Urine oxidation painting. Three words very unlikely to be used in the same sentence, let alone make any sense at all. At first the idea struck me as absurd. Urinating on a canvas and calling it art. Just what exactly was artistic about it? Then again, what is art? I came to the conclusion that the artist was either an unfathomable genius of his time or some deranged screwball trying to make a fortune.
But then again none of this was what we had discussed in class. I had learned that Andy Warhol was a prime example of the artist as a social critic. I would assume that now is the time to “read between the lines.” Let’s try this again.
Urine oxidation painting… You know, no matter how long I look at this, it still looks like blotches. Well… if I tilt my head sideways, I can almost make out a butterfly.
Moving on with the rest of the exhibit. Biblical references to Christ, exaggerated food items, Harley-Davidson motorcycles and southern cotton picking. It was obvious that Warhol was very opinionated about American culture. I couldn’t help but wonder what impact did his art have on society? Eventually I found myself pondering all sorts of things. Is the role of an artist fundamentally tied to the role of his art? Or is it tied to something else, like the government? And again, what is art?
Honestly I know nothing about art. It would be difficult for me to even make up some readable crap about it. The closest I’ve gotten to understand real art is what it has done for our society.
Art is the visual personification of the needs of the community. It is the voice of the people that serves to raise awareness about specific issues. Another interpretation would be that artwork is an indirect attack against government policies.
Now if this is true, why would the government choose to fund museums and public exhibits? They are practically hanging themselves. And what about the paid artist? It wouldn’t be a surprise if the artist in question sought to represent the opinions of the government for a payoff.
That’s bull****.
The artist is an integral part of the community. Not only must the artist understand the community, it is a requirement in order to produce quality art that will appeal to its people. If the artist is not an active member of the community, how else does he expect to paint a thousand words, let alone a thousand voices? It is the artists’ duty to express something about the community. More than often, he will act as a social critic, exposing more bad than good.
It’s tough being an artist. You can sing hymns and praises about your community with your “masterpiece.” But on the other hand you can really piss people off with the “garbage” you produce. Andy Warhol for example, was shot for having too much influence over some very powerful people.
The life of an artist is a hustle. You put yourself at risk in an attempt to procure more for the community. The artist is neither a hypocrite nor a social badmouth. By acting as a critic and pointing out the flaws of the community, the artist is only pointing out what needs to be corrected. How can the community grow if it cannot contemplate its own problems? For what reason do we blame the artist?
It’s not just pretty to look at. Art speaks volume.
Ahahahahahaha. Sorry, but it’s funny how you started your blog. It has a “light” feel to it, i.e., a boxer on his feet. It also has a flow and rhythm with the way you have so many paragraphs. The questions also play a big part because they act as those hooks and uppercuts that catch us off guard to make us regain ourselves. Or rather, they just make us think, basically xD Then the knock-out! Those last two lines, the good ol’ one-two just hits perfectly. Honestly, this was a great read. You really spoke volumes.