Andy Warhol..super creep

Alan A Hillier · Post by **Alan A Hillier** » 25 Jan 2006, 02:01

Watching the Andy Warhol Prog on BBC 1 earlier on tonight reminded me that in my humble opinion most modern art is 'still' Total fucking bollocks and reactionary bullshit............

To his credit it seems that Andy Warhol couldn't give a flying fuck about what people really thought about his work because..... he just did it.............

It seems that Warhol was deemed a reactionary in a genuine sense because he simply wanted a reaction of any kind from the people around him...positive or negative.it didn't really matter..

The one thing that was perfectly obvious and was well demonstrated in this programme was the fact that Warhol knew exactly how everyone else would react to his work and he also knew that he was in complete control of his behavior and how his reaction to his own work influenced the behavior of everyone in his vicinity....he fucking controlled all of it.

The reaction of his flunkies stimulated the press and the media and created everything that Warhol was to become. I think he was a brilliant fraud in an almost perfect way but he instilled in his supporters enough beguilement to allow them the luxury to examine the object of their facinaction and try to evaluate his input into the art world for the rest of their lives.
.................fucking .......suckers

Al

Mitch K · Post by **Mitch K** » 25 Jan 2006, 09:35

Emperors New Clothes if you ask me

Mitch "Why dont you paint a nice bowl of fruit Andrew?" K.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 25 Jan 2006, 12:18

Alan A Hillier wrote:Watching the Andy Warhol Prog on BBC 1 earlier on tonight reminded me that in my humble opinion most modern art is 'still' Total fucking bollocks and reactionary bullshit............

To his credit it seems that Andy Warhol couldn't give a flying fuck about what people really thought about his work because..... he just did it.............

It seems that Warhol was deemed a reactionary in a genuine sense because he simply wanted a reaction of any kind from the people around him...positive or negative.it didn't really matter..

The one thing that was perfectly obvious and was well demonstrated in this programme was the fact that Warhol knew exactly how everyone else would react to his work and he also knew that he was in complete control of his behavior and how his reaction to his own work influenced the behavior of everyone in his vicinity....he fucking controlled all of it.

The reaction of his flunkies stimulated the press and the media and created everything that Warhol was to become. I think he was a brilliant fraud in an almost perfect way but he instilled in his supporters enough beguilement to allow them the luxury to examine the object of their facinaction and try to evaluate his input into the art world for the rest of their lives.
.................fucking .......suckers

Al

Oh you are soooooo right. I agree with everything you said!!

Post by **PaulinLondon** » 25 Jan 2006, 13:39

Very nicely put Al.

If I want to see art, I go to my children's local school in Finchley on a parents' evening and see displayed on the walls what the kids are up to. THAT, is what I call, "Expressionism".

Post by **marcoshark** » 25 Jan 2006, 14:24

His Nephew James IS a talented illustrator and childrens book illustrator and a good pal of mine. (Google if you may!)

When James had his home in Long Island City, NY. He had the most amazing studio. James used his pals as models for a lot of book covers. (fyi, anyone interested, thats ME on the cover of Starship Troopers") What sticks out most from memory was that tucked in a corner was a silk screened self portrait of "Uncle Andy". It was a small canvas, and it was probably Andy's first experiment with silk screened art. This was Andy from the VU era mind you.

http://www.jameswarhola.com/

Post by **theraven1979** » 25 Jan 2006, 14:29

Didn`t actually see this programme - I have it sat in me Sky+ might give it a spin tonight.

Al, effectivetly what you are saying is the age old question "WHAT IS ART?". Now modern art I used to like - yeah some of it wasn`t bad at all. Of course Warhol was more of the pop genre really. Modern art tends to be 80s,90s,00s IMO.

Look at last year's Turner Prize winner - I used to love watching that programme every year but the last 5 years they`ve really taken the piss. I mean who cares if it`s a fuckin shed, then a boat then a shed again !!?!! So fucking what it looks like a shitehouse!!!

To me modern art is OK but it shouldn`t come with a fuckin explanation or a IKEA diagram telling you what it all represents. You should be able to view art and see it for what it is without someone stood their telling you it`s the scraping's from Trotsky's sofa or whatever.

Some of Warhol's work was amazing. But then again if I throw shit at a wall 24/7 even I`ll come up with something now and again

Jim

The Real One! · Post by **The Real One!** » 25 Jan 2006, 16:01

But you're all assuming that 'art' is something that can be classified, ticked off and carefully labeled as something familiar.

The 'art' in the Turner prize 'Shed/Boat/Shed' was the very ACT of converting it into Shed/Boat/Shed. Not in your perception or viewing of it.

But then it's all in the ey of the beholder as they say.

Post by **theraven1979** » 25 Jan 2006, 16:15

No I agree with you that`s why I ask the question "What is art?"

Jim

The Real One! wrote:But you're all assuming that 'art' is something that can be classified, ticked off and carefully labeled as something familiar.

The 'art' in the Turner prize 'Shed/Boat/Shed' was the very ACT of converting it into Shed/Boat/Shed. Not in your perception or viewing of it.

But then it's all in the ey of the beholder as they say.

Post by **Alias** » 25 Jan 2006, 16:18

My all time favourite 1 panel cartoon (glanced at briefly in a jazz mag in the '80s but it's stayed with me ever since) has always summed up exactly what modern art and its critique is to me.

In the panel there's two figures, one an art critic and the other, in beret with easel, is the artist. They're standing in front of a huge white canvas covered in black squiggles, like a kids etch-a-sketch drawing. The critic is saying, "Ah, I see you were trying to convey the pent up frustration inherent in modern day society."
To which the artist replys, "Actually no, I was trying to draw a fanny!"

Post by **Toiler On The Sea** » 25 Jan 2006, 16:29

I was given a lambasting by a security guard in Madrid a few years back, after having accidentally kicked over, what can only be described as a 'Bucket of Welding Rods' at the Modern Art Museum.
Turned out to be an 'Installation'.

My Welder chums in the Fab-Shop produce these every day, then throw them in the skip???? Madness I tell you.

I can take art or leave it. Beauty definately is in the eye of the beholder.

The Real One! · Post by **The Real One!** » 25 Jan 2006, 16:40

Well I love most art. I like a lot of modern stuff and classical and rennaissance and oh just about everything.
I have a bit of a problem with Yves Klein - he was the bloke who would create art publicly, by covering naked (buxom) girls in paint and letting them roll over a large canvas - as I think he was a bit of a perv.

But half the time it's the incongruity of the setting that makes it 'art' or adds another layer.

Think about the concrete house that Rachel Whiteread did a few years ago - utterly brilliant!
Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Post by **Alias** » 25 Jan 2006, 16:42

marcoshark wrote:(fyi, anyone interested, thats ME on the cover of Starship Troopers") http://www.jameswarhola.com/

Huh?

Burning Up Time - The Stranglers and Hugh Cornwell Unofficial Forums

Andy Warhol..super creep

Andy Warhol..super creep

Re: Andy Warhol..super creep

actually...(slight off topic)

Re: actually...(slight off topic)