Why is Andy Warhol so popular?

**Kanizsa** · 07-12-2010, 03:49 PM

Why? Is it because he captured a generation through his art? Why?

**blueback** · 07-12-2010, 05:09 PM

I think it's a lot like the Mona Lisa. I'm really not sure why everyone thinks it's great, but I know that everyone does, so I'm inclined to assume I'm missing something.

Art and artists are "popular" only with a select group of people, kind of like how atheletes are popular only with a select group of people. There are art fans just like there are sports fans. Those who don't really care just keep track of the half dozen who are on top.

As for why Warhol is popular with art fans...I always figured it was because he managed to become famous for being famous. Kind of like Paris Hilton. Or Keanu Reeves. Some people just don't have much of a personality, but they manage to come off as fascinating instead of boring. It's like one of those kaladescope tubes. It's nothing but an empty hole with a few mirrors that reflect whatever's put in front of them, but people love the reflections. I think it's because the mirrors are turned on each other instead of being turned on the observer. So, instead of seeing themselves and getting uncomfortable they see a pretty light show and get mesmerized. Most people show us who they are, some people show us who we are, and some people just show us pretty lights.

Warhol was the latter.

**Kanizsa** · 07-12-2010, 07:35 PM

I don't know if I agree with your reasoning or even understand what you mean exactly. Famous for being famous? Paris Hilton was born into fame... Warhol wasn't, he had to claw his way there, same with Keanu.

Your analysis isn't sound, there are famous people who are really private people. The famous person can have a charming personality, just because they don't act ridiculous in the media doesn't mean they are boring people, just private people. Besides before the Bauhaus most artists were "pretty boring" people on the outside.

Maybe Andy is popular because his concept of transforming artistic process of making worts of art to something that is mechanical is akin to the way the Renaissance Artists, the Baroque Artists, Romantic Artists, Futurist Artists, and etc. All reinterpreted their society and what it meant to make works for the citizen's new ideas.

Maybe this is what your missing, about what makes a "Mona Lisa" so special... maybe its more about being on the front edge of the new concept artistic expression and sticking with it enough so that people can become enlightened and pursue new means of thought using the new art for the new society as a basis.

**Monte314** · 07-12-2010, 07:44 PM

He's famous because he's a freak's freak. He satisfied the demands of his (now past) age.

**phoboser** · 07-12-2010, 08:04 PM

I'm inclined to believe that his popularity had nothing to do with having extraordinary talent, but that it was merely another artifact of the fortuitous alignment of cultural forces that arbitrarily propels a person towards noteworthiness in the trend-sensitive consciousness of pretentious idiots.

I like art for the talent of the artist and the feeling it evokes in me. Artists that have extraordinary talent and who can evoke certain feelings in me are artists whose fame I understand and celebrate.

Pop art and abstract art do nothing for me, and I can't appreciate the talent of the artist through these types of works. I'm convinced that people hang these types of art in their homes not because they particularly like them but because they are so abstruse. If the level of talent isn't inferable and if the reasons for why certain feelings are evoked aren't discernable then their artistic tastes are immune from critique, their pretentions are too elusive for ridicule.

**Synamon** · 07-12-2010, 08:40 PM

Here is a great
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
about Andy Warhol.

Depending on your point of view, Andy Warhol is the greatest American artist of the second half of the 20th century or a corrupter of art who destroyed painting and took us down the slippery slope of postmodernism. He is either a cultural transformer or a purveyor of campy kitsch. Descriptions of his personality range from “legendary sweetness” to “cold as a meat locker,” naïf peasant to cynical sophisticate, fine artist to con artist. In the first part of his career he was an iconoclast, in the second, the artist as businessman.

He was all of those extremes, something for everyone really, so he had mass appeal.

**zibber** · 07-12-2010, 10:40 PM

Because of your frustration.

**Seducer** · 07-13-2010, 05:48 PM

He's popular because the art he made was very pop culture and simplistic. There's an infinite number of things that are popular now for the same reason. For one thing, he exploited well-known products and celebrities. He used bright colors. Also he was greedy and I think this led him to do things that would be popular so he'd make more money.

**Liquid** · 07-13-2010, 07:04 PM

He was popular because his work was so accessible. Far too many artists these days use complex ideologies as a substitute for artistic integrity and substance. Warhol was very real, and very upfront about his work - don't read into it, there isn't anything there. It's a product for you to consume.

Even if he stated there was no message, what his work represents is capitalism and consumerism, the basis for western civilization.

**Amphorian** · 07-13-2010, 07:12 PM

Warhol wanted to show that there is more to art then just famous paintings. That even the most simple of things can be art (like the Campbell soup cans). Such a perspective changed the way the art community looks at art itself. It opened up a world of new and exciting possibilities.

