Comments on Warhol Blind
This is a composition I conceived of and created shortly after the Supreme Court ruling on Warhol v. Goldsmith related to Warhol’s use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph of Prince for a series of paintings. Specifically, the case is related the Warhol Foundations licensing of the image to Condé Nast for a magazine cover, but my work here is a commentary on the larger issue of Warhol’s work. My belief is that Warhol is over interpreted for his intent and creativity, and thusly, over-rated for his contributions to the history of art. There are many other artists of the same era whose works were vastly more creative and compelling on all levels yet haven't receive nearly the recognition, nor the command of price and value in the broader art market.
Briefly, my composition is a pair of images. On the left is a copy of one of Warhol’s 1986 “Fright Wig” self portraits modified with a black bar across his eyes (modified unlicensed image). On the right is a photograph by Ron Stik of a tulip bulb (licensed image). Both images are converted to a screened monochrome and reproduced digitally.
Like many young artists, at university I had a fascination with Warhol’s work, and with his fame and success as an artist. I read his books, I took every possible opportunity to view his works. I studied his work in my art history courses. Over time, the luster of my fascination dulled as I became more and more familiar with his work.
In my own life and work I have operated on the principle of “creative tension.” The idea is that, as a creator, where you see yourself going is always well ahead of where you are. It’s a state of constant struggle, one of exploration to find your footing for the next step forward toward your goal. As you move forward, so does your vision of where you’re going. That struggle involves successes and failures. It involves a dissatisfaction and discomfort with where you are. In this is the implication, should you arrive at the point where you are producing work that's fully satisfying, that's where the creative process ends and you’re merely repeating yourself.
Warhol is credited with the launching the pop art movement. Much was made of his early showing involving Campbell’s Soup cans and Brillo boxes. The work was certainly well hyped and made an international splash in the early 1960’s. Much has been said about the meaning of those works and others, the use of repeated images, shallow imagery, commonplace commercial images in an artistic context. All of this I don’t necessarily dispute, but I think it’s important to place this into a broader context of art history and in context of monetary motivations over creative ones.
People in much of the art world selectively ignore (are willfully blind to), and the general public rarely understand, virtually every element of this “innovative” new class of pop artwork wasn’t new at all. The artistic act of placing an acquired image or object into a gallery setting and saying its art, that was done by Marcel Duchamp in 1910 with his exhibition of “Ready Mades.” Whereas, in 1910 Duchamp did something genuinely unique, creative, and controversial—something that challenged the entire art world—Warhol's early work merely regurgitated an already digested approach. Placing a Brillo box into a gallery context is only challenging in that people had forgotten Duchamp’s bottle drying rack and urinal in the subsequent 50 years since they were presented. I actually like those early pieces but I just don't see any maturing of his work past that point.
In one of Warhol’s books, when reading Picasso’s obituary, he recounts that Picasso had produced over 2000 masterpieces in his lifetime. Rather than reflecting on the meaning of the artist's life and work in any substantive manner, Warhol’s response was, “I could do that in a week” followed by “so we tried and it actually took us 6 weeks.” It’s this shallowness that has always bothered and baffled me. It’s often said, “But that’s the point! His work is a reflection of the shallowness of the world around him.” Personally, I find such arguments to be a rationalization rather than an analysis of any artistic intent.
Fundamentally, in my opinion, if you want to boil Warhol’s work down, you’re left with is an insecure individual obsessed with fame and wealth. With The Factory, in conjunction with art dealers, he was highly productive in that desire but, when it comes down to it, Warhol is famous for little more than just being famous, attracting other famous people, as well as those who were ambitious for fame.
In Warhol’s work I don’t find a sense of creative tension. I don’t see in his body of work growth or exploration. It seems more a repeated spin on a theme. It’s the same repeated equation—more shtick than substance—often with subsequent works being less interesting than previous ones. Many great works of art I can spend extended periods viewing and will have a sense that I'm still conversing when I reluctantly leave the work. Warhol feels empty, leaving me with a desire to walk away from a pointless conversation.
