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.
You must log in or register to comment.
Be careful not to accidentally doxx yourself to your employer by posting photos from inside their home and information about yourself. Doubtful this post would ever make it back to them but the internet works in mysterious ways so better safe than sorry
Thank you, I was having trouble focusing on comments until I found yours. I’d probably take this down.
New Hexbear tattoo idea just dropped
There it is
I have entirely read through this thread. My only conclusion is that this form of art is lame and it’s statements are not interesting to me
Thesis: “Wtf this is unpleasant and I don’t like it, this isn’t art.”
Antithesis: “Actually you are unwashed uneducated barbarians who don’t get it and are meat puppets dancing to the master plan of Saint Warhol the Subversive, just as planned. I’m totally not a fan though.”
Synthesis: “Yes, Andy Warhol’s art is art, but it’s also the ongoing basis for aging and stale establishment status quo perpetuation copies and imitations now, just like the feds hoped it would be when they subsidized it all those years ago.”
just here to drop my opinions. this is 100% art, the art on the box of normal brands is art, warhol making these boxes is also art. its bad shallow art thats making the same critique of society that an edgy redditor would make. no one will be happy with this take i think haha but thats what makes art fun!
edit follow up thought. effort and skill does not equal art look a 5 year old in the eye and tell them their finger painting isnt art lol.
It makes me feel the same way I do when I compare the designs on the name brand boxes of cereal to the off brand ones. There’s always a weird implication that poor people deserve bad design.
yes, great point!!
just here to drop my opinions. this is 100% art, the art on the box of normal brands is art, warhol making these boxes is also art. its bad shallow art thats making the same critique of society that an edgy redditor would make. no one will be happy with this take i think haha but thats what makes art fun!
I liked your take.
I never said Andy Warhol’s art wasn’t art. I did say that it’s not just overblown but also stale by now yet for some people it commands such infinite respect that it requires imitation because “punk” is all about repeating the same message of the same fed-funded rich asshole with awe and reverence for all eternity.
thank you! yeah fuck Warhol all my homies hate Warhol.
I was so confused, maybe I’m too peasant brained and didn’t read the post properly, but for some reason I thought paintings were inside the boxes
After my giant argument, thst was the thing I needed to see most.
Warhol’s fed-subsidized works are bleak-yet-pretentious trash that have had a negative impact on the art world ever since and I’m tired of pretending otherwise.
In academia, just saying that out loud is likely to make the tenure-track art teachers lose their shit. So much for “subversion” when Warhol’s old cynical money printers have been the norm for decades.
Post modernism wad funded by feds but that doesn’t make it wrong or bad it just made it a less dangerous outlet for left leaning people during the time. Warhol was a crap person but his art was essential in mainstreaming ideas about art. He was like a Wes Anderson level guy so you get what you get. I’m not like…a fan but also have to admit he’s a huge inspiration to my own artwork through others. Like post modernism in general I’ve got a weird relationship that I’m working on adequately explaining but that’s like, a whole project.
My problem is that even the vestiges of the subversive/rebellious roots of it are the establishment now. They’re the big money in the art world and have been for generations. The tenured professors of art are almost universally on board and in agreement about the seemingly inexhaustible (yet exhausting) novelty of Warhol’s work roughly a half century ago.
I do agree with that but well, it was half a century ago and I can for sure say as a long time diy punk guy the style with being fast and ready with the screnprints and stencils and being easy to adopt by people without traditional artistic skill by doing mixed media of collafes stencils, screenprints etc ofnpre existing images to create a new context is very downline from Warhol and has been pretty big in genuine subversive art
but well, it was half a century ago
Exactly my point. Warhol’s “subversions” are so entrenched and established now that it seems absurd to me that they get to keep wearing the “subversion” tag while also commanding the status quo and the gold standard of what is considered to be art for much of the contemporary establishment.
the style with being fast and ready with the screnprints and stencils and being easy to adopt by people without traditional artistic skill by doing mixed media of collafes stencils, screenprints etc ofnpre existing images to create a new context is very downline from Warhol and has been pretty big in genuine subversive art
From what I read about Warhol as a person, I suspect he’d be downright condescending to you if you showed him your work. The good things he did for you weren’t for those that came after him and were less than accidents; I think he’d have outright contempt for anything like a working class art movement unless he could directly make a buck off of it.
And also he did do art for the Velvet Undeground. Yknow, squatting junkies.
Starbucks provided venues for beat poetry groups, especially early on. Also unsure about whether the Starbucks empire was a net gain there.
More directly to the point, Wal-Mart has had a long tradition of letting people park and sleep in their parking lots. Squatters of a similar feather.
These are both absurd comparisons and you should know it.
I don’t like the guy. Let me be clear there. I like the effect he had. Net gain.
