|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jun 1, 2022 10:27:27 GMT
Stick it on a shelf and it's food; stick it on a wall and it's art? Sorry, I don't buy it and I don't agree that the soup can is art - it's more an exercise in skill of accurately drawing perspective with curved surfaces. For me, art has to have some creativity in it and an exact representation of something doesn't have any. Would an alien from outer space think the soup can is art? Depends which alien. The one from Alien? No. The one from ET? Might phone his pals about it. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Jun 1, 2022 11:38:37 GMT
Warhol showed us that a soup can is art. But face it, society has a whole determines which art has more value. Stick it on a shelf and it's food; stick it on a wall and it's art? Sorry, I don't buy it and I don't agree that the soup can is art - it's more an exercise in skill of accurately drawing perspective with curved surfaces. For me, art has to have some creativity in it and an exact representation of something doesn't have any. As I tried to point out, it's the process and idea that are seen as art more so than the piece necessarily. However the mass amounts of money something makes at an "art" auction creates the "illusion" of an art work. In effect it's a very narrow band of cultural ideologues who decide what is art and the market works off that. Otherwise it's just personal taste. I prefer "pop art" to "Cubism" for example any day of the week. As Pope Cleese the 1st said "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like" |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jun 1, 2022 12:03:18 GMT
Stick it on a shelf and it's food; stick it on a wall and it's art? Sorry, I don't buy it and I don't agree that the soup can is art - it's more an exercise in skill of accurately drawing perspective with curved surfaces. For me, art has to have some creativity in it and an exact representation of something doesn't have any. As I tried to point out, it's the process and idea that are seen as art more so than the piece necessarily. However the mass amounts of money something makes at an "art" auction creates the "illusion" of an art work. In effect it's a very narrow band of cultural ideologues who decide what is art and the market works off that. Otherwise it's just personal taste. I prefer "pop art" to "Cubism" for example any day of the week. As Pope Cleese the 1st said "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like" I agree with the idea part (that's part of the creativity I refer to), even though "I'll paint a soup can" is very weak as an idea (maybe it was novel back then). As for process, that's probably the 'skill' part I'm referring to. So with the soup can, the skill is good (but not exceptional because some of the perspective is a tiny bit out) and the creativity is low. Contrast to a Van Gogh like the Seedsower where the skill is high and the creativity is high (even though the idea is not novel) and soup can is blown away. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Jun 4, 2022 2:40:31 GMT
Warhol showed us that a soup can is art. But face it, society has a whole determines which art has more value. Stick it on a shelf and it's food; stick it on a wall and it's art? Sorry, I don't buy it and I don't agree that the soup can is art - it's more an exercise in skill of accurately drawing perspective with curved surfaces. For me, art has to have some creativity in it and an exact representation of something doesn't have any. There can be immense creativity in representational art - Velasquez's Pope Innocent X, Van Dyck's Charles I, it would be easy to reel off a list. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jun 4, 2022 7:52:31 GMT
Stick it on a shelf and it's food; stick it on a wall and it's art? Sorry, I don't buy it and I don't agree that the soup can is art - it's more an exercise in skill of accurately drawing perspective with curved surfaces. For me, art has to have some creativity in it and an exact representation of something doesn't have any. There can be immense creativity in representational art - Velasquez's Pope Innocent X, Van Dyck's Charles I, it would be easy to reel off a list. Fine if you are okay with that. I just find it dull. Give me impressionism (and post) every day. And more to the point, where have you been? We missed you round here. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Jun 5, 2022 2:50:55 GMT
That's very nice of you to say! I have been knee deep in funerals lately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jun 5, 2022 7:18:35 GMT
That's very nice of you to say! I have been knee deep in funerals lately. Oh. Sorry to hear that. Nice to see you again. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Jun 11, 2022 10:01:01 GMT