I can again hear echoes of “but really that’s the whole point, it’s a reflection of the world around him.” I can’t disagree more. If I look at other creative mediums of the day, I don’t see the same. In music and in film there was an explosion of creativity where artists were genuinely explored the changing society around them in compelling, thought-provoking ways. These were all people engaged in trying to advance their artistic reach, artists looking to actually shape and transform the world in which they lived.
The question becomes, why is Warhol famous at all? My belief is it’s a function of the market created by gallery operators for his work. The market for paintings was always limited to the rate at which artists doing truly compelling works could produce their end product. For a Jackson Pollack or Willem deKooning to create a painting was an involved endeavor. These were deeply personal acts of artistic exploration and expression, and they required time to create and were limited by the efforts of the individual artist. Warhol then comes on the scene and, with the pace at which The Factory could produce works, I think the gallery world successfully did the math, and modern art investors sustain their investments merely because that is the purpose of their purchase regardless of the intrinsic value of the works.
Briefly, my composition is a pair of images. On the left is a copy of one of Warhol’s 1986 “Fright Wig” self portraits modified with a black bar across his eyes (modified unlicensed image). On the right is a photograph by Ron Stik of a tulip bulb (licensed image). Both images are converted to a screened monochrome and reproduced digitally.
Like many young artists, at university I had a fascination with Warhol’s work, and with his fame and success as an artist. I read his books, I took every possible opportunity to view his works. I studied his work in my art history courses. Over time, the luster of my fascination dulled as I became more and more familiar with his work.
In my own life and work I have operated on the principle of “creative tension.” The idea is that, as a creator, where you see yourself going is always well ahead of where you are. It’s a state of constant struggle, one of exploration to find your footing for the next step forward toward your goal. As you move forward, so does your vision of where you’re going. That struggle involves successes and failures. It involves a dissatisfaction and discomfort with where you are. In this is the implication, should you arrive at the point where you are producing work that's fully satisfying, that's where the creative process ends and you’re merely repeating yourself.
Warhol is credited with the launching the pop art movement. Much was made of his early showing involving Campbell’s Soup cans and Brillo boxes. The work was certainly well hyped and made an international splash in the early 1960’s. Much has been said about the meaning of those works and others, the use of repeated images, shallow imagery, commonplace commercial images in an artistic context. All of this I don’t necessarily dispute, but I think it’s important to place this into a broader context of art history and in context of monetary motivations over creative ones.
People in much of the art world selectively ignore (are willfully blind to), and the general public rarely understand, virtually every element of this “innovative” new class of pop artwork wasn’t new at all. The artistic act of placing an acquired image or object into a gallery setting and saying its art, that was done by Marcel Duchamp in 1910 with his exhibition of “Ready Mades.” Whereas, in 1910 Duchamp did something genuinely unique, creative, and controversial—something that challenged the entire art world—Warhol's early work merely regurgitated an already digested approach. Placing a Brillo box into a gallery context is only challenging in that people had forgotten Duchamp’s bottle drying rack and urinal in the subsequent 50 years since they were presented. I actually like those early pieces but I just don't see any maturing of his work past that point.
In one of Warhol’s books, when reading Picasso’s obituary, he recounts that Picasso had produced over 2000 masterpieces in his lifetime. Rather than reflecting on the meaning of the artist's life and work in any substantive manner, Warhol’s response was, “I could do that in a week” followed by “so we tried and it actually took us 6 weeks.” It’s this shallowness that has always bothered and baffled me. It’s often said, “But that’s the point! His work is a reflection of the shallowness of the world around him.” Personally, I find such arguments to be a rationalization rather than an analysis of any artistic intent.
Fundamentally, in my opinion, if you want to boil Warhol’s work down, you’re left with is an insecure individual obsessed with fame and wealth. With The Factory, in conjunction with art dealers, he was highly productive in that desire but, when it comes down to it, Warhol is famous for little more than just being famous, attracting other famous people, as well as those who were ambitious for fame.
