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.
No shit.
Your tantrum rings laughably hollow because I already did mention both a poet and a visual artist I liked very much and you didn’t even acknowledge that while doubling down on your phantasmagoric illusory version of me to scream at.
I loved Dune, both the novel and the Lynch film, changes and weirdness and all. Hotel California is one of my problematic favorite songs. The Lady and the Unicorn series of tapestries has something new for me every time I look at them.
Is that enough for you to stop raging at me for not pledging due allegiance to the aging pretenses of punk and subversion started (and endlessly perpetuated by art snobs and rich assholes buying it) by a rich asshole fed asset?
Dawg, all of that was literally made by Andy Warhol.
PLEASE EXPLAIN
Summary, especially because “literally” a set of medieval tapestries were also credited to Andy Warhol:
I was hoping for some vague connection between Linda Ronstadt and Warhol to explain the Eagles thing
It’s just Great Man Theory shit taken to its most extreme conclusions: you must directly credit the subversive genius of Andy Warhold for everything that came after him (and apparently, everything that came before him) or else you’re an unwashed barbarian.
What the fuck are you talking about
Great Man Theory. Not even once.
You couldn’t even resist your “not a fan” toxic fan bullshit for Andy Warhol so you immediately made yourself a liar.
You’re claiming, apparently, that everything in the entire world is made by Andy Warhol after Andy Warhol blessed us with his presence. I was expecting that tiresome and trite Great Man Theory nonsense from you. It’s laughably false, because even if he contributed and certainly made bank by his contributions, the belief that he singlehandedly created all art that followed by way of some Great Man theoretical determinism is pure liberal bullshit.
Even if it were true, and it’s not, it’s like expecting endless pledges of allegiance, awe, and praise (while not liking him as a person, right?) for William the Conqueror for establishing the roots of what we call modern English after 1066.
It’s getting thin over here on the app LMAO
That’s what happens when a “not a fan” of Andy Warhol goes all out in defense of Andy Warhol’s godlike and unique contributions to the art world that no one else could have matched, surpassed, or replaced in his absence.
Emojis? Andy Warhol did it.
This site? Andy Warhol did it.
Your posts and mine? Andy Warhold did it.
We can only dream of aspiring to the awe-inspiring greatness and high level thinking of taking an undergrad art course
Performatively praising Great Men is a big part of the “in group” in humanities departments.
In the overlap between literature and performance arts, “bardology” is like a malignant tumor that chokes the resources out of anything not Shakespeare, for example. And God help you if you mention anything negative about Shakespeare (such as
) or his Tudor patrons (that were definitely pleased by the character assassination of Richard III) for any reason.
Funny how every creep eventually turns to “anti-intellectualism” as their weapon of defense. The French are experts at this today.
Was everyone who criticized “Cuties” anti-intellectual?
It doesn’t really speak to the strength of someone’s position when they have to just depart from the critiques themselves to brandish buzzwords. If your position is strong you should be able to defend it while sticking to the art in question.
If I criticize you it’s because I’m a shrewd critic. If you criticize me it’s because you’re anti-intellectual.
No, my pedophillic fantasy novel isn’t gross, and by criticizing it you’re being the same as literal Nazis (who doesn’t love a little Nazi trivialization?)
“You can’t criticize or even dislike the rich connected fed-funded very smartists or their treats or else you are not very smartist.”
The Lady and the Unicorn medieval tapestries were “literally made by Andy Warhol?”
Your not-a-fan toxic fandom for Andy Warhol may be making you see red right now, dawg.
