollock and Warhol come from ostensibly different "movements". I never wrote that they were both Pop Art. In fact, I even brought up other two artists whose works I feel are worthless, George Rorique and Marcel Duchamp, who have nothing to do with the "Pop Art" movement, either. Nice strawman, though. But it is funny how you support Warhol and Pollock with vague bullshit unrelated to any of their actual paintings. And then, when I post the paintings, you come back with more petty insults and brag about getting some rep points. Also, in the next sentence, you condemn Thomas Kinkaide as being "ignorant", "brainwashing", and an "embarrassment". (Stronger words that I never used to describe Warhol/Pollock...I only wrote that I thought their art sucked)
OK, you're right. They didn't use him to sell vodka. They used him to sell Communion wafers. Is this a meaningful difference? The Church didn't hire him out of the goodness of their lovely Christian hearts. They hired him to promote the Church. You say your argument is based on nothing beyond your own tastes (which I won't bother arguing with), but seems largely informed by this point about sponsorship that has little if anything to do with aesthetics. Also, a minor point, but Absolut Vodka was a small regional Swedish company when Andy Warhol became famous.
Of course it was to promote the Church. But the difference is that people already liked Michelangelo's works. When people observed the Sistine Chapel, they didn't need a bunch of hipster douches telling them WHY they should appreciate it, WHY it's so awesome, WHAT its "significance" is. They weren't told that other Italian artists were just some mass-producing, rich bastards and brain-washing embarrassments. There weren't millions and millions of dollars pumped into the promotion of Michelangelo or whatever "movement" he was supposedly a part of. People walked into the Sistine Chapel and loved it before even knowing who the artist was. Some artists are famous and well-liked during their lifetimes. Some only get that way long after death. But it's usually organic. People just start liking their paintings. By contrast, Warhol is a singular example in that he got a major marketing push in a way artists before him didn't.