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 want you to enjoy this art. I entirely agree that your preferences are your preferences and arguing pro and con of taste is pointless.
I just want to point out that it's art, which you said it isn't.
Ok fair enough I agree there is art here but I think the art I am looking at here was done by someone working at campbells soup company.
I genuinely can't see what artistically differenciates this from having actual boxes of soup and hair jell stacked. if the point is that it's commercial and day to day then Warhol has done that worse than the people he's copying as actually selling soup would be the height of making that point
Heck, I agree with you about that. He should have just sold soup cans. And that is what other artists in modern art have basically done after him, in part because Warhol pushed the boundary towards that first. A lot of modern art is showing off commercialization. Like that Banksy piece that shredded itself after being auctioned off.
And also I wanna say: Warhol himself fucking sucks. I am not defending him I am just defending his work as being influential.
The fact that someone is willing to pay so much money for these boxes and what that says is part of the art. I think you are using the term art to refer to the physical objects on display, but the object itself isn't the art - the relationships that the object facilitates are. The relationship between the viewer and the object, the relationship between the artist and the object, the relationship between the viewer and the artist through the object, etc.
Some paint on a canvas is just that: paint on a canvas. It only becomes art through our engagement with it.
Then literally everything is art. Life is art. Death is art. Existence is art and oblivion is art. This position makes discussing art pointless and arbitrary. If the purpose of Warhol's work was to make fun of bullshit art by being bullshit art, then it's definitionally bullshit art.
By definition, anything made using a skill is art. So life is art so long as you create things in your life. Death isn't art unless your body gets used to make something, like those bodies sliced into very thin sheets or whatever.
You like the fine arts. Beautiful things made by someone who honed their skill to a high level. That's fine and something most people, including me, share as a preference. But art is a broader field then that and I don't see where the problem is with that. It's not pretty? Cave paintings usually aren't very pretty or skilled, by today's standards, but they are still art. That giant blue canvas? Art. In that case in part because the artist mixed the blue himself and it was a statement about industrial processes and modern chemistry making it possible to have huge amounts of blue, something that wasn't possible for most of history.
As for these boxes: they depict reality and they are a statement about industrial processes and the distinction, or lack thereof, between a mass-printed labeled box and a piece of hand-made art indistinguishable (by looks) from such mass-printed products. Like, where is the distinction between a sculpture of something and a box painted to look like a different box?
The only pure art is made by children, adults are merely making a crude approximation of it. A scribble of a 2 year old is more a more profound expression of humanity than the entirety of modern art.
If that sounds stupid, it's because assigning meaning to art is stupid. Art is nice, art is pleasing, art can have meaning, but meaning doesn't make something art.
This was kind of a deliberate point made by early modern artists. Picasso was making beautifully realistic paintings as a teenager, and he, as an adult, (and others) deliberately painted with the perspective of a child.
I think you understand modern art more than you let yourself realize. There is an undertone of reaction against modern art that runs through our society and gets into our thoughts, beliefs, and ideologies that we’re not all consciously aware of. I had a similar perspective to you on it, then I started spending more time looking at art, thinking about art, and eventually creating art frankly as a way to stop getting into unproductive online arguments all the time. For me, developing an understanding of modern art and architecture led to an appreciation of it (obviously not all of it). I’m not saying you have to like it or even will like it, but I think you could come to an understanding of it if you tried (and I’m also not saying you have to try).
I mean I get it, I just don't like the commercialization and pretentiousness of a lot of it. Everything that we experience is art. From the vastness of the universe down to the smallest particles, all of existence is incredibly beautiful and mind-blowing. Your art as an expression of who you are is beautiful and valid, but saying "this incredibly financially successful 'art' that I'm having others crank out in my workshop is a statement on the absurdity of commercial art" isn't.
Banksy was super cool conceptually at first, it was basically a modern Western sand mandala. If you got a chance to see it and experience it then you were lucky but eventually it was going to be covered over. That's really cool and meaningful. Now there are thousands of framed Banksy pieces that rich people keep in their living rooms as shows and stores of wealth. That's meaningless, it's nothing. So much of modern art is J.K. Rowling coming in after the fact and saying "oh by the way Dumbledore is gay." The piece should speak for itself and so much modern art doesn't.
Edit: I thought about it a little bit and I was kind of hedging on the child thing, but that's pretty much how I actually feel. Expression of the artist's humanity is artistic but it's harder to actually accomplish, and a huge amount of popular modern art fails at that in my eyes.