Kid the Universe: shabu: Kid the Universe: midigod: harleyquinnical: I remember my middle school art class having a unit actually focused on Roy Lichtenstein.  His technique is basically scaling up a portion of a panel as if it were scanned into a vector art program like Adobe Illustrator.  That being said, if you are going to give him crap for it, then give Warhol crap for the soup can.

Absolutely. They were both hacks. The soup cans were the most talent-based thing Warhol ever did. I went to a Warhol exhibition long after his death where one of the highlights was a group of mylar balloons being blown around by a fan. Warhol was just playing an elaborate prank on the art world, Lichtenstein did the same, and millions have fallen for it ever since.

Simple minds love calling post-modern art pranks or jokes by knowing scam-artists. "Anyone could do that, even my kid" they will say, as if that's an original thought. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course but people should really inform themselves before recycling cliched lines that only reveal their own ignorance.

Warhol was a Master who will be studied and appreciated long long after your name is forgotten. You can love it or leave it but calling it crap is just lazy

His legacy will ability to mock pop culture. I'm not saying his work doesn't have value beyond that, but in the genpop, that will be his legacy. And his sarcasm of pop culture was as prescient as anyone else's view that I've seen. There may be a greater (at least more accessible) value in that than the artistic merit of his work.

You say he mocked pop culture but I'd say reflected and even forged pop culture is more accurate. He was one of the most important, prescient, and still relevant visual artists of the last century. I would say THE most important as I am very much a fan of the artist (not the man) but pretty much all reasonable people who actually study art and culture would include him in at least an informal top 10 (and that's based on his artistic merit not his celebrity or cultural commentary).

It would seem many in this thread and elsewhere have a very narrow view of what art is and should be. Art is not merely the ranking of pretty pictures or impressive photorealistic renderings that showcase technical virtuosity. I would say that contemporary and modern fine art is most often not those things and is generally discussed and debated more on concept than visual appeal.

There is grift and fraud in the art world as there is in everything and there were some stereotypical conman aspects to some of these artists. There is also serious and thorough academic analysis and appreciation for the masters. Whole fields of study, in fact. Warhol and modern fine art in general might not be your cup of tea, and that's fine, but reducing the legacy of these giants to "crap" or "mockery" or "my kid could do that" just shows ignorance and a proud and willful one at that since there's a wealth of information and nuance to be learned on the subject if one wanted.

/looking forward to checking out this documentary