Why do normies lose their shit when you call out Pollock and Warhol for being hacks?
Because it's true. Same thing happens when you call /ic/ out for being hacks.
>>2776548
In my experience most normies do not understand or appreciate either artist. Stop trying to be a special snowflake.
>>2776559
not being a special snowflake, pollock was a hack.
Do they? the only person I've ever spoken to art about that actually liked Pollock was my high school art teacher. Everyone else thinks they're a load of wank.
>>2776548
my god, who gives a shit
>>2776579
>/ic/ - Artwork/Critique
>>2776575
Warhol is who girls who make old-people art call their favorite artist and there's a very vocal contingent of fine arts students who will knobgobble pollock to defend their own talentless wank.
Not exactly normalfags, but the normalfags of the art world.
>>2776561
Yeah, that's what normies tend to believe.
>>2776588
Ahh ok, so normalfag "artists". This makes more sense.
>>2776588
this. I'm sure there's people who actually like his work just cause but a lot of people claim to like it just so they can be pretentious and "get" something normal people don't.
don't give a fuck dude , i'l just stick to my clasic paintings n shit
>>2776548
Because they were not.
>>2776598
Does it though? Is it not normalfag af to like concept art, anime, and space marines? How much of dA is the sort of ironic social commentary you see in Warhol, and how much is anime fanart, furries, Leonid Afremov, concept landscape etc?
>>2776638
If they were in it for ironic social commentary, wouldn't they like, or at least know about people making ironic social commentary about the current vapid pop culture instead of mindlessly consuming it? They're retards who think soup cans are really artistic and the 60s were totally like hip man and play reddit on their phone.
>>2776548
They were both significant for different reasons. People who unironically think they're frauds just don't understand the true breadth of art. Sorry, idiots.
>>2776667
>about people making ironic social commentary about the current vapid pop culture instead of mindlessly consuming it
That describes the only Warhol fan I know pretty well. He's a serious artist who focuses on current cultural trends, he only seems to incorporate old cultural icons in his work when they are relevant to our regional subculture.
I'm sure the Warhol fans you know really are vapid and like it because they think they're supposed to and laud it for its aesthetic value rather than understanding the concepts behind the work, but anecdote for anecdote.
>>2776716
>That describes the only Warhol fan I know pretty well. He's a serious artist who focuses on current cultural trends
>>2776548
Angry CIA drug users.
>>2776575
I acctualy like Pollock, not because I think he's a great artist and nobody could do what he did. But because his paints show a Chaos and nonsense that most of the time is acctualy pleasent for the viewer.
Warhol is indeed a hack
>>2776716
The people I'm talking about are more endemic to the 16-23 crowd. Posers, some older and more burnt out. They are what I assume most anons think are normalfags who like Warhol and what I was reminded of.
I also know legitimate Warhol fans who get the message and are up with current trends, but they also hate Warhol and anything associated with him.
>>2776724
>pic unrelated
That artists doesn't even claim to be influenced by current cultural trends, they claim inspiration from art movements from the previous century.