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.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      But according to some very hot takes from a not-a-fan in this thread, literally every piece of art ever made after Andy Warhol’s day directly owes him for existing. morshupls

      • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Umm this is Art 101 sweaty, come back to me once you get your certificate that allows you to form opinions on artwork. Everyone knows that the goal of art analysis is to find the objective meaning behind it that proves you wrong. If you don’t have the same reaction I do you’re just too dumb to get it. It’s only a coincidence that the objectively correct interpretations of art perfectly coincide with mine! Everyone is stupid but me

        • macerated_baby_presidents [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You know when a person listens to metal or rap and they say “that’s not music, it’s just noise, a baby could do that”? You all are putting forth the exact same naive anti-intellectualism that they were skewering on MTV fifty years ago. You can quite justifiably call Warhol a talentless hack who had one good idea, beat it to death in the classic capitalist way, and kept making terrible movies long after he should have packed up. But people here aren’t doing any analysis.

          What happened? Suddenly the site is heaving with mirror-image conservatives knee-jerk rejecting stuff as “not art”, except instead of advancing postmodernist d*generacy the rejects were advancing bourgeois d*generacy. Maybe it’s dialectics.

          • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Suddenly the site is heaving with mirror-image conservatives knee-jerk rejecting stuff as “not art”

            Good thing I’m not saying that then. Just because you take “I don’t like this art” to mean “I don’t think it’s art” doesn’t mean that’s what I said.

            I don’t even know what to say, since you’re responding to a point I didn’t make, but: it’s anti-intellectual to deny that it’s art, not to dislike it.

            It’s pretty amazing how you managed to twist that into “freaking out about d*generacy”. Reading my comment again I fail to see any way you could interpret it that way other than in bad faith. But for what it’s worth, I hate most of the realistic traditional oil paintings too, does that balance it out?

            Literally all I’m saying is you can’t say that there is an objective meaning of an artwork or that it’s objectively good or bad, and you don’t need to go to art school to form an opinion on any one artwork.

            I have never claimed that Warhol wasn’t an artist or that what he made wasn’t art. I don’t like it when people go “you just don’t get it, it’s art 101”. Yes, if I took an art class I would probably better understand the artwork, but I don’t think it’s going to change my base reaction to it.

            It’s incredibly insulting to try and equate this with what is essentially a tenet of Nazism. It also trivializes the very real persecution suffered by modern artists throughout the 20th century. I’ve had plenty of IRL disagreements on art and not one person had ever turned around to go “you know who else didn’t like this painting?” because we’re adults and we can disagree on things and they could distinguish between normal critiques and conservative moral panics.

            As an extreme example, and I’m not equating Warhol to this at all: Nazi propaganda posters are also art. When I criticize these posters it is implicitly understood that it is because I find the message objectionable and the medium trite, not because I don’t think it’s really art.

            Feel free to say my criticisms of Warhol are dumb and stupid, it’s not like I haven’t said that about others’ artistic opinions, but please don’t equate them with conservative panics. People have managed to do this IRL without deviating from the artwork itself to accuse me of anti-intellectualism in order to justify their own position.

            For most people art criticism never goes beyond “I like this” and “I don’t like this”. And I think that’s perfectly fine. Most of the time it doesn’t actually stem from deep-seated anti-intellectualism. And this is just my opinion, but I think good art doesn’t need you to go to art school to be able to understand it.

            Back to the example of the propaganda poster: I can critique in terms of art or in terms of its intended function. In this case I dislike it in both aspects but with artists like Warhol it’s more common to run into people who criticize one but praise another. I think it’s the exact opposite of anti-intellectualism to investigate and research an artists’ financial backing and how that influenced their output.

            Sorry for the gruffness, but as someone who’s been a target of conservative moral panics I don’t react very well to being compared with its instigators.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never said Andy Warhol’s art is not art. And you’re not doing “analysis” either by shitting on people that aren’t giving what you think is due praise, awe, and respect for a fed asset that was paid to derail Soviet modernist trends in western colleges.

