And I cannot stress this enough: bury their bones in an unmarked ditch.
Those are original Warhol boxes. Two Brillos, a Motts and a Campbells tomato soup. Multiple millions worth of original art, set on the floor by the front door.
Theres a regular customer whom i do plumbing work for, for the last 3 or 4 years. These belong to her. She also has Cherub Riding a Stag, and a couple other Warhols that i cannot identify, along with other originals by other artists that i also cannot identify. I have to go back to her house this coming Monday, i might get photos of the rest of her art, just so i can figure out what it is.
Even though i dont have an artistic bone in my entire body, i can appreciate art. I have negative feelings on private art like this that im too dumb to elucidate on.
eat the fucking rich. they are good for nothing.
I don't like the guy. Let me be clear there. I like the effect he had. Net gain.
I halfway agree with you but I can't be sure if it's a net gain considering the entire point of Warhol getting subsidized by the feds was to culturally derail Soviet-inspired art and cultural movements among college age kids in the west. I don't know what might have come of that without the reactionary culture jamming; maybe not much at all, but who knows?
I don't think they needed much help. My pro with post modernism is holy fuck does it describe the current condition but the con and it's a big one is thst it ignores changing it. Post modern problems require modern solutions so to speak, by which I mean Marxism. So art coming from the imperial core is going to reflect the condition of the imperial core, Soviet realism wasn't gonna evolve in America in the 60s anyway, I wanna place an honestly held opinion here and don't wanna get removed for sectarianism so mods, this reflects my suspicions and not necessarily the opinions of GalaxyBrain or theye affiliates but the CIA's goal in all this culture jamming regarding post modernism and Orwell etc was to push the American left towards anarchism. I can't expand on thst without getting into trouble which makes this conversation maybe a bit tougher, but I'll say.that post modernism isn't wrong, it just really accurately describes this hellscspe and offers nothing Marxism doesn't while sometimes pretending to be better.
Also Soviet art at the time did kinda suck.
There's an old saying about irony being the song of a bird that's come to love its cage.
Ideologically, I feel similarly about postmodernism's core messaging. I'm not sermonizing against either as a concept on its own as much as saying they really do effectively cage people ideologically when they become and end as well as a means. "Everything is ambigious and vague, interpretation can not be decisively pinned down, therefore knowledge and ignorance are one and the same, dae to each their own" seems like a contraceptive against revolutionary momentum to me.
I think it's true right now and that's a bad thing. Accurate analysis, but doesn't solve shit
I completely agree with you. I got restless in such art and literature courses (I had quite a few) and deep down, I wanted to say "all right, fine. It's vague and ambiguous. Now what?"
That is the point it's ambiguity and pointlessness all the way down. It's not like the Frankfurt school thought this was a good condition to be under either. The now what hasn't changed cause we haven't done that yet. Post modernism is a shitty name and that I do blame on the cia cause it's too convenient and doesn't sound great in French. Post modernism is the inherently temporary place we occupy right now, and that's worth having a good look at, but it's located at the end of the rubber band that is real material modernism. Post modern should just be called late capital, it's more accurate.
I'd like to eventually leave that pit and see what else is possible but the pit instead of sitting in the pit or digging the pit deeper while saying "pit, pit, the pit is the point." Yes, the pit is the point. Sometimes I'd like to not be in the pit and see what else is out there without it being dismissed as "just a painting" or "poems that rhyme aren't serious poetry."
Even the people in this thread that you've dunked on for seeing Warhol's work on a subjective face-value level (and seeing it as, understandably, bleak and ugly) are saying they want to get off of Mr. Bones' Wild Ride, so to speak. A half century (more than a century to be exact if you go back to the roots of the art movement) of saying "gotcha, expectations subverted" is ossifying more and more and maybe something new and different will actually seize the next century's art experience. I can only hope, because reflecting the bleakness of the present status quo, to me, is as ponderous and tiresome as the present status quo itself.
Also, have you ever in your whole history of posting here ever given up on an argument?
What is there to give up? I have a subjective position about art and I'm not going to pledge allegiance to you or what you stand for.
Show me art you like right now
Between this and your above post, I think you're getting far too hostile toward not only me but also people in this thread that subjectively don't appreciate (or even see) what you think is so important that you're apparently looking down on them for not "getting it."
There isn't much good that can come of this exchange at this point.
Post art that you like right now
I'm not interested in your gotcha game, be it "SEE? SEE? THIS IS A WARHOL INFLUENCE" or "HAH! LOOK AT HOW LOWBROW AND LOWLY YOUR TASTE IS."
If I wanted more of that I'd sign up for some postgrad humanities courses with the same professors that did that the first time around.
You're absolutely insufferable
You're so arrogant and hostile to the unwashed masses in this thread, myself included, that I'm truly getting vivid memories of some of those college courses again.
Yes, I liked poetry that rhymed. I even liked genre art, such as Stephen Gammel's charcoal pencil drawings of children's ghost stories. It's inferior to your superior (yet totally punk and subversive) sensibilities, probably.
