File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Need high res version of this but with the banana peel sticker peeled off. /r/ failed me, plz help.
>> Anonymous
wut
>> Anonymous
Fuck Warhol. He was a grade a scumbag.
>> Anonymous
>>209806
idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>209818
Warhol is overrated. Also, maybe you should actually learn about some of the stuff that went on in his studios.

You kids these days...
>> Anonymous
sage
>> Anonymous
He's one of the most formally relevant artists of the 20th century. His character is largely irrelevant to how important he is in the history of art. You're an idiot for thinking you're smarter than artfags without understanding why they like him.
>> Anonymous
>>209823
who says i don't what went on in his studios?
who says i'm a kid?
jumping to assumed conclusions to make yourself look better is pathetic.

his artwork is definitely not overrated
and his drawings certainly aren't.
with all those pop artist trying to break away from abstract expressionism, warhol came up low and rode out high.
he changed art in many ways, some bad, some good.
but overrated he isn't.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>209818
Well, fuck you, little lady. Andy Warhol was a complete piece of fucking trash.

A little education?

"One day Andy was in the Village and wanted to go by Number 5 Cornelia Street, where Johnny Dodd, the lighting designer, lived (he was also dealing drugs, mainly marijuana, angel dust), that happened to be the spot where Freddy Herko had done this ballet leap out the window and killed himself- about which Andy famously said, 'Gee, why didn't he tell us? We could've filmed it.' Right after that had happened I'd walked by there. They were cleaning up what looked like blood and pieces of brain or whatever, and I just kept on waking and I thought, whatever state I was in the time, that must be somebody I know. We get there and Andy looks up at the window and I point to the exact spot and that's when he made this remark to me. 'I wonder when Edie will commit suicide,' he said. "I hope she let's us know so we can film it.'"

-Robert Heide

Also, "He was a really cold fish."
So, what have we learned here?
1) Doing your homework in invaluble.
2) Andy was a real cunt of a human.
3) You don't like to hear about it because you are also a glamour fag.
>> Anonymous
>>209907
i don't give a SHIT about that.
i'm talking about his ART
i hardly like his films.
and there are countless examples of artists who were shitty people.
but who they are and the art they produce are two different things.

and most importantly, why should i believe Robert Heide?
why should i go, "oh! Robert Heide said so so it MUST be true."
c'mon.

this is getting old.
that's all i have to say.
overrated. i can understand that.
i'll take that. but his ART is worth something.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
over 100 million, to be exact.
>> Anonymous
>>209914i hardly like his films.

And we do realize that he made this as shitty as humanly possible on purpose? And you "hardly like" them?

I think that explains a lot about your appreciation for his work. Like, I dig some of the concepts, and more than appreciate how he single handedly changed the public at large's concept of what art is, and totally brought back the timeless, philosophical disinterested observation technique. Yeah, his existance did a lot.

His art, though- extremely overrated. And when you factor that in with the fact that he was a genuine scum bag, sure.

Oh, and Robert Heide isn't the only one. Again, DOING YOUR HOMEWORK IS INVALUBLE. Countless people that were his closest friends and assosiates have gone on the record talking about what a douche he is.

Also, I don't watch Roman Polanski films. I hold my artists to standards, unlike you.
>> Anonymous
best thread I've seen in a long time, keep up the discussion, guys
>> Anonymous
>>209932
man oh man.
i don't even know why i'm sticking up for the man.
the dude's not even anywhere near my favorite artists.
i personally enjoy his artwork (unlike you)
and i could give two shits about how much of a douche he was (unlike you)
that basically wraps it up.
>> Anonymous
>>209932
Art is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Just because you think it's a piece of shit or overrated doesn't mean a fucking thing. It's your opinion. Think you're superior all you want but it isn't going to change the billions of peoples' minds who think his shit is great.


Also, to piss you off even more, I was watching the antiques roadshow on TV earlier and someone had a napkin that Worhol had scibbled a couple of butterflies on (my 12 year old sister could honestly do better) was estimated to sell for $30,500-$40,000. And it was literally composed of like 5 lines.
>> Anonymous
>>209907
So he was one of the first /b/tards
>> Anonymous
>>209932
>WAH WAH WAH I'm superior because warhol was a douche and the artists I like are better and I do my homework and anyone who disagrees with my tastes are little kids

You sound like the trolls in /v/. >You don't share my tastes therefore you are a little kid and the games I play are much better than your overrated generic kiddie games
>> Anonymous
>>209942
No, more like W. T. Snacks before he was born.
>> Anonymous
>>209941

Why would any of that affect me? I know his shit gets sold for lots, and that's super awesome and all, but truth is truth. Art is art, artist is artist, and epic waste of a soul is very, very epic.

>>209944
Do you have an inferiority complex? Well, don't worry- There's hope!
<------- /d/ is to the left
>> Anonymous
>>209941
nice to know you're on my side.
but i think his early drawings (most of the ones he did for all those mags he worked for) are simply yet uniquely executed.
the way Schiele had his own way of drawing, so did Warhol.
and all of his 1950's drawings show that.

as far as simplicity selling, that's been pretty what the whole art market has been like since forever.
the only thing is people are too quick to judge what is simplistic, when it is, at most times, deceiving.
it's easy for anyone who is remotely artistic to tell the difference.
>> Anonymous
MOAR ART THREADS!!
>> Anonymous
>>209950
No joke, like the stuff Piet Mondrian did. Looks like a 4 year old could paint little cubes like that.

