And I cannot stress this enough: bury their bones in an unmarked ditch.
Those are original Warhol boxes. Two Brillos, a Motts and a Campbells tomato soup. Multiple millions worth of original art, set on the floor by the front door.
Theres a regular customer whom i do plumbing work for, for the last 3 or 4 years. These belong to her. She also has Cherub Riding a Stag, and a couple other Warhols that i cannot identify, along with other originals by other artists that i also cannot identify. I have to go back to her house this coming Monday, i might get photos of the rest of her art, just so i can figure out what it is.
Even though i dont have an artistic bone in my entire body, i can appreciate art. I have negative feelings on private art like this that im too dumb to elucidate on.
eat the fucking rich. they are good for nothing.
Warhol’s always an interesting discussion to have.
He would have a kick about how we’re talking about it sitting in a tacky rich person’s living room, I’m sure. In the end tho it really doesnt matter what he made or why he made it, his work is more about poking fun at the art market. And in a sense that doesnt matter either, cause it’s one rich guy making fun of other rich guys.
There should be an expiration date for praise/credit/excuses for subversiveness from "tormented genius" style fed-funded toxic abusive assholes, especially after the same tired subversion gimmick has been imitated, emulated, and profitably repeated (mostly because of money laundering among the rich) ad nauseam for over half a century as the status quo standard for art authority figures across the western world.
i agree, but the thing is the only person who gets credit is the one who popularized it. No one is praising the Dadaists in the same way because Warhol did it during the consumerist culture of the 60s and 70s. Instead we now get a unique perspective of a beast feeding on itself with how these fed-funded artists ran a gamut of hyper individualistic and very tongue-in-cheek works, and Warhol himself having a hand in killing public interest culturally in fine arts, either by design or accident, it really doesnt matter, as public interest in fine art tanked after the 1980s anyway.
It's more interesting to see him as a point of failure vs a cultural touchstone.
Interesting take and I can't say I disagree with it.