Is Warhol Pretending?

hick-rausch

A couple of entertainers. Anybody recognize them?

Continuing along from Eric’s comment to my last post “Who is the Stupidest?” I want to extemporize on his remark: “Warhol pretends to be completely superficial in the hopes we assume it signifies underlying brilliance, but ends up sounding stupid and boring.” This is for me a key question. Is Warhol pretending to be stupid or is he genuinely stupid. I believe the latter is the case.  Is Warhol a moron (as Gore Vidal asserted in a slighting comment “Warhol is the first genius I ever met with an IQ of 60”, not to mention de Kooning’s slighting reference to him as Andy Asshole) or Rothko (as recounted in the bio when being introduced to Warhol turned on his heel and walked off in the other direction) ? I don’t seen any evidence whatsoever that Warhol was pretending to be stupid. The evidence is all to the contrary.

If one wants to see him as possessing genius is would be that he was smart enough to realize that his stupid (as in stupor-inducing) work and “ideas” were perfectly suited to the art world of the 1960s and forward. In other words, he was the first artist to fully realize, as the reception to his work proved the case, that the hour of the Stupid Artist had arrived.

We might say that Andy was the first artist to capitalize on what thousands of artists in the “fine art” world would capitalize upon in his wake. Banality, infantilism, decadent sex content and so on would replace the kind of serious content that characterized Western Art prior to the ascension of the American businessman collector class. Because it has to be recognized that we were not dealing with art connoisseurs in people like Robert Scull and the numerous investors who sensed there were truckloads of cash to be made on the pop and op and be-bop coming out of NYC alongside Warhol, as the “serious” Abstract Expressionists with their “intellectual” content (such as it was… ie., the pseudo-intellectualism of Greenberg and company) were being being pensioned off with God-like status to their Clyfford Still Museum and Rothko Chapel Valhallas.

 

 

Are “artists” like Koons, Hirst, Prince, Baldessari, Nauman, etc genuinely not very bright people? I find it patently obvious watching video material or reading their interviews. There’s nothing put on about Richard Princes’ dumb work and dumb actions (giving back Ivanka Trump his share of the money she paid for one of his dopey paintings). As Warhol himself said, “If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface: of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind it.” (1967 interview with Kynaston McShine) in the Warhol retrospective MoMA catalog. The real question is why do so many people calling themselves artists believe in all this malarkey.

Why do the artists of today think that Keith Haring and Susan Rothenberg and Julian Schnabel bear more than the vaguest resemblance to real artists like Van Gogh, Courbet and Lautrec? It’s patently obvious to anyone who gives five minutes thought to it that the comparing David Hockney to Ingres is ludicrous. I saw a show of Hockney late watercolor paintings next to a show that featured artists like Girton, Turner and other great watercolorists and Hockney’s work was laughable in comparison. Were the curators aware of what they were doing by juxtaposing the greatness of old master artists vs. the magazine illustration weightlessness of Hockney and Company? I’d be surprised if they weren’t.

Yet nobody says anything. Or perhaps in whispers off stage and sotto voce. But why not admit that the whole thing is absurd?

Take Truman Capote’s remark that Warhol was a sphinx without a secret. That goes for the lot of them right down the line. There are no profound thoughts or social or psychological insights whatsoever in the work of these various “contemporary masters.” Banality and boredom are the very essence of it all. Often combined with simplistic politically correct liberal messages.

Pull up some videos of hundreds or even thousands of other actual thinkers, as opposed to “art thinkers”.  I’ll post one at the bottom to serve as a juxtaposition with Andy. Or if not Andy,  contrast actual thinking to the kind of spaced-out vague ( and invariably self-promoting) nonsense that Bruce Nauman is talking in the rare instances one can even find him talking.

