what is art today about? warhol and after.

[RSF Group]

i know nuttin bout art. i just know some paintings and sculptures i
like.

but, this is what i kinda suspect. correck me if i am or don't correck
me. i prefer to believe in my own bs than factual stuff.

in the olden days, there was representational art. so a painting
represented stuff. a tree, man, food, etc.

then, modern art turned self-conscious. so a painting, instead of
representing something, examined its own paintingness. it explored its
own possibilities. painting became about the painting. so, there was
emphasis on texture, tone, shapes, etc which didn't represent something
but merely expressed the dynamics of painting. modern artist stepped
back from world and worked within the painting itself.

then came fellars like warhol who took another step back. they seem to
say a painting doesn't exist in a vacuum. art exists in a certain
socio-economic context. a painting, whether representational or
modern, is never just a painting but a socio-economic artifact.
so, these artists began to explore the relationship between art and its
social context. this was different than merely political paintings
where the painting itself said something about the world. think of
guernica which condemns the nazi bombings.
rather, the works of warhol seem to say 'don't look at the painting but
around the painting'. what makes an art a work of art in the modern
world? who says what is art? what is the culture of fame, celebrity,
respectability, money power, influence, etc in the arts.

a campbell soup can is no art. yet, why is it art if someone paints in
and displays it in a gallery? what is the process that tranforms the
ordinary object to art? in a sneaky sort of way, it's prolly also a
commentary on all the food paintings of the past. if pic of fruits be
art, why not soupcan? personally, i'd say it should at least be
chunkies. campbell sucks.

and today, much of art is not about the art itself but about the
interaction between art and all the things that made it, hype it,
oppose it, ignore it, etc.
you can look at a painting by davinci and know nothing about art and
still say 'that's mighty purty'. but, if you don't know about the art
world and its politics and economics, much of today's art don't mean
shi*. art is more exclusive and elitist and inbred than even before.

the artist sees himself as a leftist radical subverting the
institution. but, he knows that he depends on the money and influence
of rich folks. so, his art expresses the tension between radicalism
and money-ism, between independence and dependence. he says i'm
uncompromised badass artist working in a compromised world of
money-hoo. he enjoys the fame, attention, and privelege of being an
artist but feels proud of his rebel stance.
the rich guys who supports the artist feel good too. they made money
thru materialism but how nice to pat themselves on the back that they
support the arts. they aren't only about fancy houses and golf outings.
they care about culture. and they love the power that comes with the
knowledge that without their money, these artists would be nothing.
they both defer to the artist and say 'kiss my rich ass'.
it's a very sick relationship. granted, the relationship between artist
and institutions was never easy. consider mikey angelo and catholic
church. but, artists and patrons of past had some sincere common
values and goals.
today, it's rich capitalists and leftist grubsters doing the funny
tango where they promote one another by pretending to shi* on one
another.
artist thinks the rich pig is paying the artist to shi* all over him.
the rich pig thinks he's playing fetch with the artist cuz no matter
how radical, artists go where the money is. and, there's a wink wink
understanding. it's enemies, a love story.

the problem with warhol and such is that while their point may have
been well taken while they were alive thru the publicity and celebrity
they generated, once they are dead, we only have the works left. and
the work says precious little on its own. because the subject of warhol
was the dependence of art on exterior factors, his works lack
independent value as art. this isn't true of traditionalists or even
picasso who created powerful striking works that stand on their own,
whether we get it or not. warhol's real art was hisself; his works were
sidekicks to the real performance, mere props. with him gone, what his
art be? or, such is what i once read about his art after he done died.

it's kinda like deadhead culture. most dead studio albums sucked. the
dead magic was about the aura at the concert, the communion between
sage garcia and the deadheads. once garcia died, the aura was gone
forever. all that's left are poor studio recordings and inferior live
recordings that can in no way convey the spiritual fervor at the
concert.

[JayZenC]

wow, that's almost like some long blah, blah, blah that I might write
on a weird day. overanalyzing art, where it is at this moment in time
and why
kind of defeats the meaning, depth and purpose of creating art in the
first place.
it's all so subjective. just be glad for art. hooray for art. artists
serve a wonderful function
that is they drive themselves crazy because they understand the world
too well and feel that they don't understand it well enough. now if you
can find the joy in that, either by creating art or appreciating art
then Art ' s (yes, with a capital A) ultimate purpose has been
fulfilled
The world of the artist, in inspect and divine to look within and look
without and see that it's all the same... to share a bit of the world
with others that from a perspective that they might not have seen...
meaningless and meaningful all at once
art just is
deal with it

[*Anarcissie*]

RSF Group wrote:
> ...

> the problem with warhol and such is that while their point may have
> been well taken while they were alive thru the publicity and celebrity
> they generated, once they are dead, we only have the works left. and
> the work says precious little on its own. because the subject of warhol
> was the dependence of art on exterior factors, his works lack
> independent value as art. this isn't true of traditionalists or even
> picasso who created powerful striking works that stand on their own,
> whether we get it or not. warhol's real art was hisself; his works were
> sidekicks to the real performance, mere props. with him gone, what his
> art be? or, such is what i once read about his art after he done died.

Apparently a lot of people are getting something out of whatever
Warhol left behind, because its price is rather exalted. However,
I think his works have become something other than what they
were when he made them; they have been encrusted with
history and interpretation. When someone asked Warhol what
was "behind" his painting, he answered, "There's nothing
behind it. It's just what you see." But that is no longer true.
Warhol, like the painters who preceded and followed him, is
being inexorably dragged down into the swamp of meaning
and relation.

[RSF Group]

but precisely because his paintings were essentially nothing, his
stature as an artist only makes sense thru the context of meaning and
relation.

we musn't interpret the painting but the phenomenon of warholism. that
was his art. he turned our attention to the world of art itself--its
hype, delusions, pretensions, machinery, bogosity, etc.

otherwise, his paintings are truly worthless. what makes them
meaningful is they are andy warhol paintings. they gain thru
association. to the extent that warhol focused our attention on the art
world than the art--as art's value is product of machinations/politics
of art world--he has a place in art history. but, his paintings as
paintings? they not only have nothing behind them but have nothing on
them except bogosity.

[anima...@yahoo.com]

I thought that for many years, but then, as I was standing in
a bookstore idly looking at a Warhol book, it fell on me that
I was wrong. I was looking at one of the black-on-black
Marilyns.

It's an odd experience, that road-to-Damascus stuff. When
it comes to painting, usually I see it right away or I never
see it.