I halfway agree with you but I can’t be sure if it’s a net gain considering the entire point of Warhol getting subsidized by the feds was to culturally derail Soviet-inspired art and cultural movements among college age kids in the west. I don’t know what might have come of that without the reactionary culture jamming; maybe not much at all, but who knows?
I don’t think they needed much help. My pro with post modernism is holy fuck does it describe the current condition but the con and it’s a big one is thst it ignores changing it. Post modern problems require modern solutions so to speak, by which I mean Marxism. So art coming from the imperial core is going to reflect the condition of the imperial core, Soviet realism wasn’t gonna evolve in America in the 60s anyway, I wanna place an honestly held opinion here and don’t wanna get removed for sectarianism so mods, this reflects my suspicions and not necessarily the opinions of GalaxyBrain or theye affiliates but the CIA’s goal in all this culture jamming regarding post modernism and Orwell etc was to push the American left towards anarchism. I can’t expand on thst without getting into trouble which makes this conversation maybe a bit tougher, but I’ll say.that post modernism isn’t wrong, it just really accurately describes this hellscspe and offers nothing Marxism doesn’t while sometimes pretending to be better.
Also Soviet art at the time did kinda suck.
I had no idea how badly I needed to hear that.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
My problem is that even the vestiges of the subversive/rebellious roots of it are the establishment now.
conservatism is the new punk rock imho.
Me being told over and over again how wholesomely working class and glass roots and punk an art movement was while also calling me a tasteless unwashed consumer drone because I don’t endlessly praise the subversive value of a roughly 50 year old picture of a can of soup is definitely me experiencing an unintentional act of performance art in this thread.
Marx, Paine, Christ, the writings are old, older than fifty years. are they not radical, not subversive? what does fifty years mean? Cervantes did metafiction 500 years ago. tragedy is dead, representational art is dead, plato is dead, they’ve been dead as long as any one can remember, and the modern condition extends generations.
if a disposition towards socialism is a disposition to ameliorate unjust hierarchy and order, then a concomitant and helpful social practice would be one which illuminates how the social order, which comes to us ready made and carved at the joints, and speaks to its own essentialism, is actually unset and contingent. (such works or practices might do so, even just locally, by calling into question and blurring the borders of their own existence/categorization.)
but who cares. a work of art cannot simply be reduced to a series of propositions; an essay or dozens of posts do not encompass an ecstatic truth. if one can’t see the playfulness or wryness, if one isn’t touched with reflection or curiosity, in watching a dude get sucked off and watching a chick eat a hamburger, or seeing the mass products of mid century, re-oriented and re-produced in mass, re-commodified, finding an aesthetic form in mass production, reducing art (democratizing art?) as products of a factory, then there is simply something wrong with either warhol or the viewer.
but who cares
Clearly quite a few in this thread do.
Marx, Paine, Christ, the writings are old, older than fifty years. are they not radical, not subversive? what does fifty years mean? Cervantes did metafiction 500 years ago. tragedy is dead, representational art is dead, plato is dead, they’ve been dead as long as any one can remember, and the modern condition extends generations.
Yeah not arguing there, except to ask why the singular absolutist “you are a barbarian if you don’t give continual respect and reverence to Andy Warhol” take that I’ve been replying to?
Crediting all art that followed after Andy Warhol to Andy Warhol with the implication that he had some unique and profound contribution is serious Great Man Theory nonsense, especially because when extrapolated on widely enough, pretty much every person that ever lived contributed something to the present moment whether or not they got rich or famous from it or not. Claims about how all of it would be drastically different without that one rich asshole, that so much art and culture simply would not exist at all in any comparable or similar or even recognizable form even if absolutely nothing else was changed except the absence of Andy Warhol, don’t sound leftist and all and are an unprovable hypothesis in favor of belief in the Great Man’s unique and special presence.
Those boxes are ridiculously overpriced art? I just thought they were some random crap that the people living there hadn’t gotten around to putting away yet.
In this thread: “this is stupid”
“It’s supposed to be stupid, that’s what makes it art”
“But it’s still stupid”
“But that’s why it’s art”
Ad infinitum
post-modern art: “You idiots will literally buy anything. Here’s some trash, a urinal, and a painting of a can of soup.”
the art world: “HAHA FUCKER JOKE’S ON YOU I’LL START THE BIDDING AT $1.2 MILLION!”
As long as it can be used to launder money, it’s art
Any criticism of the art is also art that amuses the all wise and all knowing master artist smugly looking down from art heaven, amused by people that thought he was a piece of shit.
Synthesis: it is art, but it’s also stale and pretentious art that has the pretense of being eternally subversive even after decades of being the status quo in the art world, exhaustively imitated and repeated ever since.
It is funny to me how he got nominally capitalist people to buy and display a picture of Mao in their homes, irregardless of how he embellished or defaced it, which was very likely done with no intention of commentary because getting the buyer to believe their interpretation is your intention is important to making it more expensive.
finally some tasty fucking slop
Removed by mod
I mean I enjoyed I Shot Andy Warhol too but calling Valerie Solanas “rad” when her takes were that awful is kind of sus…
Read the scum manifesto.