Or read the summary below of what a Rauschenberg interview with Dave Hickey amounts to. Pure self-promotion having nothing to do with anything whatsoever outside of Rauschenberg and his magic circle of Twombly, Duchamp, Johns,  etc. Art for art’s sake totally divorced from the real world. And who in the actual world, pray tell,  particularly in the crisis situation we face on all fronts, has the slightest interest in anything that any of these buffoons thought or made outside of the insular self-admiring echo chamber of the con art world?

Read through the description of Rauschenberg’s various stunts and superficial “events” and see just how much you think it compares to any artist of the past whose work hangs in Art Museums, to the extent they’re even trying to maintain their traditional roles of protecting the cultural works of past civilizations, not only that of the West.

http://www.christophermulrooney.net/criteria/id13.html

And yet the art world goes on spinning and spinning like a mad dervish with every kind of witless entertainment spectacle as if there is some deep meaning or significance to any of it outside of total cynicism and destructive avant-garde nihilistic antics that are intended to delight the global monied class building underground bunkers to horde their wealth in against the coming collapse.

What it all amounts to is a combination of utter stupidity and complete madness. That’s how I see it anyway. It’s somewhat astonishing to me at this point that no other artists see it this way, as their complete silence on matters of utmost seriousness and consequence is hard not to recognize.

Here’s a podcast of a couple people who are thinking about reality, something that art world people are resolutely opposed to as they insist on living in a world of complete fantasy, all the while dreaming that miles of Robert Rauschenberg and Warhol silk-screened newspapers and slathered on paint will be lasting testaments to our glorious civilization. The only question that I find interesting is just how long they’re going to go on keeping up this absurd pretense while the world Kunstler and San Giorgio are describing in this podcast lurches into being.

http://kunstler.com/podcast/kunstlercast-287-piero-san-giorgio-new-book-women-verge-societal-breakdown/

 

 

 

About trueoutsider

I'm an artist.
This entry was posted in Art and Money. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Is Warhol Pretending?

  1. Eric Wayne says:

    Also Robert Hughes said that Andy was the stupidest person he’d ever met, or something very close to that. Let’s not be extremists, or at least I won’t. I’m fighting against the extreme that, say, Duchamp is the greatest artist of the 20th century, and a public urinal is the greatest art of the century. That’s ludicrous. But we don’t need to go to the other extreme to where they are complete morons. They are, in my opinion, practitioners of a new category of art, and it has little or nothing to do with the painting prior to the 20th century. I can’t even put them is the same category. And the big, nasty problem there, for me, is the assumption, or rather assertion, that conceptual art triumphs over painting and rends it irrelevant. That pissed me off.

    Who would want an art form destroyed, minimized, eradicated like smallpox? What’s next on the chopping block, music? So, the idea that conceptual art replaces visual art (painting in particular) is not only ridiculous, it’s offensive.

    So, for me, I just those cats are wrong about painting, but they have their own show, and as far as art in the grand sense that includes literature, music, architecture, and so on, they are very minor artists within a new category of art.

    Anyway, your posts are funny. It’s the rich sarcasm. I agree that Warhol, Hirst, Koons, and Duchamp are crap when you apply the standards you are applying. Those standards don’t apply to them. They are just in a whole different category. I saw that when you were talking about comparing a Hockney watercolor to other artists who made watercolors. Well, compared to Warhol and those other dudes, I love Hockney. At least he’s on the level of a witty artist for covers of The New Yorker. That’s a lot better to me than commercial illustrator, Warhol. Of course none of those guys interest me at all compared to Francis Bacon. My two favorite artists are Van Gogh and Francis Bacon. My least favorites would include the likes of Koons, Prince, Wool, Warhol, Duchamp and any of the appropriationists.

