why was this film deemed culturally significant
it's 8 hours of the empire state building in one take
That's one way to put it ...
This kind of art can't just be judged on the object itself. If you tried, you wouldn't be able to get a trash bag into a museum probably. Andy Warhol, on the other hand, was a talented cultural engineer. Even today people, who are willing to invest themselves into the circumstances of his art, derive enjoyment and fascination from them.
so mad and pleb at the same time
stop please can't take it anymore
Warhol engineered his status to reflect itself as art. He embodied "cool" by force. Anything he touched became a cultural artifact.
People bought into it.
The only real truth is that if anyone pulls any sort of divinity from his art is a true plebeian. Patricians know exactly what he is.
I probably'll never have a definitive opinion on Warhol. While some contemporary artists and the art market itself seem like huge money laundering schemes pioneered by social engineers, fraudsters and faux experts, I can still see how his art is original. What bugs me is the lengths to which people go to defend the genius of postmodern art. It looks like another case of the Emperor has no clothes.
Pic related, The Physical Impossibility of Death
in the Mind of Someone Living created by a 25 year old Damien Hirst, is lauded as one of the greatest works of art of the 20th century. It's a shark preserved in formaldehyde and probably worth than 20 million dollars.
When art transcended itself for the 4th time into pop philosophy, it became a farce of itself and lost efficacy.
Deeper meaning does not equal deeper impact.
Most of the time, it's just a fucking vase.
That specific work by Hirst is considered great because of how fucking cool it is, and the fact that whoever owns that piece needs to have the shark replaced every few years because it isn't submerged in a 100% formaldehyde solution. It asks the question of:
>Is it still an original work if the shark is replaced throughout history?
>If this shark is different than the previous one, is it a new piece, or the same?
Kind of like asking
>if you painted the Mona Lisa in a different color scheme, is it the same work?
Again, you can keep throwing out words you know nothing about because you read them on 4chan or you can start actually studying, the road is up to you.
I suggest beginning with a book related to the topic of the thread:
Andy is responsible for the greatest piece of music of the 20th century
>le the time means it isnt a documentary
fucking kill yourself jesus christ, stop talking like you know what film "is" or "isnt"
it was shot on film, its a film, you fucking imbecile
>Warhol's reputation helped the band gain a higher profile. He helped the band secure a coveted recording contract with MGM's Verve Records, with himself as nominal "producer", and gave the Velvets free rein over the sound they created.
>wrote the songs
>played the guitar
>talentless hack Reed
what are you talking about kiddo
well empire literally wasn't a documentary
all i'm asking is how was shooting a still shot of a building for 8 hours influential
did no one honestly think to do a still shot of buildings until this was released
>well empire literally wasn't a documentary
Yes, it literally is a documentary.
>A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction or maintaining a historical record.
>all i'm asking is how was shooting a still shot of a building for 8 hours influential
not him, but we all know we wouldn't be having this conversation had an airplane happened to have crashed into the building. People would be sucking Andy's dick harder
seven years is a fucking long time, man. hell, even one year is enough for something stopping being relevant
Empire is relevant because it was Warhol's idea and he was already an icon by 64. it probably influenced some late structuralists, but that doesn't make him one of the pioneers of the genre
Ask the people who wrote it?
>seven years is a fucking long time
No, not really. Especially considering, again, the "structuralist" films you're referring to were less than ten in number, had limited distribution to anyone outside of Germany/Austria, and included a beer commercial.
Benning was making films in the early seventies.
This thread right here is why I hate new artists.
Garbage ass art thats meant to represent some grand testisment that society as a whole devalues art because its obession with images getting repeated so many times they lose value
Ooo, so deep and cool, give that cocksucker a bunch of money ya sheep.
Pollack is shit too, any art that can be replicated by tieing a paint brush to a string from the ceiling and swinging it around is bad, and anyone who pays 50 million dollars for one deserve to be shot by communists.
>inb4 u mad or some shit from some trolly auzzie
you dont know what nihilism means, stop throwing the word around jesus christ lmao just shut up
"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy."
you only dont like pomo because its right now, and you have rose tinted glasses about the past despite having never experienced it
the realists said the same thing about modernism but i bet you like modernism huh
>not normie as fuck
How delusional can you be?
okay, having in mind how you probably have less than 90 IQ I'll do it reddit style and explain it to you like you're five:
there are various forms of nihilism
moral, cosmic, epistemological
in the case of your retardness, you were denying objective standards to evaluate art, the classic "it's subjective!!!" argument you'll conveniently throw at anyone that disagrees with you
Like i said
"Art" that is meant simply to get a message across is bad i my opinion. I feel good art should have some aestic appeal to it, just writing Duchamp on a used toilet to stick it to the art establishment to for being old hokies is bad. Make good looking art faggots, really not that hard. Then slap a message in their to impress all the hairy pitted liberal sluts at college.
But people like you faun over their half assed critiques on socioty and culture, so they dont have to try.
>posted with autism over people using modern technology
your post is subjective, my interpretation of it is that you actually agree with me and you don't realize it
>and you have rose tinted glasses about the past despite having never experienced it
how do you know that's bad? it's all relative
my interpretation is that you actually think i'm a genius and secretly want my dick
it's from magazine that featured cowboy henk, brilliant
I kinda feel like Warhol is overrated and underrated at the same time. On one hand I don't think there was any profound statement to his word, at least not one he actually intended. On the other hand he saw beauty in things other people wouldn't even look at because they'd deem them shallow and boring. And that should be appreciated. In a way something as simple as a can of tomato soup can is beautiful in its simplicity and we never notice it.
you actually paid to study art
this was part in parcel of the breakdown of art.
art became contrarian, subjective and obscure and warhol was one of its proponents.
basically, this < kind of art became obsolete and ^ became the norm.
>huck finn wasn't actually about racism in the south, it was actually a posttextual deconstruction of the structural paradigm of the patriarchy contextualized through a capitalist society
>my interpretation is just as valid as yours because there is no truth
>you don't like my painting of shit smeared on the wall? you just don't get it, it's as good as the mona lisa because everything is relative
>the only truth is that there is no truth
>capitalization but no punctuation
iphone poster pls
you're a retard
you're going exactly against what you're arguing
You want art to be about skill etc yet you condemn a piece based on how much it sold rather than any actual artistic critiques
you're a fucking retarded hypocrite and you don't even know it
I was mearing shittalking someone who was likely baiting me. He implyed that realistic art is inferior to other forms so i thought of some dumb shit about modern art to mock, i went to picasso amd his weird depictions of women and the insane amount of money his orginals cost now, even thou to the average joe, ot looks like their 5 year old made it.
But resort to more name calling, thats a classy route to go and gives off the image of intellectual high ground
>even thou to the average joe, ot looks like their 5 year old made it.
Now, this is the problem with art. We like different things, but don't really understand how other people like other things. For example, you might be aware that people like Picasso but you get baffled when they buy his pieces for "outrageous" sums of money.
Warhol is often pretty much a hack... but there is something pretty amazing about making such a long take technically and maybe some artistic interest in a long shot of such a beautiful building over hours