            Use all the leftist buzzwords you like, you’re not doing anything better than the people that simply don’t like art they find unpleasant (or tedious and repetitive and pretentious).

            • macerated_baby_presidents [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              you’re not doing “analysis” either by shitting on people that aren’t giving what you think is due praise, awe, and respect for a fed asset that was paid to derail Soviet modernist trends in western colleges.

              I don’t care what you said, I wasn’t replying to you. I did not say Warhol deserves any awe, praise or respect, but I am shitting on the people blindly reacting that it isn’t art and the commenters like you who smear better-informed opinions as Warhol fanboys. I think he was a talentless hack who had one good idea, beat it to death in the classic capitalist way, and kept making terrible movies long after he should have packed up. There’s my analysis. It’s better than these:

              How is that art, AOCapitulator +8

              I don’t see any art. Art takes effort to make. , m532 +19

              It’s just stacked boxes though how is it art to put a box on top of another, usernamesaredifficul +13 (another one who doesn’t even understand what the object in question is

              Then literally everything is art. […] This position makes discussing art pointless and arbitrary., SchillMenaker +4

              Costco sized boxes of normal ass products are art now? [email protected] +8

              being a plumber is more artistic than those stupid fucking boxes., HexbearGPT +38

              wtf makes those boxes art?, carpoftruth +37

              how are they art? What is the message or feeling or whatever they’re trying to convey?, booty +22

              These are the ideas you two are defending.

              Pinging @VILenin since I don’t feel like writing two comments and yours is what I was responding to. It’s totally cool to think that Warhol is bad art, but this comment goes way beyond that:

              Umm this is Art 101 sweaty, come back to me once you get your certificate that allows you to form opinions on artwork. Everyone knows that the goal of art analysis is to find the objective meaning behind it that proves you wrong. If you don’t have the same reaction I do you’re just too dumb to get it. It’s only a coincidence that the objectively correct interpretations of art perfectly coincide with mine! Everyone is stupid but me

              It’s not a coincidence that people familiar with pop art are able to identify one or more possible meanings for these boxes, and people with 0 context are unable to identify any meaning at all. Art 101 is not brainwashing them to have an objectively correct interpretation, it is giving them the basic conceptual tools to draw their own conclusions.

              In this thread I have argued against these knee-jerk "not art"s. I’m not asking them to get a special Art 101 certificate that licenses them to share their opinion, I’m asking them to go learn what the hell they’re talking about so that they can even begin to form coherent opinions. These people don’t even know what the art in question is, multiple commenters think the Warhol piece art is real boxes stacked in a certain way. They have questions that can be answered by a Wikipedia page. They are pitching half-formed ideas that art has to be pretty, or make you feel a certain way, or involve great technical skill, completely unaware of existing conversation about it. It’s like if somebody on the street decided to invent utilitarianism from first principles. Discussing “what is art” is primarily a pursuit of non-artists and non-critics, just as much as discussion of “what if a computer could feel” is a pastime of non-programmers and non-philosophers. The most asinine rehashing of undeveloped and contradictory ideas, forever. This is what you are defending.

              • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                but I am shitting on the people blindly reacting

                You’re shitting on them by blindly reacting on them shitting.

                Lots of people that don’t like a specific piece of art may call it “not art” as a subjective take.

                Shitting on them because they don’t like it and went far enough to say that it wasn’t art to them is tiresome self serving snobbery to me, even if I disagree with them and do think something can be art even if one doesn’t like it.

                This is what you are defending.

                I’d rather defend well meaning comrades that happen to not like the pretentious and bleak “the artist is better than you, everything that comes after him owes him for its existence and even your dislike of his work is part of his master plan, dance puppets dance” messaging of the rich fed-subsidized asshole even if they aren’t academically correct in how they say they dislike it, rather than knee-jerk defend the pompous hypocritical elitism of Andy Warhol and his now-establishment status quo fandom.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nothing is more punk than stepping into a thread with a lot of leftists in it and calling all those leftists unwashed barbarians because they aren’t respectful enough of some fed-funded rich asshole.