was he self aware or did he genuinely think he was an artiste

>calls his workshop 'the factory'
>not self-aware

He never considered himself an "artist" in the normal way because he stopped believing in art in the commodity era of the 50s. He broke away from Abstract Expressionism and "art for art's sake" and just wanted to put a mirror to society.

He was also incredibly autistic and watching any archival footage of him is cringy.

He was pretty important to the world of art.

>>1704632
Self aware of what? Not being a 19th century realist painter of patriotic military scenes?

>>1704676

You can only call yourself an artist if you paint pleasant pictures of a tree, anon.

He was smart. One of the richest people in New York back then, and really influential.

His movies are pretty good.

File: hqdefault.jpg (6KB, 480x360px)

6KB, 480x360px

He was an enormous influence on Lou Reed and that's good enough for me.

Songs for Drella is one of the better rock albums ever made.

>>1704632
he was a memer

one of the first memers in the age of television

>>1704742
>8 hours of the Chrysler building

i just imagine the retarded yes men he must have hung out with. those were the real idiots not andy

File: Picasso_Massacre_in_Korea.jpg (97KB, 595x326px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 595x326px

>>1704750
t. American pleb

I think Andy Warhol was mediocre. The reasons why Americans love him so much is because Americans are inferior in art and have nothing else to show for. Europe had Picasso and Dalí, American had Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein.

>>1704776
Imagine being so analdevastated about Americans that you allow yourself to look this blinkered and parochial with absolutely no self-awareness.

>>1704798
Instead of the ad-hominem you could've just named a single good American artist to refute my point.

Which of course is impossible.

File: nighthawks.jpg (141KB, 1100x599px)

141KB, 1100x599px

>>1704810
I'm canadian and have no dog in this fight but this is god tier

>>1704754
It's a nice building.

>>1704811
>god tier

As "god tier" as your vocabulary. Edward Hopper is not bad, but compared to other (European) artists of his time he's utterly forgettable.

>>1704810
Why? it's clear that you have both let base provincialism influence your taste, and have confused your taste for some greater objective worth. I could list artists I like such as Robert Smithson, Franz Kline, Kenneth Noland, Larry Rivers but I'm sure you'll find some way of diminishing their work relative to somebody from "Europe" (which conveniently enough is a broad pool of double the population of the USA). I'm not even an American defending American art, just your insularity is embarrassing, pure fremdscham.

>>1704632
He has his own museum and bridge in Pittsburgh

File: Kandinsky.jpg (143KB, 725x500px)

143KB, 725x500px

>>1704854
>I could list artists I like such as Robert Smithson, Franz Kline, Kenneth Noland, Larry Rivers but I'm sure you'll find some way of diminishing their work

How could I diminish their work if I've never even heard of them? And I'm rather well educated in art history. Obviously you have no clue about art, since you believe name-dropping is all there is to it.

>>1704632
can't he be both at the same time?

>>1704811
I never understood this piece. What's so nice about it?

Help a brother out.

>>1704871
What? You kicked this off with namedropping, then asked me to name some artists, I obliged, then you accuse me of namedropping? While essentially namedropping again yourself by posting Kandinsky's Transverse Line (really? "Picasso, Dali, Kandinsky, the list goes on..." Who's next I wonder; Bacon, Mondrian?). I don't think anybody is going to buy into the shit you are peddling but yourself.

>>1704882
I think it's about context. The pod like form of the diner with pale white light. People enclosed in there like a movie set, as if there is a deeper narrative to the scene in the diner (probably isn't) but the juxtaposition of the little scene against the still empty street. Most of the light coming from the diner.

The I think its over rated as well. But it does evoke some vague emotion and I think that's why people like it.

Plus the color's and subject matter just scream the period it's set in.

>>1704891
Picasso, Dali and Kandinsky are not namedropping, they are the pillars of modern art!

If your post is earnest, then you are one of the dumbest individuals I have met on this board.

>>1704941
yep, I'm the stupid one; not the provincial sped using geography to define quality, and his own ignorance to gauge an artist's lack of worth.

>>1704936
Thank you very much.

>>1704948
>a lack of prominence does not imply a lack of relevance, even 50+ years post mortem
>the difference between Euorpe and America is merely geographical

Your tenacious stupidity is so apparent, you're probably a smelly Kraut.

>>1704973
I would not confuse your most shallow knowledge with a lack of relevancy ("dude Lichtenstein lmao"). You can pat yourself on the back though, I'm out. It's clear that you will continue to be wilfully and deliberately ignorant and continue to take pride in that ignorance.