Course Info
HNRS125 Fall 2010
The Arts in New York City
Mondays 9:15 am - 12:05 pm
Honors Hall Room 09Contact
Professor M. Healey
Email: meghanhealey@hotmail.com
Office Hour: M 12:15-1:30Tsai-Shiou Hsieh (ITF)
Email: tsaishiou.hsieh@qc.cuny.edu
Office Hours: Mon. 9-1, Wed. 4-6
Honors Hall Room 20Recent Comments
- Ebony Fosmire on Time
- Olivia Veizas on
- 6today on WEEK OF NOV.8
- Olivia Veizas on Final Arts Vlog :) for multimedia project
- ashleybarlev on Multimedia Project Blog
- ashleybarlev on Blog #15 Multimedia Blog (Final)
- ashleybarlev on What do you as you leave the movie theater?
- ashleybarlev on Final Arts Vlog :) for multimedia project
NYTimes Arts
- Lincoln Center’s Audiences Deserve Music Worthy of Them
- Dancers Drop Threat to Strike During Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony
- Chappell Roan Booked a Tour. Then She Blew Up.
- In ‘Pre-Existing Condition,’ a Character Isn’t Defined by Abuse, or One Actress
- He Wrote Michael Jackson’s ‘Human Nature’ and Has 2 More in the Vault
Handy Links
- A Chinese Film Challenges Traditional Cultural Paradigms
- A/V Equipment Request Form
- Blog of Playwright Adam Szykowicz
- Debate in the Artistic Merits of 3-D Filmmaking
- How-to videos on WordPress TV
- Link to NYTimes Arts Beat Blog
- Macaulay Away & Abroad
- Macaulay Honors College
- MHC Policies & Info
- New York Theater Workshop
- Parabasis Blog
- Scholarships & Fellowships
- Superfluities Blog
- The WIcked Stage: Blog
- Thoughts on plagiarism in the digital age…
- Website for Cornerstone Theater, So you can follow my work…
Tags
Recent Comments
Week of 9.20.10
- The Road to Life
- Zest of Life
- Floating around…
- The whole World is in my hand
- Starlight~
- Yummiez
- Stop and Stare
- You are cordially invited~
- Graham Crack: my antidrug :p
- Da Xiao Jeff
- The light at the end of the tunnel…
- Chrome is NOT a color
- So spicy and romantic <3
- It seems like we are always waiting…
- We can BE/DO anything!
- You light up my life 🙂
- Telos
Andy Warhol/Artist as a Social Critic
Of course the artist can serve as a social critic and an active member of the community. The hypocrisy only shines through if the artist is hypocritical through his or her actions. Say, for example, if an artist uses art to deliver positive messages to the community about the environment such as encouraged recycling/water conservation/electricity conservation etc., yet owns a SUV and takes 45 minute showers, then of course theyd be hypocritical. Art is merely a vehicle through which society can be critiqued, and it can never be one hundred percent objective. In the case of Andy Warhol, i had no idea he was allegedly being critical of society, in terms of subject choice, it didn’t really shine through; in terms of aesthically though, he was definitely commenting on what he though art could be.
Why must we assume that the artist is always trying to come up with an underlying theme or meaning when he/she is creating a work of art? Maybe, seeing as he was a professional artist, he just had a certain inspiring though in his mind that he wanted to put onto canvas. He assessed the work from an art perspective, and simply liked and decided to arrange the shapes and colors the way he did. I know often time I do that with my artwork. For example, I don’t think the bright colors of the camouflage were an anti war statement. In fact, if anything, he was propping up the military and the beauty of the patterning used on their clothes.
I don’t particularly care for the artist acting as a social critic anyway. I find the art to be like one line emboldened statements, like commericals that pander to the masses and appeal to a select group of people who will follow the statement. Often their work is based off of scant facts that mislead the public about a specific eventt. Its like reading political cartoons for the full scope of the news. Sometimes there main purpose is not to inform, but merely instigate. There is this innate sense within artists that they are always the underdogs whose job is to challenge the “status quo.” I believe though, that everyone is connected to the status quo so there is no point in trying to distance oneself from it.