    Also, I just finished a new piece. It’s a nice blend of expressionism, surrealism, abstraction, painterliness, intense color, and surface texture (impasto), but done digitally. It’s called “The Sphynx” (misspelling deliberate) https://artofericwayne.com/2017/02/18/new-art-14-the-sphynx/

    Back to Andrew Warhola and if he’s really stupid or if it’s just an act. We have to know with the wig and the jokes and posturing that he was at least self-conscious enough to know when he was acting. Someone asked him what he thought of Jasper Johns. He said he’s a great artists. Why is he a great artist? Because he makes such great lunches. He’s obviously playing a part there, the daft artist. There are little instances here and there where he sounds normal for a second, and then you can see his very normal intelligence. These guys aren’t morons, but, they are surprisingly inarticulate. You forgot to include Paul McCarthy. You really would never guess Paul McCarthy is any kind of genius if you’d taken as class with him, which I did. And yet, some of his work I can’t ignore. Have you seen his giant, mechanical George W. Bush sculptures sodomizing pigs?

    So, for me, these guys just do another kind of art, and for whatever reason they aren’t that articulate, which is how we usually assay someone’s intelligence. Right now I’m working in the tradition of painting (though digitally, as if Leonardo would be insisting on painting with egg tempera), so, those guy’s work has nothing to do with what I’m doing.

    Cheers

  2. trueoutsider says:

    OK..

    A couple questions then.

    Why can’t you ignore giant sculptures of W sodomizing pigs? What do you find worthwhile about them?

    Vidal and Capote and Balthus (in a fit of fury when finding his dealer had sold one of his paintings to a collector who put it up in his house along with a Warhol) all considered Warhol moronic. And as you say, so did Robert Hughes. Bob Dylan even made a sneering remark (his speciality) about him in a Rolling Stone interview. You’re saying that they’re all wrong and that Warhol was actually just “inarticulate”? I’d add that being inarticulate is often the primary characteristic of your average moron. Is it the word you object to? What if he were to be called remarkably stupid? Not all that bright? You say he had “normal intelligence”? What would that be exactly? Or what’s your idea of it? Joe the Plumber? Sarah Palin? Deborah Wasserman Shultz? Farah Fawcett? I saw a show of Farah’s collaborative sculptures at LACMA some years ago. How would you rate Farah and Edmier sculptures in comparison to McArthy’s sculptures?

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/06/farrah-photos
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/06/when-farrah-met-lacma.html

    Incidentally, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m simply being direct. I have no idea what you mean by normal intelligence or who you would compare Warhol McArthy to in terms of brain power. Or if you consider FarahEdmier sculpture crap and McArthy good art. Your comment hits me as unfathomably vague. So I’m trying to narrow in a little bit on what I can’t understand in what you wrote.

    You’re saying I’m being an “extremist” by calling Warhol dumb, just as Vidal et al did? Are they all “extremists” as well? There’s no indication whatsoever I’ve seen in vids of Warhol, in his writings, in his interviews of celebrities and etc. that the man had a functioning adult brain. He strikes me as a person living in complete delusion combined with arrested development from the age of 15 or thereabouts. Very much like most of the art world people I’ve long been familiar with as it happens. I don’t see the wigs and posturing at all as self-conscious evidence that he was acting anymore than the character Billy Wilder depicts in Hollywood Blvd. (Nora Desmond) with her vanity wigs, makeup, posturing and so on are evidence that she was acting. Or any different from all the various hip art outfits people troop around wearing at places like Miami Basel, Whitney galas and so on. Artists all have art costumes, right? Why would they be “self-conscious” about them as everyone is dressed up in some get up or another to signify their hip fashion tastes or lack thereof. I go for the latter myself as I’ve never had an iota of fashion sense as I have little interest in clothing and fashion in general, which perhaps accounts for why I find Warhol, etc. so dismally boring from beginning to ending.

    But I don’t think Warhol had much, if any, contact with human reality as in his statement on seeing the smashed body of one of his Factory habitues on the sidewalk that it was a shame they hadn’t been able to photograph her jumping.

    Is that something someone of “normal intelligence” would say?

