As we are about to slip inside the BGFA and see the Warhol Out West exhibition up close and personal,has his fascination with multiple images run their course in our contemporary society? Do his repetitive investigations of celebrities via portraits lack a certain necessary relativeness of the human condition in the 2010s when compared with his 1960’s standards? In other words, are we stepping into a time capsule whose relativeness has ceased to exist, or do you suspect Warhol’s art, his vision, his grasp of the visual world surrounding him may still be relevant to us today?
Andy Warhol, Marilyn
Andy Warhol, Chairman Mao
Art and Honors BGFA 
I’ve been reading the press for the exhibition, and people keep saying that Warhol is very relevant to our time. It’s easy to be cynical by merely passing those comments off as self-serving. But if you think about it, it has some merit.
Someone said that the clever thing about Warhol is that he stepped back from his work and let others bring their own meaning to it. After all, he did say his work was all on the surface. For those that want to interpret his work, it’s like a mirror that he holds up for the viewer. And during an art movement that claimed no distinction between good and bad artwork, what better way to capture everyone’s attention than by using familiar images.
Warhol is the celebrity prototype. He was sharing his enthusiasm for popular culture and as a result he himself became a celebrity. We see many parallels today. Social networking websites are all about sharing our individual interests. Some sites even allow those with the inclination to become pseudo-celebrities within their circle of friends. Television is littered with people who are famous for merely being famous. Have you heard of the Kardashians? Or can you believe that little girls would actually consider getting pregnant so they can be like Teen Mom? Welcome to the decade of reality television. It’s the distorted pinnacle of Warhol’s celebrity worship.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not claiming that Warhol was untalented and coat rode his way to celebrity. What I love about him is that he had the balls to say that commercial art can be fine art. This is very relevant today. We live in a time when design or art is everything. Consider the fact that MGM invested billions of dollars on the art-centric CityCenter or that you can buy products designed by Michael Graves at a giant discount retailer like Target. These are shrewd corporations with profit as their sole motive. They do not make investments without first recognizing a mood or need within the consumer. So in the end, Warhol may have been asking us to see the value in the design of a Campbell soup label and as a result broke down the fine art barrier that previously made art inaccessible to many.
The print boom of the 1960’s was getting into full swing as Warhol was creating the screen prints such as Marilyn. Warhol was not creating for the print boom but seemed to produce at a parallel path feeding the countries ever growing appetite for print. Even today as Warhol medium of print seems to be dying a new medium is emerging to take its place with an ever larger and much faster capacitive to deliver its payload. I think Warhol’s art is perfectly suited for the new medium of the internet, with its saturated colors and its graphic style, his art would have no choice but to go viral. I think today a Warhol type of artist could create something of substance and add a bit of culture and creativeness, unlike today’s internet filled with shopping channels, pornographic slices and puppies and kitties submerging the internet of today.
Warhol’s investigation of celebrity through multiple images is still relevant today due to the fact that we are living in the continuation of that celebrity culture that was firmly established by Warhol’s time. The fascination with celebrity drives the consumer to desire more of that person through images whether it is through tabloids/magazines, movies, television, advertisements etc… Warhol’s replicating artworks enterprises on the social desire to feed on the images of the celebrity and popular or public figures in times of great success or in times of adversity, embarrassment or tragedy. The desire reinforces the idea of the viewer as voyeur building, feeding on, and contradictorily, often destroying the value of the celebrity “object”. The subjects of Warhol’s work were often popular figures captured in relation to life altering events and situations. Marilyn Monroe was depicted after her suicide, Jackie Kennedy after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and the underlying complicated lives in face of prominence in stars like Elvis Presley and Elizabeth Taylor were also captured in duplicating images by Warhol. Concurrently, Warhol made similar images of electric chairs, and tragic scenes of car crashes found on the front page of newspapers. Both themes make a relevant criticism on the sensationalism of the tragedies of the human condition often exploited for monetary gain by the media. This exploitation plays out in the media more so today where the most heinous acts of violence against man takes center stage and is overexposed repeatedly through imagery over television stations, internet, newspapers, magazines… The victims usually are overshadowed and are secondary to the offenders who then become the celebrity. Clearly through his works, Warhol had his finger astutely attuned to the pulse and on the relationship between media and society.