Also Jackson Pollock (more complex, but most people think making something similar would be easy to do); "anyone can throw paint on a canvas"~

(sorry for the low res)
>> Anonymous
>>209950
I will agree with you about his drawings. Asthetics and purpose were met in those. As far as the recognition between art and "not" art- I couldn't disagree more. All art, in it's most basic form, is about 2 things: The purpose or message it exists for, and the artist. To say that you can call one piece of abstract a masterpiece and another NOT art is hypocritical by nature. You see paint splattered, but I see an angry, bulemic 15 year old girl's revolt.

Despite the very absured metaphor, I simply cannot condone that view when the masterpieces of the world go unlooked, and yet people in this thread are trying to express that Andy Warhol was anything more than a cultural turning stone.
>> Anonymous
>>209967
you must have misunderstood me.
when you say, "To say that you can call one piece of abstract a masterpiece and another NOT art is hypocritical by nature", i never meant that.
if someone paints an abstract piece, you CAN call it art. but as far as degrading masterpieces (Pollock, Mondrian) simply because they are or seem duplicable is not a good way to look at art.
in fact, i think it's wrong and unfair.


in other words, these artists aren't known for no good reason.
it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a Pollock and a painting in the style of Pollock.
it may seem like an easy thing to do, and many people could and do pull it off, some rather convincingly.
but Pollock was an Artist, not merely a "paint dripper"
his early works and even his later B&W works show that.
same thing goes for Mondrian.

but i could understand why people like the anti-Andy dude and others think his and others art is overrated.
maybe they appreciate Tintoretto or Renoir or Leonardo or Richard Estes etc more.
but i find it easy to love abstract work and/or seemingly "easy" pieces because, most importantly, i love the way they look.
after all, thats what it's all about.
>> Anonymous
>>209947
I don't figure that you're a /b/tard then, huh?
>> Anonymous
>>209975
PLOT TWIST: I am the Anti-Andy Warhol guy. Thank you, though, for expressing that you can understand where I come from in my disdain. And of the artists you mentioned, I like Renoit and Estes.

Also, cocks.
>> Anonymous
>>209980
Never been there, actually.
>> Anonymous
All art is over rated.


/thread
>> Anonymous
Well, that was interesting!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>210003
<-----
>> Anonymous
>>209932
And we do realize that he made this as shitty as humanly possible on purpose? And you "hardly like" them?

Wow. You seriously must know nothing about art and cinema history in the 20th century. Andy Warhol is so insignifant on the grand artistic spectrum of humanity. He is a simple graphic artist. When making his films, he knew exactly what he was doing, every filmmaker does. You make decisions, albeit for a documentary or a fiction film. From the simple building blocks of cinematography and editing, the filmmakers make decisions of what content to shoot and how to arrange it for their desired effect. This is also why documentary films are less objective that people perceive, for they are quite subjective. Films such as "Haircut," "Sleep," and especially "Empire," aren't for everyone. While he was successful in getting his desired result, he was not in showing these banal slices of life in an interesting way. How many people do you know who could sit through 8 hours of a static shot on the Empire State building? He created art, yes; but I do not imbide. And by absolutely no means did he singley handely change the public's concept of what art is. There was art before Andy Warhol. He did nothing that already hadn't been done before in cinema. People made films like his in the 20s and they will continue to make them until cinema is gone. As far as his graphic arts go, he was simply in the right place at the right time (New York, the broadcast and print media capital of the world) and in a wide variety of social circles. He was a celebrity riding the so-called sexual revolution of the 60, and people didn't mind printing his work. Thats all he was. And people can't say he wasn't an artist, or we wouldn't be talking about him.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>210022

fag, Warhol works are pure shit, thanks to him now everything is art, EVERYTHING, i rly do miss the old days when Mucha was god
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>210025

I'm not a fag. Did you even read what I wrote? I really don't appreciate the negative influence that he has had on the art world we live in. He just isn't as revolutionary as everyone thinks he is. Those people live quite sheltered lives.
>> Anonymous
>>210027
For future reference, write a tl;dr at the end...
>> Anonymous
retards!
>> Anonymous
FUCK ALL OF YOU IDIOTS


YOU DON'T MAKE FRIENDS ON 4CHAN, YOU DON'T MAKE ENEMIES ON 4CHAN.

STOP TAKING SHIT PERSONALLY, STOP DEFENDING YOURSELVES, STOP MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS YOU STUPID FAGGOTS.
I blame AOTS.
>> Anonymous
>>210025
wtf are you talking about, Warhol AND Mucha are both good artists. Man, artfags like you are why more people don't appreciate art, you take any interest that isn't exactly like yours as hostile and thus push away people who might have an interest otherwise.

I BLAME YOUR KIND FOR THE DELCINE IN THE APPRECIATION AND VIEWING OF ARTWORK BY THE MASSES.
>> Anonymous
Andy Warthog
>> Anonymous
I enjoy being fisted by large niggers
>> Anonymous
The Velvet Underground is the greatest band ever.