I'm not convinced by the 'shot Marilyn' argument (starting at 1:03:06). Pills claims that the reason why the Marilyn canvas with the bullet hole (created when Warhol was shot upon) is Warhol's most expensive piece is because there is nothing else valuable to the original 'non-shot' painting. The fact that it has a bullet hole and a cool story behind it somehow gave it (at least some) value. Cannot we expect a similar outcome with basically any other popular artist? Imagine Van Gogh's painting damaged with a razor during a frenzy when he cut off his ear, possibly with traces of the blood on the canvas. Or something by Picasso, Da Vinci, who ever... Wouldn't _these_ paintings also become way more popular and expensive due to such circumstances? Banksy shredded his own painting and its price went twenty times up. Or just think of so many examples when the sales would skyrocket upon the death of an artist. There is nothing unique to Warhol in that regard.
Don't forget the influence of the galleries and the collusion between them and the critics. Basquiat, Keith Haring and Kenny Scharf were just three of many graffiti artists, but the market required that their number be limited. So, they were chosen and others ignored.
Warhol got shot in his factory & actually died, but came back to life because someone told the doctor he was famous, thus making the doctor "Try harder" to bring him back. he also never wanted to go back into hospitals because he thought it was "bad karma" which he was right due to how he actually died in 1987. But people often forget Warhol got shot in 1968 because it was overshadowed By Robert Kennedys assassination & also because Kennedy was much famous than the "Revived Andy" in 1968. "Revived Andy" then went back into his factory & Kicked all his personalities that made up his factory & became more "Business minded", which is the Warhol ppl know more than his previous "Velvet underground / Film making" Era.
you’re correct, he came from a really good household/family but decided to abandon it all and became homeless even shaved half of his head so his parents wouldn’t recognize him.
You're not talking about art. You're talking about society. Art can only be "over" if we think of it as some kind of canonic progression, which is why it is nowadays supposed to be divorced from affect. To put it simply, is Bach art? The music is very interesting, "cerebral", if you will, but also very moving. That's the real definition of art, and it has nothing to do with history. However, painting can be very rich with meaning and beauty, without the rendering function of previous centuries. As long as we remain connected to a certain measure of affect as a guiding principle, there can be poetry. In fact, there's no reason that visual art couldn't be interpreted by referring to other media, music, poetry, and dispensing with socio-historical constructs.
I love your podcasts/UA-cam channel but this episode felt like you were all out of your league grasping at ideas or concepts about art without really saying anything substantive. Andy Warhol was many of the things you pointed out but your whole framing of this episode was absent of “art” or any real discussion or challenge to “the end of art”.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
1:02:55 that’s a clockwork orange theme “It’s funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.”
René Girard’s concept of mimetic desire comes to mind - one values a Warhol artifact because other people do.
Great episode, though the late Beatles’ music was genuinely revolutionary post revolver. Sorry to be that guy.
Absolutely, but in podcaster's defence, he also said he doesn't know much about music, so... A clumsy example, that's all.
I'm not convinced by the 'shot Marilyn' argument (starting at 1:03:06). Pills claims that the reason why the Marilyn canvas with the bullet hole (created when Warhol was shot upon) is Warhol's most expensive piece is because there is nothing else valuable to the original 'non-shot' painting. The fact that it has a bullet hole and a cool story behind it somehow gave it (at least some) value.
Cannot we expect a similar outcome with basically any other popular artist? Imagine Van Gogh's painting damaged with a razor during a frenzy when he cut off his ear, possibly with traces of the blood on the canvas. Or something by Picasso, Da Vinci, who ever... Wouldn't _these_ paintings also become way more popular and expensive due to such circumstances? Banksy shredded his own painting and its price went twenty times up. Or just think of so many examples when the sales would skyrocket upon the death of an artist. There is nothing unique to Warhol in that regard.
Don't forget the influence of the galleries and the collusion between them and the critics. Basquiat, Keith Haring and Kenny Scharf were just three of many graffiti artists, but the market required that their number be limited. So, they were chosen and others ignored.
Warhol capitalized on the spectacle. Perhaps he read Dibord.
Warhol got shot in his factory & actually died, but came back to life because someone told the doctor he was famous, thus making the doctor "Try harder" to bring him back. he also never wanted to go back into hospitals because he thought it was "bad karma" which he was right due to how he actually died in 1987. But people often forget Warhol got shot in 1968 because it was overshadowed By Robert Kennedys assassination & also because Kennedy was much famous than the "Revived Andy" in 1968. "Revived Andy" then went back into his factory & Kicked all his personalities that made up his factory & became more "Business minded", which is the Warhol ppl know more than his previous "Velvet underground / Film making" Era.
I’m pretty sure Basquiat came from money and he tried to obscure that fact.
you’re correct, he came from a really good household/family but decided to abandon it all and became homeless even shaved half of his head so his parents wouldn’t recognize him.
We should remove all artist explanations from galleries!! Anyway here's 80 minutes of what artists said about their own art
You're not talking about art. You're talking about society. Art can only be "over" if we think of it as some kind of canonic progression, which is why it is nowadays supposed to be divorced from affect. To put it simply, is Bach art? The music is very interesting, "cerebral", if you will, but also very moving. That's the real definition of art, and it has nothing to do with history. However, painting can be very rich with meaning and beauty, without the rendering function of previous centuries. As long as we remain connected to a certain measure of affect as a guiding principle, there can be poetry. In fact, there's no reason that visual art couldn't be interpreted by referring to other media, music, poetry, and dispensing with socio-historical constructs.
Lib Vic seems to know a lot about the Omni liberal, Mr.borelli . I wonder if he's a disciple.
Wow. Starcraft. Memories...
Some people were just born to write.
I love your podcasts/UA-cam channel but this episode felt like you were all out of your league grasping at ideas or concepts about art without really saying anything substantive. Andy Warhol was many of the things you pointed out but your whole framing of this episode was absent of “art” or any real discussion or challenge to “the end of art”.