It is written in the front wall of the Warhol Out West exhibition that Andy Warhol did not express his art as a form of social criticism, but as an impression of his time. In other words, the viewer is able to obtain a glimpse of the past world by observing his art pieces. This is accomplished easily with Warhol’s works, because he explored the popular culture of his time, such as celebrity culture and advertisement. Although his art creations mirror the 1960s time and culture, the concept behind the works, such as the repetitive investigations of celebrities, is still applicable to today’s world.
For instance, there are many celebrity-oriented magazines, TV shows, and other forms of entertainment that examine certain celebrities in many different “lights.” When an interesting event occurs that involves “celebrity x,” most if not all the sources exemplified above cover the same story in a similar or slightly different presentation; thus in a way coloring the “celebrity x” with different tones and colors. I think this mirrors to what Andy Warhol’s several celebrity portrait art works have done, in which the picture of the person is copied several times but colored or inked in different combinations of bright contrasting colors. In a way, this concept also illustrates the quote that was discussed in the previous blog entry about how the “mystery” is gone after staring at one thing long enough. When people stare at the one painting long enough, it bores them but Warhol sparks interest in the mind with the same exact picture by showing the different ways of looking at it, simply by changing the colors of the picture.
Warhol’s art is remarkably relevant today. His artistic vision and grasp of the visual world impacts the art world even today. His art is still relevant on two levels. First his idea of capturing the portraits of celebrities, and second his style and presentation. Warhol’s idea to capture the enduring portraits of the current icons is not new. He seized the opportunity to copy the portrait masters of old by choosing the subject matter of Royalty. People have always been fascinated with the images of the elite, and the modern Royalty of his time and ours is, of course, celebrities. This new generation of Royalty was different than that of its predecessors because they were a created consumer object. He gives the celebrities the feel of an object by repeating their image over and over like a production line. Viewing Warhol’s portraits does not feel like one is stepping into a time capsule, but rather the opposite. His simplistic, production type style and presentation is completely relevant to our time. One simply needs to look around to find that many current artists copy Warhol’s style. These new artist seem to simply change the faces on the portraits to the celebrities of today and they are completely current. But more importantly than the copycat test Warhol wisely picked celebrities that have stood the test of time, and are still popular today. For instance it would be hard to find someone that doesn’t recognize the image of Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley.
I think Warhol’s imagery is indeed still relevent today. We are an age focused on celebrity and royalty. We read magazines, watch television, read the “rags” for a glimpse of what a movie star or a Prince or Princess is up to. We are constantly looking for images of what we, the “ordinary” people of the world would love to see. We look for a glimpse into their lives, and enjoy hearing about and seeing anything to do with their “culture”. Warhol explored both advertisement and celebrity culture by exploiting (by repetiton) what we, as consumers, look for – embarrassment, trajedy and/or horrific shock value when it comes to celebrity culture.
I have to say that I think that Andy Warhol’s art is as relevant today as it was in the 60’s. People are still recreating this style of art and to me that is the most sincere form of flattery. I honestly think that his work will be relevant for a very long time.
I do not believe that Warhol’s fascination with multiple images have run their course in modern society. In fact I believe that his idea of multiple images is more than relevant today. Our daily routine is filled with visual redundancy. From the media advertisements promoting their products similarly through the billboards we pass going to work , to the TV shows that have similar actors, themes, and plots. His idea of multiple images of the same celebrity also takes residence in contemporary society. These celebrities are constantly in the public eye; however, they may not portray the same role every time they are seen. I believe that this is what represents the different colors of each portrait. Although the pictures are of the same person, each is unique. For example, although we may see the same actor/actress in multiple movies, we do not necessarily see the actor/actress portrayed in the same role in each film. This brings back the topic of society’s adaption towards the modern world again. These multiple images can be seen as society being used to seeing all these celebrities, yet although we are constantly exposed to these celebrities, their uniqueness is what continues are amazement.
