• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Andy Warhol, skill as ancr artist?

headscratcher4

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
I understand Warhol's impact on Art in the last 50 years, his graphic skills and sensibilities are powerful...but does anyone know if he could actually draw or paint in a more classic style? Not asking as a criticism or a need for representational art...I like abstract art a great deal...but I always remember a book on Picasso showing early works of his -- still a kid -- that were very well done drawing of birds, etc. In short, he had skills as a more traditional, represtational artist, but than branched out and created a broader scope of expression.

So, could Warhol draw?
 
I understand Warhol's impact on Art in the last 50 years, his graphic skills and sensibilities are powerful...but does anyone know if he could actually draw or paint in a more classic style? Not asking as a criticism or a need for representational art...I like abstract art a great deal...but I always remember a book on Picasso showing early works of his -- still a kid -- that were very well done drawing of birds, etc. In short, he had skills as a more traditional, represtational artist, but than branched out and created a broader scope of expression.

So, could Warhol draw?

If Andy Warhol had any artistic skill, he sure as hell squandered it in my opinion.

Picasso is different. He went on to abstract things, but they weren't a complete abandonment of the fundamental skills he learned. He also painted and created images by hand while Andy Warhol took existing photos and splattered tacky colors all over them. I seriously doubt Andy Warhol had any skills or knowledge of even the most basic art principles.
 
He didn't start with the soup can, you know.

Wikipedia said:
By the beginning of the 1960s, Warhol had become a very successful commercial illustrator. His detailed and elegant drawings for I. Miller shoes were particularly popular. They consisted mainly of "blotted ink" drawings (or monoprints), a technique which he applied in much of his early art. Although many artists of this period worked in commercial art, most did so discreetly. Warhol was so successful, however, that his profile as an illustrator seemed to undermine his efforts to be taken seriously as an artist.

Pop art was an experimental form that several artists were independently adopting; some of these pioneers, such as Roy Lichtenstein, would later become synonymous with the movement. Warhol, who would become famous as the "Pope of Pop", turned to this new style, where popular subjects could be part of the artist's palette. His early paintings show images taken from cartoons and advertisements, hand-painted with paint drips. Those drips emulated the style of successful abstract expressionists (such as Willem de Kooning). Warhol's first pop art paintings were displayed in April 1961, serving as the backdrop for New York Department Store Bronwit Teller's window display. This was the same stage his Pop Art contemporaries Jasper Johns, James Rosenquist and Robert Rauschenberg had also once graced.[38] Eventually, Warhol pared his image vocabulary down to the icon itself – to brand names, celebrities, dollar signs – and removed all traces of the artist's "hand" in the production of his paintings.

You can look up some of the earlier works on google pretty easily, and they certainly demonstrate skill - so no, he was not just a hack who invented pop art to avoid learning to draw.

By the way, if any of the forumites with more extensive knowledge on the matter happen to know any good books on Warhol's development, I'd be interested to hear about them.
 
By the way, if any of the forumites with more extensive knowledge on the matter happen to know any good books on Warhol's development, I'd be interested to hear about them.

Ditto. Thanks...I guess I should have gone to Wiki first, but was looking at some story about how a self portrait just sold for $8million and reacted.
 
Ditto. Thanks...I guess I should have gone to Wiki first, but was looking at some story about how a self portrait just sold for $8million and reacted.

Well, art prices these days are usually more about the fame than the actual artistic merit of the work in question. Of course, in Warhol's case, it's hard to separate his art from his self, and his self from his fame - which, in my opinion, is a large part of the reason why he was so phenomenally influential. He himself, or at least his presence in media, was his ultimate work of art - the Marilyn Monroe prints, while ingenious in and of themselves, were just one aspect of that.

Personally, the work of his I like the most is the text - I suppose it could be called a short story - about him shopping for underwear. Sadly, I no longer remember it's title.
 
The stories are in his autobiography!

Warhol’s egalitarian ideology is present in the choice of subjects which divide his autobiography, titles include realms of experience as diverse as Beauty and Death, Time, Fame and Economics; Atmosphere and something called Underwear Power. Which is, in fact, about shopping for underwear and the philosophies inherent within such an act.
Read more at Suite101: The Philosophy of Andy Warhol: The Inner World of an Iconographic Artist http://www.suite101.com/content/the-philosophy-of-andy-warhol-a58258#ixzz1EGq6bHKI
 
He didn't start with the soup can, you know.



You can look up some of the earlier works on google pretty easily, and they certainly demonstrate skill - so no, he was not just a hack who invented pop art to avoid learning to draw.

I looked them up and it's still a little artsy-fartsy for my tastes (though to be fair, they're drawings for a fashion magazine). I take back my statement that he couldn't draw. He can draw at least to some extent. I still can't stand the soup cans and random nonsense though. It just seems lazy to me.

