" As [Adam D. Weinberg, the director of the Whitney Museum] points out, Donald Trump has made admiring reference to Warhol and his dictum 'Making money is art, and working is art, and good business is the best art.' What to make, then, in an era of trash politics, of an art that celebrated trash? The exhibit follows him from a super-devout Catholic family in the Slavic ghettos of Pittsburgh—a boy who was cripplingly shy, ill-assimilated, and often confined to a sickbed; a boy for whom thought, expression, and narrative were pain—as he turned himself into Andy Warhol. What can this story tell us about our own anti-humanist swerve?... The less we push back on the idea that prurience and detritus represent the sum of it, the greater [Warhol's] powers of divination seem.... [It speaks] to the condition of all art, maybe all modernity, and with a retroactive power that rewrites everything that came before it. An inner life, a sense of vocation, a distrust of fame and a special loathing for speculative fortunes, a personal relationship with God (or nature) that the image may partake in but never supplant—Warholism negates it all. No wonder he has never been bigger."
From "Warhol’s Bleak Prophecy/What a new retrospective reveals about the artist, and about our swerve away from humanism" (The Atlantic).
I wonder what Warhol would mean if Hillary Clinton had been elected President?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
"In Cold Blood" was a great read, but don't let it clutter up your bookcases.
Pfart
Good on Warhol for suckering the rubes. At least those rubes who think of themselves as elites.
And why does President trump have to be worked into EVERYTHING
John Henry
What can this story tell us about our own anti-humanist swerve?
That's a strange conclusion. I wasn't aware that we'd made an "anti-humanist swerve" by electing Trump over Hillary Clinton.
The post war 1940s and 1950s NYC gay avant-garde was a very creative place where much money was made selling Art. What that has to do with today's Heterosexual WASP fighting for the survival of the American middleclass today is ... absolutely nothing at all. Interestingly, the entire cast under discusssion are white men.
Trump shattered the nomenklatura's world view. Everything must be reevaluated.
"Good on Warhol for suckering the rubes. At least those rubes who think of themselves as elites."
He wasn't "suckering" anyone; he did exactly what he wanted to do and what pleased him. His fame outshone his financial success; during his 60s pop period of Campbell's Soup Cans and Brillo Boxes and Elizabeth Taylors and Marilyn Monroes and so on, he was not selling well.(This, after having spent the 50s as a very successful and highly-paid illustrator.) His turn to film also did not bring in riches: do you think a multi-hour film of a man sleeping or of the Empire State Building were calculated to bring in movie-goers? Warlhol's turn to celebrity portraits in the 70s was driven, in part, because it was remunerative.
I wonder what Warhol would mean if Hillary Clinton had been elected President?
"...flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles."
"That's a strange conclusion. I wasn't aware that we'd made an 'anti-humanist swerve' by electing Trump over Hillary Clinton."
We made our anti-humanist swerve long ago, in fact, pretty much from the very beginning. It wasn't even a swerve.
I really can't make out what the quote from the Atlantic article is trying to say.
One difference between Warhol and Duchamp, or the Dadaists, or any of his predecessors in the nugatory arts, is that they did not have a free market to insinuate their visionary cynicism into everything we do and are.
There is much to unpack in that thesis statement.
First, when it came to cold cynicism, nothing can touch Duchamp. Warhol, in contrast to that desiccated Frenchman, was a garden of exuberance. For all the cynicism of the pose and the posturing, he couldn't help himself but create bold, colorful, and comic outpourings. It is indicative that many of Warhol's peers and proteges were immense artistic talents, from Rauschenberg to Lou Reed. It is thanks to Warhol, in part, that the body of minimal modernism was dragged outside and buried.
Second, if you're going to speak about the avenues of insinuation, you should check your art history, your pharaohs, kings, and popes. Duchamp and the Dadaists weren't limited by lack of commerce so much as a the self-destruction of Europe.
That's a strange conclusion. I wasn't aware that we'd made an "anti-humanist swerve" by electing Trump over Hillary Clinton.
I watched an interesting piece of propaganda last night that presented itself as light entertainment. The premise of the "story" was that the US government was doing its best to deport a heart surgeon who saved someone's life in a restaurant and was fleeing persecution and, in the real world, could easily have obtained refugee status. In this strange alternate country there was no appeal and he couldn't just not show up for the hearing and disappear into the populace. In the end he was bundled aboard a private jet and taken to Germany were he could then apply for asylum. That's the "elites'" perception of the world.
As far as I'm concerned Andy Warhol was a mountebank and no artist at all. Why anyone would care about what he had to say is beyond me.
Time will tell whether his stuff ages better than Thomas Kincaid's. At least the latter knew how to use an airbrush.
I wonder what Warhol would mean if Hillary Clinton had been elected President?
There would be no #metoo movement. Instead, she'd have established S.C.U.M. as a Department under DoJ.
"What made Warhol thrilling in 1962 acquired a bitter aura in November 2016."
What made Warhol thrilling to the counterculture in 1962 was a bitter aura to the establishment in 1962.
The counterculture never expects to become the establishment.
But they always do. You you can always spot 'em by their despair over bitter auras.
Warhol has never been bigger because standards have never been lower. I do appreciate his work, but I wouldn't consider it fine art. Although I suppose the use of the word "fine" marks me as some kind of reprobate.