**nowt** · 07-13-2010, 10:27 PM

He artified commercialization; he personalized and codified the ubiquitous and impersonal; he used technology as technique; he was unafraid to limit himself to what had already been achieved--

He made grand butterflies, of a sort that were not there, just before.

**BlackOp** · 07-13-2010, 10:39 PM

What Warhol was painting is what we are living today. I think he is a killer...A+. He will be famous for more than 15 minutes...call it a "hunch". The soup cans were just as disposable as the next youtube sensation... a tiny bit more satirical though.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**MIKEEEEE** · 07-14-2010, 05:17 AM

the culture of the NYC art community feeds on itself. something like chicken little. if one peeps, they all must peep to be included in the group and everybody in NYC wants to be in the 'in group' really bad.

remember that a lot of contemporary women's fashion in america is designed by NYC gay men who travel around in the same circles that warhol did.

**blueback** · 07-14-2010, 05:02 PM

	Originally Posted by MIKEEEEE To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	remember that a lot of contemporary women's fashion in america is designed by NYC gay men who travel around in the same circles that warhol did.

I've always enjoyed the irony that professional fashion designers produce outfits for women designed to create an effect on other women.

This seems to fly in the face of the fact that women attract men with their appearance, so you'd think women would pay more for outfits that appeal to men, rather than women.

Maybe that's something like what Warhol did? Maybe his work was interesting because he basically got art experts to go gaga over a mundane painting of a soup can; kind of like getting fashion designers to go gaga over a white tank top and jean shorts.

**Kanizsa** · 07-14-2010, 10:24 PM

Sigh... introducing fashion into this conversation is an interesting development. I know Warhol worked with de Castelbajac (who is still pretty active and years ahead of the time) and he kept a pretty minimalist look going (but I am sure he was inundated with free clothes and the likes).

Fashion designers do not go gaga over a white tank top and jean shorts. Maybe if the white tank is designed in a very efficient cost effective way, or a way which reduces emissions in the total process of construction. Also the fabric used in the construction of garments vary alot... think of it like going into a wine store... you haveyour 8.99 then your Moet and etc... So I wouldn't merely reduce something to going "gaga" over white tank and jean shorts, we all fetishize certain objects to an extent at which an outsider will try to sour our fetish, but simply they can't attain the pleasure one gets from the object of fetishization. Its kind of Balzac in a way... Unknown Masterpiece.

And gay fashion designers designing clothes for women has nothing to do with this conversation. There are great women designers too. Creativity and design is not bounded by sex. Who buys the product is becoming more and more irrelevant.

I think I've figured it out... hehe

**Just So** · 07-15-2010, 11:58 AM

Does anyone know if Andy Warhol really did have an IQ of 86 ?

**Distance** · 07-15-2010, 12:19 PM

Andy Warhol was relevant commercialization.

**nowt** · 07-15-2010, 12:36 PM

	Originally Posted by Just So To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does anyone know if Andy Warhol really did have an IQ of 86 ?

Auty Andy.

**tranced** · 07-15-2010, 05:44 PM

In a general sense, if women are trying to attract men with their appearance, wouldn't they wear as a little as possible? There's a refined aesthetic appeal to designer clothing, which people wear to signify more than just availability or to incite attraction. Consider that women want outfits that appeal to their image -- and there is a great deal of range in the subject of "women's image", they are terribly complex.

The sluts are the ones who wear "juicy" printed on their asses, and you don't see women wearing thongs and such on the street. The bare minimum of male attracting clothing can be had for cheap, but not everyone wears that stuff. I think I've made my point.

Originally Posted by blueback
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've always enjoyed the irony that professional fashion designers produce outfits for women designed to create an effect on other women.

This seems to fly in the face of the fact that women attract men with their appearance, so you'd think women would pay more for outfits that appeal to men, rather than women.

Maybe that's something like what Warhol did? Maybe his work was interesting because he basically got art experts to go gaga over a mundane painting of a soup can; kind of like getting fashion designers to go gaga over a white tank top and jean shorts.

**BlackOp** · 07-19-2010, 09:29 AM

	Originally Posted by Just So To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Does anyone know if Andy Warhol really did have an IQ of 86 ?

I own a excellent documentary on AW...I can assure you, he is deliberate. The people who discredit his work are missing the point....looking for something that isnt there. Maybe the biting satire is lost due to when and where in culture his work was produced. He was a very technical illustrator early in his life.

People who dig Escher and Dali will never get Warhol....skill-set prowess is linear mode. Influential modern works generally dont ascribe to this...technique for the sake of technique, so to speak.