    Incidentally, I’m not ridiculing Andy Warhol. I’m looking into what he was all about and who he was, as well as who promoted him, etc. What I need to do next is list his films, I think. Again, I’m interested in how you see his work as being intelligent, but he’s unable to articulate his deep thoughts in any other way than in his work since there is no evidence in what he said or wrote of any kind of deep intelligence whatsoever.

    The other thing that’s notable is how remarkably stupid the people who consider Warhol a genius are.

    We could start by reading things like this:

    http://www.widewalls.ch/andy-warhol-quotes-which-predicted-the-future/

    “Andy Warhol was a true mastermind of his time, having redefined so many concepts and introduced new ones that became standards in no time. But it never stopped there–the Warhol-ism is still very much alive and well, and everything that the artist touched turned to gold that still shines, brighter than ever.”

  3. Eric Wayne says:

    Hi Bart:

    Let’s go into this a bit. You wrote: “Why can’t you ignore giant sculptures of W sodomizing pigs? What do you find worthwhile about them?” My question was, “Have you seen them?” If you haven’t seen them, how can we discuss them? I’ll spend all my time trying to describe them. If you are aware of them I don’t have to do that. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGBb8asaq4I] Answering your question as to why I can’t completely dismiss them as not art, and mere garbage, has to wait until I know if you’ve seen the work in question.

    You wrote, “Vidal and Capote and Balthus (in a fit of fury when finding his dealer had sold one of his paintings to a collector who put it up in his house along with a Warhol) all considered Warhol moronic.…”

    Your post started off questioning my statement that Warhol was putting on an act. I think we can agree that he acts vapid, kind of helpless, and I gather in a way that he thinks is cute or endearing. So part of the question is whether or not we take this performance at face value. Before we can get there we have to agree on whether or not he’s putting on a persona for the media. The evidence for this includes his over-the-top wigs, his entourage, and his goofy statements. In today’s parlance, we’d say he was “trolling” the media. When someone said that his soup cans were not original because they were copies, instead of launching into a Post Modern argument about recontextualization, and viewing an everyday object in an art context, as some artists might do, he merely agreed. And when they said that in that case the art perhaps wasn’t worth doing, he countered that it was because, “it gives me something to do”, as if he were justifying doing a jigsaw puzzle.. You just have to know you are being punked by that performance. Warhol didn’t make the soup cans just in order to have something to do. It’s a faux humility, which contains a seed of arrogance, in that aping the public. You can see John Lennon doing similar things in some interviews. Its was a bit of the zeitgeist of the time for artists to mock the “squares” from the establishment who tried to mock them.

    Nevertheless you stated, “I don’t seen any evidence whatsoever that Warhol was pretending to be stupid. The evidence is all to the contrary.” There’s tons of evidence. What there’s far less evidence of is Warhol unmasked, speaking normally. You are, at this point, insisting his public persona, which is also “camp”, is his true inner core. That’s a real tough position to take when someone is obviously putting on a show for outsiders, as in people outside his selective inner circle.

    Could Andy Warhol actually be as stupid as he presents himself? Could he have sub-normal intelligence? I seriously doubt it. That doesn’t mesh with my sense of reality. I do, however, find the quotes about him hysterically funny. “Warhol is the first genius I ever met with an IQ of 60” is beautiful. There is hyperbole in there. It’s not meant to be taken at face value. A person with an IQ below 70-75 is considered “retarded”, and in the bottom 2% of the American population. In IQ of 60 would probably put him in the bottom 1%.

    So, no, I do not think Warhol was retarded or a moron, but rather an average-ish intellect, at least in terms of his ability to articulate his thoughts verbally, who liked to put on an act. I’m much more persuaded that he was quite clever, apparently clever enough to dupe people into thinking he was a complete air head. That said, I’m not a big fan of his art, and as an artist myself, I am on the other end of the spectrum, and generally speaking appropriation art, which Warhol is guilty of, is my least favorite genre of art.