In Warhol’s work I don’t find a sense of creative tension. I don’t see in his body of work growth or exploration. It seems more a repeated spin on a theme. It’s the same repeated equation—more shtick than substance—often with subsequent works being less interesting than previous ones. Many great works of art I can spend extended periods viewing and will have a sense that I'm still conversing when I reluctantly leave the work. Warhol feels empty, leaving me with a desire to walk away from a pointless conversation.
I can again hear echoes of “but really that’s the whole point, it’s a reflection of the world around him.” I can’t disagree more. If I look at other creative mediums of the day, I don’t see the same. In music and in film there was an explosion of creativity where artists were genuinely explored the changing society around them in compelling, thought-provoking ways. These were all people engaged in trying to advance their artistic reach, artists looking to actually shape and transform the world in which they lived.
The question becomes, why is Warhol famous at all? My belief is it’s a function of the market created by gallery operators for his work. The market for paintings was always limited to the rate at which artists doing truly compelling works could produce their end product. For a Jackson Pollack or Willem deKooning to create a painting was an involved endeavor. These were deeply personal acts of artistic exploration and expression, and they required time to create and were limited by the efforts of the individual artist. Warhol then comes on the scene and, with the pace at which The Factory could produce works, I think the gallery world successfully did the math, and modern art investors sustain their investments merely because that is the purpose of their purchase regardless of the intrinsic value of the works.
For anyone who doesn’t understand the tulip bulb reference I offer this from wikipedia:
Tulip mania (Dutch: tulpenmanie) was a period during the Dutch Golden Age when contract prices for some bulbs of the recently introduced and fashionable tulip reached extraordinarily high levels. The major acceleration started in 1634 and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637. It is generally considered to have been the first recorded speculative bubble or asset bubble in history. In many ways, the tulip mania was more of a then-unknown socio-economic phenomenon than a significant economic crisis. It had no critical influence on the prosperity of the Dutch Republic, which was one of the world's leading economic and financial powers in the 17th century, with the highest per capita income in the world from about 1600 to about 1720. The term "tulip mania" is now often used metaphorically to refer to any large economic bubble when asset prices deviate from intrinsic values. |
In my 20th century art history class I learned, later in life Picasso said of his own work, “I’m just an entertainer who has understood the time in which he lived.” Future art historians and markets will make their own determinations, but very different from Picasso, I would consider Warhol to be more of a socio-economic phenomenon than one of artistic value. But, for what it's worth, Warhol definitely lived the life he craved. We should all be so successful.
My own Warhol Blind composition consists of an unlicensed, modified, acquisitional representation of Warhol, produced much like most of Warhol’s work. As represented by this commentary, I believe my use of this image fits into the definition of “fair use” as social commentary on his work. In juxtaposition, my use of Ron Stik’s tulip bulb photograph is licensed and attributed to emphasize, if one isn’t fundamentally altering the full context of an acquisition or making clear and specific social commentary, the necessity to acknowledge and compensate original artists persists. The bar across Warhol's eyes is there to convey the idea that I believe most are blinded by his fame over the intrinsic value of his work, as I was as a younger artist.
Ironically, it probably needs to be stated that my composition is put forth as a copyrighted image and should only be reproduced with permission.
My own Warhol Blind composition consists of an unlicensed, modified, acquisitional representation of Warhol, produced much like most of Warhol’s work. As represented by this commentary, I believe my use of this image fits into the definition of “fair use” as social commentary on his work. In juxtaposition, my use of Ron Stik’s tulip bulb photograph is licensed and attributed to emphasize, if one isn’t fundamentally altering the full context of an acquisition or making clear and specific social commentary, the necessity to acknowledge and compensate original artists persists. The bar across Warhol's eyes is there to convey the idea that I believe most are blinded by his fame over the intrinsic value of his work, as I was as a younger artist.
Ironically, it probably needs to be stated that my composition is put forth as a copyrighted image and should only be reproduced with permission.