**Amphorian** · 07-19-2010, 03:47 PM

	Originally Posted by BlackOp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People who dig Escher and Dali will never get Warhol....skill-set prowess is linear mode. Influential modern works generally dont ascribe to this...technique for the sake of technique, so to speak.

What are you talking about? I appreciate all three of the artists you mentioned.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Imagineering** · 07-20-2010, 06:09 AM

Andy is just awesome. That's why. Did you see Basquiat? And he pissed on some of his paintings. He wasn't afraid to be who he was. He talked with a sort of lisp. He was spaced out of his head and he had this awesome place called the factory where everyone could do art with their drug of choice.

**Onigumo13** · 07-21-2010, 04:46 AM

The geek of art Andy !!!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**Autumnleaf** · 07-21-2010, 05:02 AM

Warhol was funded and promoted by the CIA as part of the drug culture of the 60's. He's like those people Disney has been pushing on the public, ie why was Britney Spears popular? Was it her unique art?

**BlackOp** · 07-23-2010, 08:05 PM

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Warhol was funded and promoted by the CIA as part of the drug culture of the 60's. He's like those people Disney has been pushing on the public, ie why was Britney Spears popular? Was it her unique art?

Yeah...THAT'S it. Warhol was a BlackOp.....
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode with the Stonecutters. (Free Mason satire). "Oooh E Oh...E Oh.. Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star...We do".

07-12-2010, 03:49 PM	#1
Kanizsa Member [06%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 262	Why? Is it because he captured a generation through his art? Why?
Kanizsa is offline post a comment

07-12-2010, 05:09 PM	#2
blueback Core Member [152%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,117	I think it's a lot like the Mona Lisa. I'm really not sure why everyone thinks it's great, but I know that everyone does, so I'm inclined to assume I'm missing something. Art and artists are "popular" only with a select group of people, kind of like how atheletes are popular only with a select group of people. There are art fans just like there are sports fans. Those who don't really care just keep track of the half dozen who are on top. As for why Warhol is popular with art fans...I always figured it was because he managed to become famous for being famous. Kind of like Paris Hilton. Or Keanu Reeves. Some people just don't have much of a personality, but they manage to come off as fascinating instead of boring. It's like one of those kaladescope tubes. It's nothing but an empty hole with a few mirrors that reflect whatever's put in front of them, but people love the reflections. I think it's because the mirrors are turned on each other instead of being turned on the observer. So, instead of seeing themselves and getting uncomfortable they see a pretty light show and get mesmerized. Most people show us who they are, some people show us who we are, and some people just show us pretty lights. Warhol was the latter.
blueback is offline post a comment

07-12-2010, 07:35 PM	#3
Kanizsa Member [06%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 262	I don't know if I agree with your reasoning or even understand what you mean exactly. Famous for being famous? Paris Hilton was born into fame... Warhol wasn't, he had to claw his way there, same with Keanu. Your analysis isn't sound, there are famous people who are really private people. The famous person can have a charming personality, just because they don't act ridiculous in the media doesn't mean they are boring people, just private people. Besides before the Bauhaus most artists were "pretty boring" people on the outside. Maybe Andy is popular because his concept of transforming artistic process of making worts of art to something that is mechanical is akin to the way the Renaissance Artists, the Baroque Artists, Romantic Artists, Futurist Artists, and etc. All reinterpreted their society and what it meant to make works for the citizen's new ideas. Maybe this is what your missing, about what makes a "Mona Lisa" so special... maybe its more about being on the front edge of the new concept artistic expression and sticking with it enough so that people can become enlightened and pursue new means of thought using the new art for the new society as a basis.
Kanizsa is offline post a comment

07-12-2010, 07:44 PM	#4
Monte314 Core Member [407%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 16,286	He's famous because he's a freak's freak. He satisfied the demands of his (now past) age.
Monte314 is offline post a comment

07-12-2010, 08:04 PM	#5
phoboser Veteran Member [60%] MBTI: ISTJ Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 2,434	I'm inclined to believe that his popularity had nothing to do with having extraordinary talent, but that it was merely another artifact of the fortuitous alignment of cultural forces that arbitrarily propels a person towards noteworthiness in the trend-sensitive consciousness of pretentious idiots. I like art for the talent of the artist and the feeling it evokes in me. Artists that have extraordinary talent and who can evoke certain feelings in me are artists whose fame I understand and celebrate. Pop art and abstract art do nothing for me, and I can't appreciate the talent of the artist through these types of works. I'm convinced that people hang these types of art in their homes not because they particularly like them but because they are so abstruse. If the level of talent isn't inferable and if the reasons for why certain feelings are evoked aren't discernable then their artistic tastes are immune from critique, their pretentions are too elusive for ridicule.
phoboser is offline post a comment

