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.

  • ped_xing [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I went a little far with it, but my point is that finding something devoid of meaning or emotional impact doesn't downgrade it to not-art. Repeated exposure to anything can sap it of its impact. If somebody were to donate the original Starry Night to my building and they hung it in the lobby, and if that happened without my knowing that it's the original, I'd probably never stop to look at and appreciate it, as I've been exposed to the image so many times and would assume it's just another print. It took Warhol saying "hey, look at this" to make people appreciate the soup can and it would take somebody saying "hey, that's the actual original" to make me actually stop and look at Starry Night.

    To be sure, I'm not equating the artistic merits of the works. The Warhol is nice design combined with an art world stunt where he forced people to look at it with new eyes and nowhere near a Van Gogh. The people who own the pictured Warhols have basically reversed the stunt by stacking them as if they had just moved and haven't unpacked, essentially saying "don't look at these."

    • booty [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I went a little far with it, but my point is that finding something devoid of meaning or emotional impact doesn't downgrade it to not-art.

      I disagree. I don't think something that lacks any intended meaning or intended evocation of emotion can be art. I know this is an eternal and tired debate, but I don't see the point of the term "art" if you can just say anything and everything is art.

      The basis of art is the intent to say something.