    You wrote: “If one wants to see him as possessing genius is would be that he was smart enough to realize that his stupid (as in stupor-inducing) work and “ideas” were perfectly suited to the art world of the 1960s and forward. In other words, he was the first artist to fully realize, as the reception to his work proved the case, that the hour of the Stupid Artist had arrived.”

    That is probably more accurate. But we can just move that over a little and it becomes more accurate still. He saw an opportunity to take advantage of the art world’s acceptance of traditionally non-art objects as high art, and tried to place his purely commercial art skills in the fine art context. He wanted an audience, and fame, and saw a route to achieving it and took it. I’m sure he largely believed in what he was doing, as well. Otherwise he really would be the “genius” you set up in your scenario.

    You wrote: “We might say that Andy was the first artist to capitalize on what thousands of artists in the “fine art” world would capitalize upon in his wake. Banality, infantilism, decadent sex content and so on would replace the kind of serious content that characterized Western Art prior to the ascension of the American businessman collector class.”

    An overstatement with a lot of truth in it. Of course Duchamp was the first, and Koon’s, as you surely know, named one of his series “Banality”.

    You wrote: “Are “artists” like Koons, Hirst, Prince, Baldessari, Nauman, etc genuinely not very bright people?” Now you’ve taken it down a notch to “not very bright”. How hard is it to go a bit more to, “not very articulate”?

    You quoted Warhol, ‘As Warhol himself said, “If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface: of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind it.’ This is another instance of punking the art world. That statement is not meant to be taken at face value. Should we assume Warhol was completely vacuous and literally had no interior? He didn’t suffer. He didn’t question his own mortality. He didn’t experience what every school child experiences? It’s part a put on, and part an assertion of a philosophy that “this is all” and all that there needs to be. He may be saying there’s nothing mysterious behind his work, and he doesn’t have an immortal soul, but these are outmoded and unnecessary beliefs (according to the zeitgeist of the time).

    I find interviews with these individuals cringe worthy and critically boring as well. Warhol is a bit less boring in that he’s performing an act, in which case a prank is less boring than a monotonous diatribe about Post Moder ideas, as expressed by someone who can’t really articulate the philosophical ideas, which is a near inevitability because the French philosophers were deliberately obtuse because inaccessibility, at the time, and new words for old meanings, made them seem more brilliant and their philosophy more advanced. The Post Modernists were academicians and masters of playing with words, and Andy Warhol and the conceptual artists were anything but that. Of course they couldn’t explain Post Modernism.

    Oops, I mixed up some of you comment with your original post. Oh well. Le’ts go on.

    You wrote: “Incidentally, I’m not being sarcastic. I’m simply being direct.” Ah, yes, but it’s your delivery which I find amusing, much like Gore Vidal’s statement that Warhol was the first genius he met with an IQ of 60. Perhaps “sarcasm” is the wrong word. It’s a knowing, humorous, exaggeration (which is taken up largely to counter the exaggeration on the other side).

    You wrote: “Your comment hits me as unfathomably vague.”

    Give it a try. You can fathom it. Those guys have ordinary intelligence. What is so hard to fathom about that? They are not mentally retarded, nor stupid. But, no, for example, Duchamp is not today’s Leonardo da Vinci, as some critics have claimed. There’s a happy median between the polls of extremists claims. Jeff Koons, much as I don’t like his work, is not Forest Gump, even if I have compared him to Forest Gump, and I have.

    You wrote: “You’re saying I’m being an “extremist” by calling Warhol dumb, just as Vidal et al did? Are they all “extremists” as well?”

    It depends on how much the believed what they were saying. It’s like saying that Donald Trump is a moron. Lots of people say it. They don’t mean it literally. However, as compared to our ideal of what a president should be, and what his or her intellect should be like, he is a COMPARITIVE moron. And, yes, compared to da Vinci, Warhol is a comparative moron as well. But they are not morons compared to the average individual.