Why are you telling people to read a piece of transphobic propaganda
yeah right ive never met a fan of that book i didnt think it was dangerous to be around. i will not organize with or be near those people. they contribute nothing to society.
I’m not telling anyone to read Harry Potter.
spoiler
The concept of terfs didn’t even exist when Valerie Solanas was alive, I’m not saying she isn’t a problematic figure but she is one of the most important lesbians of the 20th century. Andy Warhol exploited neurodivergent people and made money off it, he was a gay capitalist who got shot by one of the people he (probably) tried to exploit. There is debate as to whether he stole or just misplaced the script Valerie wrote but like, Warhol was no saint.
she is one of the most important lesbians of the 20th century
an insult to lesbians everywhere.
edit oh look they got banned, finally.
But that was an unintentional performance art moment that was set in motion by Andy Warhol, just like all art forever after literally owes Andy Warhol for its existence! He is laughing from art heaven right now about how everyone is just an ignorant meat puppet dancing to his eternal subversive tune in a very punk way!
(paraphrased actual fucking take from a “not a fan” in this thread)
If you’re in this thread arguing about how everything is art, I’m stealing shit off your porch
I’ve got some paintings of soup cans I’ll leave out there for you
Any negative reaction you have to those soup cans is just you being a performance art piece yourself.
My profile picture is a performance art piece
And you must directly credit Saint Andy Warhol the Subversive each and every time you use it, or you’re an unwashed barbarian! Leftist buzzwords here! Rich status quo establishment art snobs are punk!
No worries, I credit him in my bio.
If you’re in this thread arguing about how everything is art, I’m stealing shit off your porch
If you do that, that is art and Saint Andy Warhol the Subversive would smile down from heaven while knowing you are doing his will and continuing his epic legacy. And that’s punk!
rip to Andy Warhol your lazy ass would’ve loved AI
deleted by creator
hehe 3d printer go brrr
ITT people who will analyze the fuck out of a TV show or movie going full the curtains are blue mode on fucking Andy Warhol of all people.
Okay, but for real, the photo you’ve just posted, being what it is, is a pretty provocative art piece itself. As @[email protected] said, his art was some meta bullshit regarding the artwork used for advertising and other disposable things, made in a disposable way and sold as high art and it was high art cause he was a high artist. Having a photo of the originals strewn carelessly in some rich guy’s house is fucking perfect. I’d buy a print.
This should be the photo image on Wikipedia for post modern art. It literally is
Summary of your takes in this thread: “I am not a fan of Andy Warhol but all art that came after him directly owes him for its existence because he is the Great Man in History. Also he was a genius that would chuckle smugly at all you unwashed barbarians doing performance art simply by disliking his art.”
i hate warhol for what he did to Basquiat. Basquiat should be bigger than warhol. warhol wished he had his talent.
There are a bunch of artists who were doing amazing things, got involved with Warhol and then shit just went bad. Basqiuat is the most egregious though.
Please enlighten me
he was an artist who made work about racism class struggle and colonialism and daily black life. ill keep it short, he met andy when he was 22 and warhol was 30 years older and super controlling of his carrer and personal life and romantic relationships. now he was bi but theres no proof of their romatic relationship but it was widly speculated because of how they behaved in public. andy got Basquiat mixed up in drugs and parting and then did nothing to help his “protgie” and would make him get back to work. it was a super toxic relationship and Basquiat overdosed a year after andy died. i think any warhol ruined his life personally.
https://www.jean-michel-basquiat.org/paintings/
check out his work yall. thats an order.
I hope someone crops out “ASBESTOS ASBESTOS ASBESTOS” and submits it as an emoji under “:obnoxious-liberals:”
I genuinely love his work now that I’ve seen more of it and I dislike Andy Warhol even more now that you educated me.
This deserves its own thread. In fact I’m going to make it now.
Best take on this thread.
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.
But idea: Indiana Jones but it’s stealing from rich people instead of the indigenous peeps. “it belongs in a museum!”
I’d watch that. They could be artsy and dapper instead of shaggy leather jacket man, and have to fight through the Bond rejects a rich dude would hire as security instead of weirdly othered brown people (but not instead of nazis, no need to replace those, any excuse to have the hero beat up some nazis is a good one).
Tbh, we might just be recreating Lupin.
Breaking into Stephen Spielberg’s home only to find that his most prized collection of art is protected by a life size replica of the boulder from Raiders of the Lost Arc.
it belongs in a museum (of modern art)
or something
Andy Warhol would be so fucking happy to see this if he was alive. This would be nirvana style vindication
“Not a fan of the abusive fed asset, BUUUUUUUUUUUT everything that happened after he showed up is part of his master plan and vindicates his Great Man in History greatness!”