I believe that Andy Warhol’s art is still relevant in today’s standards, and sometimes even more so. The fact that these multiple images are all showing the same reference point, but with a different color, texture, value, all point towards the way that each one of us can take an object and then adapt that object to make it our own. We each have a cell phone, sometimes even the same phone model, type carrier, etc. Without our own subtle personalizations, such as a cover, screen image, differing phone numbers, they would be found to be the same phone. So the fact that Warhol would take the same image and then make subtle differences within the multiple images and place them right next to each other shows that he was ahead of his time almost. It seems that each of the images is unique, even though they are the same. This is the way we live our world in nowadays. We all have computers that were mass produced, we all have clothes that are mass produced, we all have everything that is essentially mass produced making them available to everyone. The only way that they are distinguishable is through the personalization that we have done to the object. Each is unique, but the same.
If anything, I believe that Warhol’s work is more relevant today. We are constantly bombarded by advertisements, images, and brand names. America is far more immersed in pop culture than it was in the 60’s. People greedily consume reality t.v shows and shows like TMZ. An obsession with celebrity is a dominant aspect of our culture no matter how distasteful some may find it. Artists that we associate with “traditional” or “classical” art were painting their surroundings. Warhol was the first person to say that urban surroundings have a place in fine art as well. Artists like Shepard Fairey have continued to demonstrate pop culture’s influence on art and politics.
When I see Andy Warhol self-portraits It makes me love color again. Warhol expressed his images with glitter, color and the usage of careless mistakes. With his imperfection in his pictures/paintings make it “totally” different in todays society. Today everything is Photoshop; there is no such thing as mistakes. To me it feels less realistic making hard to understand the true beauty that Warhol expresses in his self-portraits.
In Andy Warhol’s art I see a strong sense of personal experience. With each piece that he makes, numerous interpretations will be made and different feelings will be felt, depending on each individual onlooker. When the subject matter is the main focus of this debate, it is each person’s memory and experience that establishes meaning to the art work. Warhol’s choice of such iconic subjects (Elvis, Marilyn, Campbell’s soup, etc.) nearly always ensures that his audience will have a private connection to this material, whether it’s relative to a memory, a fondness, or an annoyance. The point is that Warhol’s work affect, or at least can affect, everyone.
When it comes to the execution of his work, the repetition is forefront. However, it isn’t dull. It is necessary in Warhol’s work. It shows changes over time with fading shadows and changing colors. The reverberation of these works keeps the interest in them alive. No two executions are alike, and Warhol wanted that. Each piece holds something new to be discovered. This relates to the last post, how seeing something over and over usually bores people, when really the amazement behind it has yet to be unlocked. He wants you to be amazed by the things that you see everyday, and not to brush them off. This idea has kept Warhol alive this long, and I see no end in sight as there is always an audience to his works.
I think Warhol’s art is as relevant today as it was in the 1960s. People are still obsessed with pop culture even more so than in the 60s. Just look at all those stupid entertainment news programs. They’re on TV every day updating the masses on the breaking news of famous people. If you just go to the Yahoo homepage, there is almost always something about a celebrity in their headlines, like a marriage or something stupid someone did. Our culture enjoys learning about every aspect of our celebrity idols. It would make sense that we would expect our art to contain something about a celebrity in them as well. We would definitely relate to something like that because it is so familiar to us. We see the faces of celebrities every day, everywhere we go.
I find Warhol’s art to still be relevant to us in this present age. Although we may have better means to express what Warhol did, we are still discussing the same subject matter. If his work had lost it’s sense of relativeness we would cease to view his art work, we would cease viewing art if we were that ever-changing and all-knowing. Art resides in museums and galleries for a reason, our minds are still seeking to understand the human condition and contemporary society, the mysteries and answers still lie hidden within. Artists seek such understanding, and capture a glimpse of it in their work, no one will every fully comprehend life, but art has a grand way of appearing more knowledgeable than most. It’s a different vision of life compared to how the rest of the world and an average mind views it. The way Warhol viewed the world is how artists today still view it, though the methods may be different, his eyes were always looking and searching for more, for answers, just as artists are today.