15 July 2008

The Andy Warhol exhibit just opened at the Brooks, From A to B and Back Again. I'm not really much of a fan of Warhol... Seems like he was just weird to be weird. And the art, well, it's tough to describe my qualm, being an artist that specializes in a design art oftentimes made to be duplicated, but, I guess the idea that you are never looking at a Warhol original bugs me too much to enjoy it. I like to look at art and think about how long it took to make, and I have no guage for his art. I mean, how long does it take to copy a photo? Is copying an image repeatedly art? If it makes a point once, can it make a new point by being repeated, or slightly altered, or the colors experimented with? Maybe it can.

myself, photoshop

1 comment:

looka said...

I know this is a bit in the past.

The warhole... well of course it's good of you to rampage on, on some artist from the past (wether someone agrees or not, me included for sure).

With AW it's not so much the product as - in pictures, but that he used reproduction as his form. You could say he mangled the world of media, commercials and popular personalitys and made it visible. Sometimes the absurdity his own scene he was mostly seen in, seemed only small against the huge backdrop of hype and TV madness that came to a change at the time
he worked in.

This was long before designers would smart out everybody with funny, useful things. A lot that is going on in the present in graphic-design, conceptwise and other, roots back to what was going on then. And of course is often swapped as badly as unintentional.

When I saw one of his original prints, it was a really beautiful thing to see, well ready to match a
Rubens or such.

This facts don't make him necessary to look up to or respected, but considered maybe.