I look at his work and all I see is 'fast-food' art, with 'creations' copied from techniques developed by the advertising industry. How can one of his 'paintigs' be worth the same as a Dali, a Magritte or a Picasso?
2007-05-17 05:36:25 · 16 answers · asked by Pedro ST 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
Trailerp: Andy Warhol "was" alive, but his art "is" still out there...got it?
2007-05-17 05:45:02 · update #1
joemay58: Sotheby's sold a Picasso for $24 million in 2002. His price range is usually in the $100 million...
2007-05-17 06:54:49 · update #2
Yes,Andy Warhol is very much overrated. His work is not worth a hill of beans. He has pulled the wool over a gullible publics eyes. The fact that he is dead and his stuff is still out there shows how guillible the American Public is. He has fooled a lot of people. It is easy to live without him and his work!
2007-05-17 06:17:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
For many US art scene is just that,as fashion is. Since money and debt are the signs of this economy, not culture in its 360 degree view, this is the place for buying anything not that good.
For example, I remember a Sothesby aunction where Warhol' s "Mustard Race Riot" an others were sold for millions. And the Nine Multicolored Marilyns [Reversal Series]" was sold for half a million.
Yes , it is fast food art... but it is being paid for because of healthy wallets..
In the same line yu find mobile phones that cost $1 million, pets that get groomed for $56000 a shot, etc... Sodoma and Gomorra live!
No bible there....
Just check webs like
http://web.artprice.com/ps/artitems.aspx?idarti=MDk5NTIyMTkyNjc4OTY=&page=84&refGenre=A
2007-05-17 05:51:59 · answer #2 · answered by TuyoMio.com 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Warhol is incredible.
You have to admit that nowdays the fast food and advertizing industries effect lives on a greater scale than even someone like Picasso. Warhol recognized to what extent these institutions shape our aesthetic.
Art imitates life, and life today is innundated with the technological and the artificial - pop culture.
Further, Warhol realizes that people WANT pop culture, that they LIKE it. Art can be so puritanical; Warhol made it about sugar, glitter, candy, celebrity, sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, which was totally original for his time - most artists at that time were dealing with deep emotions, the deep turbulent well of troubled unconscious drive. Warhol eradicated depth, and concentrated on pure image, flatness, facade.
Also, Andy's "lipstick and peroxide" palette made up a completely original sense of color. Warhol made all the previous American painters look European just by choosing his colors.
And (my last point), since Andy was so prolific, his work is actually, by many standards, more affordable than many artists. They're out there too; a regular person can find a Warhol print up for sale, whereas a Magritte or a Degas would be near impossible to get. They're not cheep by any means, but a Picasso, 'brushstroke for brushstroke', would certainly cost far, far more at auction.
2007-05-17 05:53:24 · answer #3 · answered by !@#%&! 3 · 3⤊ 8⤋
there are various effective artists around who by technique of no means get interest; large artwork relies upon on the rich who've the money to purchase it. Picasso and the Impressionists the place progression setters of modern kinds of artwork so I evaluate that's pondering they invented new kinds of ingenious expression in artwork that their works are functional. i'm no longer too fussy approximately state-of-the-paintings artwork and maximum virtually continually do no longer want paid $2 for a Jackson Pollock portray if i'd glaring it in an op save! possibly his works are useful because of the actuality he replaced into as quickly as like Picasso and the Impressionists and set a sparkling trend in paintings type.
2016-12-17 15:27:30 · answer #4 · answered by gagliano 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is Andy overeated? Yes and no. Andy started in the art industry business by drawing ladies shoe, so that is where the advertising industry comes from in his work. At the same time, who else was painting soup cans or brillo boxes? It was original even though it may not seem like it. It's funny though, people paid huge amounts of money for his paintings and a lot of them were not his. What a pity...
2007-05-17 07:09:25 · answer #5 · answered by DAR76 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
I don't think Warhol is over-rated. He presented a new way of looking at things is all (look at his portraits which I find very creative). The Impressionists, Modigliani, Gauguin, Van Gogh, Nolde, Kandinsky, Klee, Pollack and many others (including Dali and Magritte) did the same thing. Oh yeah, if you find a Picasso at a Warhol price please let me know.
2007-05-17 06:01:27 · answer #6 · answered by joemay58 1 · 0⤊ 5⤋
I think he is overrated. I'm just curious who the actual buyer is...who in their right mind would dish out 71 million plus dollars for a painting? Crazy, I tell ya!
2007-05-17 05:46:21 · answer #7 · answered by mageta8 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Warhol was a pioneer and moved art forward. To really appreciate what he accomplished, you have to understand his work in the context of his era. Consider the worst made 2007 automobile...and think about how you would appreciate it if you, in 1850, had one in your barn.
2007-05-19 07:57:25 · answer #8 · answered by Victor 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Extremely. He was a narcissistic, psychopathic con artist.
2013-10-29 12:03:53 · answer #9 · answered by missy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most of Warhol's work was silkscreened. He didn't do many paintings. He was the father of pop- art (Cambells soup cans, advertising...) if anything I think he is underrated.
2007-05-17 07:04:41 · answer #10 · answered by Robin A 1 · 1⤊ 6⤋