So Andy Warhol commented on society with works such as the Cambell Soup Cans, Jesus, Last Supper, and other such American icons, yet its not as though he lived independent from these things. To me, it seems like he is poking fun at things people cherish yet reaping the rewards of what he criticizes.
Mr.Andy Warhol
I do believe that an artist can be both a social critic and an active member of their community, although I think that to be both, an artist sort of becomes more of a social observer than a social critic. To be a social critic I think you have to have some feelings of hate towards the community and you probably wouldn’t live there or even be a part if it. On the other hand to be a social observer, you might see things you don’t like in your community but you know that you must still live there, so instead of criticizing you are commenting. For example, you might live in one of the worst neighborhoods in the world, where violence and injustice roam around freely, and you might stand up against that and comment on the issues your community is facing through your artwork. Nonetheless, you are still going to be inhabiting there and making a living and in essence nothing would ever really change. You would be an observer and a citizen of your community at the same time.
Now, as I did some research on Andy Warhol I came upon something very interesting. According to a website, published by The Andy Warhol Museum, Warhol himself “rejected the idea that his work functioned as social criticism and instead described himself as an American artist who was merely depicting his environment”(Diversity of Voice). Warhol commented on various aspects of American society including religion, violence and our fascination with celebrities. I truly believe that he was just commenting on his environment like he said. I don’t think he was criticizing it since he was a celebrity himself.
My favorite artwork of his were the celebrities’ pictures on the magazine covers. I also like how the magazine was dedicated solely to celebrities and the interview he had with the young Jodie Foster was really interesting. It made me see a whole new side of her. The Interview made the audience feel closer to various celebrities which I think is great because it reminds us that they are not gods and goddesses. They are people, just like us.
I believe that Andy Warhol opened a whole new world to us. Through his artwork we got to experience a little bit of what it was like to be a celebrity. We got to live our “15 minutes of fame.”
“Diversity of Voice: Views on Guns in the United States.” The Warhol: resources and lessons . The Andy Warhol Museum, 2009. Web. 19 Sept. 2010. <http://edu.warhol.org/aract_guns.html#about>.
Andy Warhol Blog
If Andy Warhol is a social critic, then I have no clue what he is talking about. The Last Supper, camouflage, self-portraits, Easter eggs, paint splatter, and urine paintings fail to, for me at least, send any kind of message.
I think that the artist, or any other individual for that matter, has the right to be a social critic but I don’t think that every artist must have a political motive to his or her artwork for it to be considered art. Sometimes a painting is nothing more than a pretty painting and a film is solely meant to be entertainment. The truth is, the viewer will never be able to know the artists exact thoughts while creating a piece of work. Most of our “symbolic interpretation” is just speculation.
We add attachment and meaning to artwork to explain things we don’t understand. This makes art very much like religion. Art connoisseurs migrate from all over the world to see exhibits. They can’t explain rationally the piece in front of them so they make up reasons why the sculpture or painter chooses to sculpt or paint a particular image. It’s the same with religion. People, Christians in particular, wonder why something bad happens and give it meaning. All of a sudden a tragedy becomes part of “God’s plan.” Just as the follower’s faith gives religion it’s power, the viewer gives the artist his or her power. Like religion, people blindly believe in art. They trust that it will reveal to them some profound truth.
Realistically, it is the viewer, not the artist who is the social critic. The viewer is the one who gives the art meaning and sometimes the viewer is wrong. In 10th grade, my English class read The Catcher In The Rye, one of the “greatest books of all time.” I however was not impressed. My teacher ruined the novel by forcing clichéd “meanings” on arbitrary details, like turning Holden’s red hat into cry for attention. Whether or not J.D. Salinger included the stupid hat with the intention of showing the reader something about Holden (aside from his fondness of the color red) who the hell knows?