I would still say that Picasso was fundamentally a more skilled artist.
 
I'd also add that the Warhol illustrations display more of a sense of design and style than drawing skill.
 
I looked them up and it's still a little artsy-fartsy for my tastes (though to be fair, they're drawings for a fashion magazine). I take back my statement that he couldn't draw. He can draw at least to some extent. I still can't stand the soup cans and random nonsense though. It just seems lazy to me.

I would still say that Picasso was fundamentally a more skilled artist.

If you define an "artist" as "one with skill in the art of using a paintbrush", then you are almost certainly correct. The very reason Warhol was and is so popular, however, is because he and his contemporaries did such a smashing job in changing the way we define "art".

Warhol's works aren't art because they show great technical skill. Rather, they are art because of the impact hey had (and have). It's not that the soup can was an amazing work, but presenting it as art was an amazing move, one that sent ripples through the art world, and had a huge impact on a vast amount of people.

Indeed, I suspect that Andy would have considered the fact that you and millions of others can't stand his work as a testament to his success - and I'm inclined to agree. Mediocre art causes only disinterest; it takes something special to make people love it or hate it.

Andy's most famous works did not display a particular talent in the craftsmanship that was considered to make a great artist in olden times. But it's been a long time since that was the only thing "art" meant.
 
Warhol was great at publicity, and a colorful personality, but I really doubt he is going to go down as a great artist.
 
Warhol was great at publicity, and a colorful personality, but I really doubt he is going to go down as a great artist.

He's like Madonna that way. Her singing wasn't that great, but her real artistry always was the character herself.
 
At 8 million a pop/shot, he's a stable investment. His ideals were commercialization, repeated.
 
I prefer his films.





(For those blissfully previously unaware, Warhol had quite a... colorful history regarding sexuality. Too bad his films sucked. One of them, which I won't name for fear of the auto-censor, was the face of a man receiving oral for half an hour. That's all. It even got a sequel, which made canon that it was gay sex. Another was six hours of a man sleeping. Another was a continuous shot of a actor's bottom.)
 
I prefer his films.





(For those blissfully previously unaware, Warhol had quite a... colorful history regarding sexuality. Too bad his films sucked. One of them, which I won't name for fear of the auto-censor, was the face of a man receiving oral for half an hour. That's all. It even got a sequel, which made canon that it was gay sex. Another was six hours of a man sleeping. Another was a continuous shot of a actor's bottom.)

Yeah, his films were the worst of all. Everything is subjective to people like that. A blob of paint here or a 6 hour video of one mundane thing is somehow supposed to be artistic instead of painfully boring. Can anyone watch one of his movies and honestly tell me they thought it was entertaining?
 
I understand Warhol's impact on Art in the last 50 years, his graphic skills and sensibilities are powerful...but does anyone know if he could actually draw or paint in a more classic style? Not asking as a criticism or a need for representational art...I like abstract art a great deal...but I always remember a book on Picasso showing early works of his -- still a kid -- that were very well done drawing of birds, etc. In short, he had skills as a more traditional, represtational artist, but than branched out and created a broader scope of expression.

So, could Warhol draw?
Why do you want to know? What does it matter? If Picasso couldn’t draw for squat, would that make his "broader scope of expression" irrelevant?

This is a bit like asking if John Lennon was a violin virtuoso and could write a beautiful symphony for a full orchestra. If not, then the Beatles were just some crap band that played rock and roll because they couldn’t make “real” music.
 
Why do you want to know? What does it matter? If Picasso couldn’t draw for squat, would that make his "broader scope of expression" irrelevant?

The thing about Picasso is if he didn't have a grasp of the fundamentals, he likely wouldn't have had the tools to broaden his expression. Even his Cubist works required learned skill.
 
This is a bit like asking if John Lennon was a violin virtuoso and could write a beautiful symphony for a full orchestra. If not, then the Beatles were just some crap band that played rock and roll because they couldn’t make “real” music.

I wonder if you would still like The Beatles if they made albums that were 6 hours of static.
 
Yeah, his films were the worst of all. Everything is subjective to people like that. A blob of paint here or a 6 hour video of one mundane thing is somehow supposed to be artistic instead of painfully boring. Can anyone watch one of his movies and honestly tell me they thought it was entertaining?

If art is about leading the mind through a certain pathway, one has to wonder. Sounds more like a "Theater of the Absurd" type thing, where the art is audience reaction.
 
If art is about leading the mind through a certain pathway, one has to wonder. Sounds more like a "Theater of the Absurd" type thing, where the art is audience reaction.

That's how I view the bulk of Warhol's work. I like it, but certainly don't expect everyone to.

And no, I wouldn't want to watch the six hour-video - but I do think it's kind of cool that he made one.
 

Back
Top Bottom