"As far as I'm concerned Andy Warhol was a mountebank and no artist at all. Why anyone would care about what he had to say is beyond me.
"Time will tell whether his stuff ages better than Thomas Kincaid's. At least the latter knew how to use an airbrush."
Warhol, no matter whether his critical reputation diminishes over time, will always age better than Kincaid, whose products are the equivalent of black-velvet paintings, and are not and never will be remembered..
our own anti-humanist swerve
Interesting allusion to Stephen Greenblat's entertaining tale of historical trivia The Swerve: How the World Became Modern
.
What Lucretius ostensibly provided to humanism was support for a swerve from idealisms to material reality.
Perhaps Warhol is not opposite, but moreso.
Warhol's not cool because Trump likes him is Rufus.
********************
GUY: Rufus! Prom is gonna be Rufus.
KRISTEN: Rufus?
GUY: Yeah. I made it up. Start using it.
In the future, everyone will be shunned for 15 minutes.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
His fame outshone his financial success;
His financial success wasn't too shabby either.
Andy Warhol was an American artist who had a net worth equal to $220 million dollars at the time of his death
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/andy-warhol-net-worth/
Not bad for painting magazine illustrations, calling it art and getting rich rubes, who think they are our betters, to throw money at him.
John Henry
Robert Cook: " black-velvet paintings... are not and never will be remembered."
A man who supports open borders immigration should be the last to doubt the future of black velvet paintings.
Ann,
you are pretty knowlegable about art so let me ask you this:
Warhol's most iconic painting was of a can of Campbell's soup.
Who was the "artist" here?
Warhol who faithfully copied an existing object?
Or the illustrator/package designer who designed the can and label?
What artistic element did Warhol contribute?
Nothing at all to the painting as far as I can see. It is just a good reproduction that any competent illustrator could do.
His "art", and it is an art, lies in his ability to convince people that he created something worth money and get them to pay for it.
John Henry
Henry said...In the future, everyone will be shunned for 15 minutes.
Brilliant!
you are pretty knowlegable about art so let me ask you this:
Da Vincil's most iconic painting was of a woman's face.
Who was the "artist" here?
Da Vinci who faithfully copied an existing object?
Or the Creator who designed the woman?
What artistic element did da Vinci contribute?
"His financial success wasn't too shabby either."
Not in his early days, when he was producing the Brillo Boxes and Marilyns and Elvises and Soup Cans. He didn't sell many of those at the time.
"A man who supports open borders immigration should be the last to doubt the future of black velvet paintings."
Have you asked someone who supports open borders?
Robert Cook
Serious question: Have you ever lived in a country other than the US?
It is said of Warhol that from the time he started his pop painting phase until he died, he spoke less than 2500 words.
"he spoke less than 2500 words."
He certainly blabbed to his friend.
The Andy Warhol Diaries is the dictated memoirs of the American artist Andy Warhol, posthumously published. It was edited by his frequent collaborator and long-time friend, Pat Hackett. The 807-page book begins on November 24, 1976 and ends eleven years later on February 17, 1987, just five days before his death. It is a condensed version by Hackett of Warhol's more than 20,000-page diary.
"Serious question: Have you ever lived in a country other than the US?"
Not that it's pertinent to this discussion, but no.
Blogger Kevin said...
you are pretty knowlegable about art so let me ask you this:
Da Vincil's most iconic painting was of a woman's face.
Who was the "artist" here?
Da Vinci who faithfully copied an existing object?
Or the Creator who designed the woman?
What artistic element did da Vinci contribute?
I don't know if you are talking to me since I have never claimed to be knowledgeable about art.
But if you are, then:
I would not say Mona Lisa is DaVincis most famous painting. The first one I think of is the Sistine Chapel, especially where God is touching Adam. That is purely a creation of DaVinci's imagination
You say he made a faithful reproduction of Mona Lisa. How do you know this? Did he claim that this is exactly how she looked at that moment in time? Unless a photo shows up we'll never know.
And the face will have changed during the painting. Studio light will have changed so there is considerable artistic creativity in deciding just how to portray her.
As opposed to an unchanging soup can under an unchanging studio light. I don't claim to be an artist or even much of an illustrator. But I have drawn similar cans and packages and I can do it almost as well as Warhol. It takes pretty much no skill or talent at all. Especially using CorelDraw.
I agree 100% with your statement that the creator of Mona Lisa, the woman was "the" creator.
John Henry
Robert Cook said...Have you asked someone who supports open borders?
I gather you don't understand why people make this accusation against you and Democratic Party supporters. I never thought of you as being willfully obtuse.
That's hilarious. What it says is that the Atlantic has abandoned its aesthetic and avocational mandate to produce interesting and accurate stories.
Warhol maintained a fierce if reclusive commitment to religious faith throughout his life. If the "writers" at the Atlantic can't root out even that well-known tidbit, what is their commitment to their art?
It would take a John Waters -- early John Waters -- to document the derangement emanating from these intellectual donkeys.
"I gather you don't understand why people make this accusation against you...."
I don't understand why one would assume another of holding convictions one has not heard (or read) them express.
Mona Lisa : Leonardo da Vinci
Sistine Chapel : Michelangelo
Post a Comment