My point is, the artist can do whatever he or she pleases. They can make a statement or not. Either way, people viewing the artwork, will give it meaning. It will become for the viewer some kind of statement because if the viewer cannot identify with the artwork, they won’t see the point. In today’s society, everything is given a purpose because admitting to not understanding is terrifying.
Every member of society who dares to think is a social critic. While some might argue that you need to be an impartial third party to see a situation clearly, it is the people at the heart of the community who feel what is around them and make the truest criticisms. Great artwork is not just seen, but felt by both the artist and the viewer. It is for this reason that I think that the artist must be member of the community they are criticizing to fully understand what the hell they are talking about.
What do you say? What do you think? What affects you?
Music. We’ve listen to the beats and rhythms of songs. Sometimes they become earworms or slowly disappear from our memory. What about the lyrics? Do they stay in our heads? Yes and no. But do we really KNOW the lyrics – know what they’re trying to say, what they mean? Take Coldplay’s Politik as an example. What do you think those lyrics mean? I know that at first glance I was confused. I didn’t know what it was about. I only knew when I read album. This is how I felt when I saw some of Andy Warhol’s works. I only realized some things after being reminded of the words, “social critic,” “hypocrisy,” and “community.”
Honestly, I can’t describe Andy Warhol as a hypocrite because he was just exposing the world of the rich and famous. And, in order for him to do that, he had to live like they did. You can say that he was acting like an anthropologist by taking part in their rituals and lifestyles, understanding their morals and actions. If you want to understand a culture, you have to understand their reasons for their lifestyles. You can’t just stand and watch a society live and think you can understand their actions as an outsider. You need to become immersed albeit detached at the same time. So, rather than saying Andy Warhol’s works are hypocritical of his lifestyle, I would say that it’s paradoxical. He wanted to show the world their lifestyles and he can’t do that standing outside clubs.
As for being an active part of his community, I believe that Andy Warhol is more than that – he exposed another world to the world. He showed us how they really lived. The lifestyles of the rich and famous are no different than our own. Maybe Warhol is trying to show us the extravagantness of life and how we can live and waste life simultaneously. Or maybe Andy Warhol is trying to go even deeper than that.
Although Andy Warhol was religious, I felt differently when I saw his artwork, The Last Supper (Be Somebody With a Body). It spoke volumes. I thought, at first, that it was telling us that we should have our own values and morals that pertain to our society today instead of keeping old ones. But, in reality, Friedrich Nietzsche’s words, “God is dead,” was raging in my head. I remembered how “God is dead” because of our actions, i.e., our lifestyles. Our morals and ethics have “killed” the god. The slow decay we have fallen into is shown through Andy Warhol’s work. We need to become “somebody with a body.” We cannot live on religion alone. We have to regain our mortality and sight to see that we have to start living differently. Whatever pertains to the past, does not always relate to us – it has to change. Thus, I believe that Andy Warhol is trying to tell us that our view on any religion has to change. This, to me, is his way of criticizing the religious worlds.
But how do we find the message(s) Andy Warhol is trying to get across? Well, if you can somehow telephone the dead, then yes, you can ask him. The problem is that, if it was possible to contact the dead, he might not have the answer. We have to dig through on our own. The artist’s works make us think, see, and know the truth. They, most probably, have the answers to life’s questions. Or not. But they will have an opinion about it. Their thoughts and views do not necessarily have to be imposed on us, the viewer. We can see artwork and not be affected in any way or see them and be affected. Everything depends on how the artist portrays the truth and on the viewers and the world.
How does it happen? Well, the world affects the artists, but Andy Warhol affects the worlds of society. We may not fully see or understand his works, but there are others who will understand.
Oh! I thought this was interesting: http://blogs.artinfo.com/16miles/2010/06/18/andy-warhol-david-salle-fan/
I found it while I was researching the title for The Last Supper because I knew I was missing another part of the title.