    You wrote: “here’s no indication whatsoever I’ve seen in vids of Warhol, in his writings, in his interviews of celebrities and etc. that the man had a functioning adult brain. He strikes me as a person living in complete delusion combined with arrested development from the age of 15 or thereabouts.” And THAT is a funny statement for me to read. It’s an overstatement, and it makes me laugh. I laughed out loud. Take credit. You can be funny. Good one.

    You wrote: ‘Why would they be “self-conscious” about them as everyone is dressed up in some get up or another to signify their hip fashion tastes or lack thereof.’ Could you go out in public wearing a costume and NOT be aware that you were putting on a persona? Even if someone like Alex Jones or Milo Yiannopolous don’t think they are putting on an act, it’s pretty obvious to me that they are. So, yes, one could be like a teenager who dons a complete punk attire, including a died Mohawk, in 2017, and doesn’t believe he or she is putting on an act, but rather is an authentic punk. Most adults would know they were assuming an identity whether they did or not. It’s hard for me to believe that on some level even the teen punk or hippie or whatever sub-group they align with isn’t somewhat cognizant of what they are doing. So many people who are celebrities put on a public mask. Warhol is a near impenetrable mask, and I rather think he might have been critically shy.

    You wrote: “Again, I’m interested in how you see his work as being intelligent, but he’s unable to articulate his deep thoughts in any other way than in his work since there is no evidence in what he said or wrote of any kind of deep intelligence whatsoever.”

    So now you’ve moved the goalpost from you saying Warhol is literally a moron to me asserting his work is intelligent or deeply intelligent, neither of which claim I have ever made. What did I claim? Stop and ask yourself. Do you even know?

    I claimed that Warhol, along with Duchamp, Koons, Hirst, Wool, Prince, and all the appropriationists, are minor artists working in a new genre of art that has nothing to do with traditional visual art. Compare these statements:

    1) Duchamp was the greatest artist of the 20th century.
    2) Duchamp was the greatest conceptual artist of the 20th century.

    #1 pisses me off. #2 puts the joke on them.

    This is very similar to your annoyance at Bob Dylan being given a Nobel prize for literature (as opposed to, say, a prize for lyricist). Dylan has some great songs, with some choice lyrics. He’s one of the obviously intelligent rock musicians. But, no, he isn’t a producer of the highest quality of literature by a long shot. This is precisely the same problem I have with Bjork having a show at the Modern. She’s a good pop musician. I’m not really a fan, but I can tell she’s good. But she is not a visual artist, and certainly not a great one deserving a retrospective. So, I’m not pissed at Bjork or Dylan for their achievements in their respective media, or for appropriate accolades, but rather annoyed at the ridiculously excessive accolades, and the same could be said for Warhol, Koons, and the rest.

    You concluded, “The other thing that’s notable is how remarkably stupid the people who consider Warhol a genius are.” Yeah, and you’d have to include Jerry Salz in there as well. You do know I have several very long posts on my blog saying much of the same thing, with ample quotes, right? You know I have posts ripping apart Duchamp, Warhol, Koons, Wool, Hirst, Emin, Newman, Banksy, and McCarthy, right? I know you read the post about anti-Trump art being too simple-minded, in which I attacked Salz. But, Salz is not stupid. He’s wrong-headed in his extreme position, but he’s not stupid.

    And the reason I said you were being an extremist (and I’ve been there as well) is because you say these artists are morons and their art isn’t even art. I used to say somewhat similar things, but realized my aggravation wasn’t so much with the art or artists, but rather with how they were positioned – I love Dylan’s “Masters of War” but hate him being given the Nobel Prize for Literature – and particularly how painters were positioned as inferior and irrelevant in relation to them.