Wash my masses
Oh, that takes me back. That rhyme-hating professor threw such a tantrum in his own class that he made one of the women in it cry because she liked Robert Frost and had the audacity to share one of his poems after being asked to do so because it did indeed speak to her.
That professor wanted to be punk and anti-establishment to the point of bullying people for not being sophisticated enough. His attitude changed over the weekend because I think the department head had a chat with him.
📽
You've already called people in this thread blue curtained ignorant consumers because they're not seeing the evergreenly profound (and subversive, and punk(tm)) importance and eminence you want them to see in Warhol's work.
I didn't do that here. At all. The thing with projection accusations is that they look false when the image being projected does not match yours whatsover.
What's your favorite show?
Can you find a new vector for your reactive rage?
I already mentioned Coleridge and Gammel in two very different sections of the humanities and you had nothing to say about them so far. What's the point of answering there too if you're just going to huff and puff at me anyway?
Naw, fuck a Warhol, I don't even care about that. This is personal. Right now I want you to name a film, a TV show, a piece of still art, a song and a fictional book you enjoy. Just for the record. Won't even reply. I just want to know that there are things in media that you are capable of finding any joy in beyond criticism.
No shit.
Your tantrum rings laughably hollow because I already did mention both a poet and a visual artist I liked very much and you didn't even acknowledge that while doubling down on your phantasmagoric illusory version of me to scream at.
I loved Dune, both the novel and the Lynch film, changes and weirdness and all. Hotel California is one of my problematic favorite songs. The Lady and the Unicorn series of tapestries has something new for me every time I look at them.
Is that enough for you to stop raging at me for not pledging due allegiance to the aging pretenses of punk and subversion started (and endlessly perpetuated by art snobs and rich assholes buying it) by a rich asshole fed asset?
Dawg, all of that was literally made by Andy Warhol.
The Lady and the Unicorn medieval tapestries were "literally made by Andy Warhol?"
Your not-a-fan toxic fandom for Andy Warhol may be making you see red right now, dawg.
You couldn't even resist your "not a fan" toxic fan bullshit for Andy Warhol so you immediately made yourself a liar.
You're claiming, apparently, that everything in the entire world is made by Andy Warhol after Andy Warhol blessed us with his presence. I was expecting that tiresome and trite Great Man Theory nonsense from you. It's laughably false, because even if he contributed and certainly made bank by his contributions, the belief that he singlehandedly created all art that followed by way of some Great Man theoretical determinism is pure liberal bullshit.
Even if it were true, and it's not, it's like expecting endless pledges of allegiance, awe, and praise (while not liking him as a person, right?) for William the Conqueror for establishing the roots of what we call modern English after 1066.
It's getting thin over here on the app LMAO
That's what happens when a "not a fan" of Andy Warhol goes all out in defense of Andy Warhol's godlike and unique contributions to the art world that no one else could have matched, surpassed, or replaced in his absence.
Emojis? Andy Warhol did it.
This site? Andy Warhol did it.
Your posts and mine? Andy Warhold did it.
deleted by creator
We can only dream of aspiring to the awe-inspiring greatness and high level thinking of taking an undergrad art course
Performatively praising Great Men is a big part of the "in group" in humanities departments.
In the overlap between literature and performance arts, "bardology" is like a malignant tumor that chokes the resources out of anything not Shakespeare, for example. And God help you if you mention anything negative about Shakespeare (such as
) or his Tudor patrons (that were definitely pleased by the character assassination of Richard III) for any reason.
Funny how every creep eventually turns to “anti-intellectualism” as their weapon of defense. The French are experts at this today.
Was everyone who criticized “Cuties” anti-intellectual?
It doesn’t really speak to the strength of someone’s position when they have to just depart from the critiques themselves to brandish buzzwords. If your position is strong you should be able to defend it while sticking to the art in question.
If I criticize you it’s because I’m a shrewd critic. If you criticize me it’s because you’re anti-intellectual.
No, my pedophillic fantasy novel isn’t gross, and by criticizing it you’re being the same as literal Nazis (who doesn’t love a little Nazi trivialization?)
"You can't criticize or even dislike the rich connected fed-funded very smartists or their treats or else you are not very smartist."
“Yeah well conservatives also said rap was bad. Care to reconsider your ‘graphic sex scenes between a 12 year old and a 50 year old are bad’ position?”
"Also your criticism is itself a vindicating performance art piece! Dance, unwashed barbarian puppets! Dance for the glory of the abusive sex pest auteurs!"
PLEASE EXPLAIN
Summary, especially because "literally" a set of medieval tapestries were also credited to Andy Warhol:
I was hoping for some vague connection between Linda Ronstadt and Warhol to explain the Eagles thing
It's just Great Man Theory shit taken to its most extreme conclusions: you must directly credit the subversive genius of Andy Warhold for everything that came after him (and apparently, everything that came before him) or else you're an unwashed barbarian.
What the fuck are you talking about
Great Man Theory. Not even once.