As I tried to point out, it's the process and idea that are seen as art more so than the piece necessarily. However the mass amounts of money something makes at an "art" auction creates the "illusion" of an art work. In effect it's a very narrow band of cultural ideologues who decide what is art and the market works off that. Otherwise it's just personal taste. I prefer "pop art" to "Cubism" for example any day of the week. As Pope Cleese the 1st said "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like" I agree with the idea part (that's part of the creativity I refer to), even though "I'll paint a soup can" is very weak as an idea (maybe it was novel back then). As for process, that's probably the 'skill' part I'm referring to. So with the soup can, the skill is good (but not exceptional because some of the perspective is a tiny bit out) and the creativity is low. Contrast to a Van Gogh like the Seedsower where the skill is high and the creativity is high (even though the idea is not novel) and soup can is blown away. I think what Warhol is showing is how art isn't necessarily about subjects but objects as well. The Campbell's soup can is an icon without being art. The packaging was originally designed to catch eyeballs. It hasn't changed in over 100 years. Warhol silk screened 32 cans for each kind of soup available at the time to be hung like cans would look in a store, so there is more to the work than just the single paintings.  |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Jun 12, 2022 7:55:46 GMT
I agree with the idea part (that's part of the creativity I refer to), even though "I'll paint a soup can" is very weak as an idea (maybe it was novel back then). As for process, that's probably the 'skill' part I'm referring to. So with the soup can, the skill is good (but not exceptional because some of the perspective is a tiny bit out) and the creativity is low. Contrast to a Van Gogh like the Seedsower where the skill is high and the creativity is high (even though the idea is not novel) and soup can is blown away. I think what Warhol is showing is how art isn't necessarily about subjects but objects as well. The Campbell's soup can is an icon without being art. The packaging was originally designed to catch eyeballs. It hasn't changed in over 100 years. Warhol silk screened 32 cans for each kind of soup available at the time to be hung like cans would look in a store, so there is more to the work than just the single paintings. And he was primarily using the soup can as an artifact of culture. It's to be viewed the way an archaeaologist might look at a 5000 year old arrowhead. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jun 12, 2022 9:37:52 GMT
I think what Warhol is showing is how art isn't necessarily about subjects but objects as well. The Campbell's soup can is an icon without being art. The packaging was originally designed to catch eyeballs. It hasn't changed in over 100 years. Warhol silk screened 32 cans for each kind of soup available at the time to be hung like cans would look in a store, so there is more to the work than just the single paintings. And he was primarily using the soup can as an artifact of culture. It's to be viewed the way an archaeaologist might look at a 5000 year old arrowhead. Bored? |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Jun 12, 2022 11:43:36 GMT
I think what Warhol is showing is how art isn't necessarily about subjects but objects as well. The Campbell's soup can is an icon without being art. The packaging was originally designed to catch eyeballs. It hasn't changed in over 100 years. Warhol silk screened 32 cans for each kind of soup available at the time to be hung like cans would look in a store, so there is more to the work than just the single paintings. And he was primarily using the soup can as an artifact of culture. It's to be viewed the way an archaeaologist might look at a 5000 year old arrowhead. Beats his silver pillows at least. Only good thing to come out of the "Factory" Was the VU. Once made the mistake of reading the whole of the "Diaries", That's some time I'll never get back, God what a name dropper. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Jun 12, 2022 15:22:39 GMT
And he was primarily using the soup can as an artifact of culture. It's to be viewed the way an archaeaologist might look at a 5000 year old arrowhead. Bored? You think an archaeologist is bored when he finds a 5000 year old arrowhead?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Jun 12, 2022 15:27:50 GMT
And he was primarily using the soup can as an artifact of culture. It's to be viewed the way an archaeaologist might look at a 5000 year old arrowhead. Beats his silver pillows at least. Only good thing to come out of the "Factory" Was the VU. Once made the mistake of reading the whole of the "Diaries", That's some time I'll never get back, God what a name dropper. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Jun 12, 2022 15:56:31 GMT
You think an archaeologist is bored when he finds a 5000 year old arrowhead?
I'm sure they rub their special area with delight - I know I do when I find a fashioned lump of rock. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Jun 12, 2022 16:58:55 GMT
And he was primarily using the soup can as an artifact of culture. It's to be viewed the way an archaeaologist might look at a 5000 year old arrowhead. Beats his silver pillows at least. Only good thing to come out of the "Factory" Was the VU. Once made the mistake of reading the whole of the "Diaries", That's some time I'll never get back, God what a name dropper. And I agree with you that The Factory was a bunch of pretentious narcissistic bullshit. Sort of like an artsy fartsy 1960's Kardashians.
However, since Western culture has been swallowed by Pop, Warhol's genius was to recognize that and exploit it.
Also, Velvet Underground was an important band. And I've tried and tried. But I cannot enjoy their music. I've never found a song by them I enjoy. Vapidity as art. Lou Reed has a song named "Ennui" and it is.
|
|