    Dylan’s Nobel Prize isn’t just a ridiculous overestimation of his lyrics, it’s stomping on all the great novelists and other writers out there. And I’m sure some of those novelists have said, “Dylan is a moron”. Dylan is neither a literary genius nor a moron. And as I said, Warhol and crew are enormously over-inflated minor artists working in alternative media. The solution is to separate conceptual are from visual art, in which case any conceptual piece isn’t automatically lauded as revolutionary simply because it’s not painting, in which case conceptual art can be judged by conceptual art standards. The mediocre conceptual artist will no longer be seen as triumphing over all of visual art throughout the ages. They will merely triumph over themselves.

  4. trueoutsider says:

    Thanks for the longest comment I’ve ever gotten. I’ll have to take a little while to read it through and think about it. And I’ll certainly view the McArthy sculptures first before you tell me why you can’t ignore them.

    On a quick read through it just seems like we’re having semantic disagreements more or less. What I’m really driving at is just how stupid these concept people are and which ones are actually stupid and which ones are playing stupid.

    This has always been the biggest question I’ve had since the late 60s. Greenberg certainly wasn’t stupid. Nor was Duchamp. They were charlatans. Complete charlatans who can be easily taken apart, not just the fact that Duchamp was lying about the urinal, as scholars like Spaulding and Varnedoe have shown through hard research. Beuys as well.

    So if you want to delve more into all this I’m certainly up for it as I wouldn’t do it on my own, as I can’t imagine who else would be interested in it. The more I chat with you the more interested I become, in fact, as it allows me to revisit my long lost past and think about the days when I met these people in one way or another and others I knew later, some quite well having gone to school with them.

    Anyway, thanks for the long reply.

    Oh… still don’t know while you think my description of Warhol is an overstatement. Seems perfectly accurate to me, Here’s an assignment: Read the entire Warhol Diaries compiled by Pat Hacket followed by The Philosophy of Andy Warhol back to back. 🙂 Plus all his Interview Magazine interviews… and all his movie appearances. It is funny, I’ll grant you that. I rarely get as good a laugh as I do when thinking about Warhol’s collected works and utterances.

    Even better, why don’t I do a post of some choice passages from Andy’s philosophy. I have a signed copy of Andy’s Philosophy book, by the way. By Andy Himself! I need to take it to my local used book pal and see what I can trade it in for but first I’ll peruse it and put up some of his searing insights into art for discussion. Too bad no other artists out there in the entirety of cyberspace aren’t into examining Andy’s philosophies since they’re the bedrock that the entirety of the contemporary art world stands on today.

    The real puzzle for me, my friend, is how anybody in their right mind is taking this guy and his work and his movies and his books and his interview and his costumes and his entourage and etc… with utmost seriousness. You got any thoughts on that? Well let’s see if we can make some progress on this mystery. Maybe I should get a wig and figure out how to youtube. Plus a few of the famous outfits.. And do deadpan readings of the material, just like he did. Maybe then I would get the genius… the genius that was Andy Warhol! The genius that everybody else gets except me. Am I really that stupid? I guess so. I’ve yet to fathom an iota of intelligence in any of this stuff. Pissing on a canvas? It’s kind of funny in an extremely stupid way. I can’t imagine if I ever had that kind of idea (which I do at least fifteen or so times a day depending on how much pot I smoke) that I’d ever carry through on the idea.

    Unlike Andy and his crowd, I guess I figure I have better and more useful ways that I could be spending my time.

  5. trueoutsider says:

    I know. A series of blog posts. “The Case Against Andy Warhol” with True Outsider (Bart Johnson) arguing for the prosecution and Eric Wayne arguing for the defense. We’ll put it in front of the Art People, the 15 who read my blog anyway. And at the end of it we’ll take a vote. The matter before the court: “Was Andy Warhol an actual moron (or not so bright if you prefer gentler language) or was he just pretending to be one?”… It will take a bit of time sifting through the mountains of evidence I have at my disposal but I am prepared to push my case to the limits … of absurdity… just to see if their are any limits to absurdity.

    Andy certainly didn’t think there were.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s