07-12-2010, 10:40 PM	#7
zibber Core Member [407%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,285	Because of your frustration.
zibber is offline post a comment

07-13-2010, 05:48 PM	#8
Seducer Banned MBTI: xxxx Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 768	He's popular because the art he made was very pop culture and simplistic. There's an infinite number of things that are popular now for the same reason. For one thing, he exploited well-known products and celebrities. He used bright colors. Also he was greedy and I think this led him to do things that would be popular so he'd make more money.
Seducer is offline post a comment

07-13-2010, 07:04 PM	#9
Liquid Member [04%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 193	He was popular because his work was so accessible. Far too many artists these days use complex ideologies as a substitute for artistic integrity and substance. Warhol was very real, and very upfront about his work - don't read into it, there isn't anything there. It's a product for you to consume. Even if he stated there was no message, what his work represents is capitalism and consumerism, the basis for western civilization.
Liquid is offline post a comment

07-13-2010, 07:12 PM	#10
Amphorian Core Member [311%] MBTI: ISTP Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 12,457	Warhol wanted to show that there is more to art then just famous paintings. That even the most simple of things can be art (like the Campbell soup cans). Such a perspective changed the way the art community looks at art itself. It opened up a world of new and exciting possibilities.
Amphorian is offline post a comment

07-13-2010, 10:27 PM	#11
nowt Suspended MBTI: iNtj Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 9,345	He artified commercialization; he personalized and codified the ubiquitous and impersonal; he used technology as technique; he was unafraid to limit himself to what had already been achieved-- He made grand butterflies, of a sort that were not there, just before.
nowt is offline post a comment

07-13-2010, 10:39 PM	#12
BlackOp Veteran Member [78%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 3,154	What Warhol was painting is what we are living today. I think he is a killer...A+. He will be famous for more than 15 minutes...call it a "hunch". The soup cans were just as disposable as the next youtube sensation... a tiny bit more satirical though. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
BlackOp is offline post a comment

07-14-2010, 05:17 AM	#13
MIKEEEEE New Member [01%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 16	the culture of the NYC art community feeds on itself. something like chicken little. if one peeps, they all must peep to be included in the group and everybody in NYC wants to be in the 'in group' really bad. remember that a lot of contemporary women's fashion in america is designed by NYC gay men who travel around in the same circles that warhol did.
MIKEEEEE is offline post a comment

07-14-2010, 10:24 PM	#15
Kanizsa Member [06%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 262	Sigh... introducing fashion into this conversation is an interesting development. I know Warhol worked with de Castelbajac (who is still pretty active and years ahead of the time) and he kept a pretty minimalist look going (but I am sure he was inundated with free clothes and the likes). Fashion designers do not go gaga over a white tank top and jean shorts. Maybe if the white tank is designed in a very efficient cost effective way, or a way which reduces emissions in the total process of construction. Also the fabric used in the construction of garments vary alot... think of it like going into a wine store... you haveyour 8.99 then your Moet and etc... So I wouldn't merely reduce something to going "gaga" over white tank and jean shorts, we all fetishize certain objects to an extent at which an outsider will try to sour our fetish, but simply they can't attain the pleasure one gets from the object of fetishization. Its kind of Balzac in a way... Unknown Masterpiece. And gay fashion designers designing clothes for women has nothing to do with this conversation. There are great women designers too. Creativity and design is not bounded by sex. Who buys the product is becoming more and more irrelevant. I think I've figured it out... hehe
Kanizsa is offline post a comment

07-15-2010, 11:58 AM	#16
Just So Member [03%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 128	Does anyone know if Andy Warhol really did have an IQ of 86 ?
Just So is offline post a comment

07-15-2010, 12:19 PM	#17
Distance Core Member [410%] MBTI: eNTj Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 16,409	Andy Warhol was relevant commercialization.
Distance is offline post a comment

07-20-2010, 06:09 AM	#22
Imagineering Member [46%] MBTI: xxxx Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,845	Andy is just awesome. That's why. Did you see Basquiat? And he pissed on some of his paintings. He wasn't afraid to be who he was. He talked with a sort of lisp. He was spaced out of his head and he had this awesome place called the factory where everyone could do art with their drug of choice.
Imagineering is offline post a comment

07-21-2010, 04:46 AM	#23
Onigumo13 Core Member [108%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,326	The geek of art Andy !!! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Onigumo13 is offline post a comment

07-21-2010, 05:02 AM	#24
Autumnleaf Core Member [226%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 9,078	Warhol was funded and promoted by the CIA as part of the drug culture of the 60's. He's like those people Disney has been pushing on the public, ie why was Britney Spears popular? Was it her unique art?
Autumnleaf is offline post a comment