andy warholthless?
gonif_...@hotmail.com
think what alot of shit. however, i'm convinced warhol deserves his
reputation as a great figure in art--if not as great artist. it's
been
argued that andy's real worth cannot be measured by his
artworks--which
are meanignless outside the context of andy and his world--but in
terms
of his showmanship. so, he was more of an actor or performer than an
artist. he was as artificial as a movie character playing an artist.
yet, he understood the glitzy, pompous, and delusional conceits that
prevailed in the art world. he understood the relationship between
the
artist and his reputation. he was the artist of artistmanship.
so, while you don't have to read a biography of some impressionist
painter--or even an german expressionist, picasso, dali, or
whoozits--to enjoy or appreciate his painting, you have to know andy
warhol and his world to understand the signficance of his reputation
as
an 'artist'. his self-promotion and his biography were his real art.
indeed, if someone had accused him of being a phony, he would have
agreed. was he an auto-subversive? an auto-satirist? the howard
stern
among the decadent snobs?
a conman? maybe, but he wouldn't have denied the accusation. as
long
as enough people wanted to rub shoulders with him and hailed him as
important, his point was proven.
come to think of it, same can be said of some of godard's later
works;
they are interesting to the extent that they make interesting topic
for
discussion among the film geek crowd. as films to watch--as
Movies--some of them are interminable(check 'detective' or 'keep up
your right' if you don't believe me). warhol and later godard
flatter
and justify the geekish devotees of avantgrade art; they function as
patron-saints of sorts. the mentality behind this is, in most
respects, hardly different than that of trekkies with their
commitment
to the alternate reality of 'where no man has ever gone before'.
indeed, it's a place for boys, not men.