Because that's how he saw her.
2006-10-14 11:26:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by letem haveit 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
It is partly to do with the act of reproduction - of a print, of a personality, of an era. I appreciate the deconstructionist response that we can't know because we are not Warhol, but when you study the effect the art has on other people, and so many of them come away with the same impression, we have to realise that the effort of communication has worked. There she is, like the tomato soup can: an icon, reproduced just like a stamp. The humanity is gone. We only see the icon.
2006-10-14 11:39:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Delora Gloria 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are several possible answers to this.
1) He was trying to show how America "manufactured" celebrities and turned them out, if they hit the public's fancy, like cans of soup,
2) He was a fan of Marilyn's and wanted to express his starstruck admiration for her in a glamorous portrait.
3) He was a clever graphic artist who knew people would respond to his photographic portraits of celebrities (Marilyn was only one of thousands he did in pretty day-glo colours)
The enduring fame of Warhol is open to interpretation. Was he a great artist, a visionary, or a very clever illustrator with a terrific sense of publicity and business?
Certainly his "legacy" has passed on to a very clever team of lawyers and business-people who continue to exploit his fame and talents.
2006-10-14 21:43:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by simon2blues 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
He wanted to mass produce her, as a metaphor to the way Hollywood did.
2006-10-14 11:31:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Feathery 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
without actually getting the information from the person specifically, everything else is just speculation.
2006-10-14 11:34:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Houjo 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
because he did
2006-10-14 11:32:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