Andy Worhol, my long time false perception.

[Brian37]

Anyone familiar with his work, knows about his copy and replicate style with paintings like the soup cans and with Marilyn Monroe. 

For some stupid reason, for decades I thought his work was an indictment of over consumption and exploitation. NOPE, turned out he simply painted things he liked and created and popularized a new style.

Because I was young, dumb and full of , well you know. I look back at it now, and what happened was I mistook his critics criticism of popularizing the mundane as being Andy's intent being an indictment of over commercialization. Today, I just got corrected by a friend and google about the intent of his work. 

You learn something new every day.

---

As an aside, to open this up to painting in general.

Why are people into Picasso or Jackson Pollock?

And does anyone else besides me like Seurat?

[Fake Messiah]

Are now fan of Jeff Koons? Since he is kind of a successor of Andy Warhol.

[Brian37]

Are now fan of Jeff Koons? Since he is kind of a successor of Andy Warhol.

I never said I was a fan of Warhol. I simply had a long time misinterpretation of his work. 

I thought he was criticising mass production and exploitation. He was not.

His critics however thought he was not a real artist and was using mass production of the mundane to make a quick buck.

[Fake Messiah]

Dean Koons like Warhol seems to embrace capitalism like Soviet artists embraced Lenin and painted workers and fields in social realism. In spite of everything that was happening in Soviet Union they just embraced the idealized version of it all.
It's not kind of a art/ painting in tradition of Jacques Louis David and The Death of Marat, Goya and The Third of May 1808, Picasso and Guernica... indeed none of the artists/ painters today in US deal with problems of the times and refuse to tackle with stuff like 9/11, Guantanamo Bay, border camps, wars in middle east , but rather look away, are not trying to make something that will make people think, shock but rather are just trying to make something that everyone will like.

Dean Koons likes to compare himself to Michelangelo like his statue of Michael Jackson with Pieta and maybe he's right considering what was happening in Italy at the times, with all the wars and crimes, Michelangelo and others made these fantasy paintings and statues.

That's why perhaps Banksy is more of an artist than Koons, Warhol and the likes of them.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

A couple of the artists I like to peruse the works of are Sid Mead and Roger Dean. Patrick Nagel's early passing still saddens me.

Cheers.

[Little lunch]

Are now fan of Jeff Koons? Since he is kind of a successor of Andy Warhol.

Thanks for reminding me.
I've had a Jeff Koons book in my library since my daughter was born and I've been meaning to get rid of it before she finds it.
It has an x rated segment called 'Made in Heaven' starring himself and Cicciolina.
Imagine going to a displaying of his works and you're looking at statues of dogs and flowers, old vaccum cleaners in glass display cases and there, on the wall, a close up of a woman being butt fucked.

[Brian37]

Dean Koons like Warhol seems to embrace capitalism like Soviet artists embraced Lenin and painted workers and fields in social realism. In spite of everything that was happening in Soviet Union they just embraced the idealized version of it all.
It's not kind of a art/ painting in tradition of Jacques Louis David and The Death of Marat, Goya and The Third of May 1808, Picasso and Guernica... indeed none of the artists/ painters today in US deal with problems of the times and refuse to tackle with stuff like 9/11, Guantanamo Bay, border camps, wars in middle east , but rather look away, are not trying to make something that will make people think, shock but rather are just trying to make something that everyone will like.

Dean Koons likes to compare himself to Michelangelo like his statue of Michael Jackson with Pieta and maybe he's right considering what was happening in Italy at the times, with all the wars and crimes, Michelangelo and others made these fantasy paintings and statues.

That's why perhaps Banksy is more of an artist than Koons, Warhol and the likes of them.

Interesting point to equate Warhol's embrace of western idealism to Soviet artists embraced Lenin.

I can see that.

But it still gives me a lip twitch when either the left or right falsely call "capitalism" a form of government. But that is a separate issue than art.

Looking back at Warhol now, with a correct view of his intent. I can and aesthetically appreciate the artwork, but don't agree with the blind appeal to over consumption.

Mind you, you look at Communist artwork and the same can be said. I've seen videos of artwork in North Korean Museums that take talent to do, but the message still sucks regardless of ability.

---

I will allays value my species ability to create, and thus art should always be protected, as a western value. But art can be abused to manipulate too. Religious artwork in our species entire history, friend and foe alike, do not prove one god over another, or one ideology over another. Art only proves that our species can be and and is creative.

[Belacqua]

As an aside, to open this up to painting in general.

Why are people into Picasso or Jackson Pollock?

And does anyone else besides me like Seurat?

One way think about this is that since about the mid-20th century, there have been two kinds of art. 

One kind is the old kind: it's meant to give pleasure by our looking at it. The quality is in the object, and how it's made. 

The new kind is Warhol's kind. The object itself is not that interesting. There's not much to see. The reason people want them is because they act as a kind of place-holder or token, that says "I'm cool," or just "I'm rich." And they give this message not due to anything in the object (they're cheap to make) but because of the associations they have. Warhol was a cool guy, and Warhol painted this, therefore it's cool. 

Koons and Banksy and most of the other famous modern guys all make stuff that you don't have to look at. Seeing a photograph is good enough, or just hearing about it. These are considered successful if people talk about them, and they sell for high prices at auction. But they're pretty much like a poorly-made designer handbag -- the desirability is in the hype and the associations, not in the object itself. 

Sad to say, we live in an age when publicity is more successful than artistic skill. The old fashioned guys are dying off: Balthus died, Lucian Freud died. David Hockney is a little old man and deaf as a post, and still making good work, but not for long.

[Silver]

That is the problem with people interpreting the works of artists. Each individual is naturally going to interpret something based on how it personally affects him.

Which is why I never cared for interpretative exercises of literature in school, because I kept thinking to myself, "How do we really know this is what the author meant?"

[Belacqua]

Which is why I never cared for interpretative exercises of literature in school, because I kept thinking to myself, "How do we really know this is what the author meant?"

Well, you're right we can never know for sure what the author meant. 

But that's not the only thing we look at when we think about (or interpret, or explicate, or ponder) a work of art. I don't think the author's intention is the total of what we can know and value -- maybe it's not even the most important thing. 

How the object fits into its tradition and its age is something worth looking at. 

And I know this may offend our democratic ears, but some people are better at interpreting than others.