Andy Warhol = Brilliant.

I’ve always heard about Andy Warhol and I knew bits and pieces about some of his paintings, but I never actually delved deep to understand the reasons behind his choices.  To be honest, every time I go to an art exhibit it’s because I’m usually forced to be there and I don’t really interact with the art and study it.  However about a week ago, I visited the Andy Warhol exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum and my attention was captured from the start to the finish.  I read every caption, looked at every piece of artwork, watched every movie, and skimmed through every book.  His paintings were all gorgeous, even the ones that were urinated on.  I mean, come on, there’s a painting that was made because someone peed on it, that’s gotta be something amazing.

I really enjoyed looking at Warhol’s pieces because not only were they nice to the eye, but there was deeper meaning behind it.  As I stood there, it was sometimes hard to understand why Andy Warhol chose to do what he did, like the repetition of Jesus, but when you think of him as a social critic, it becomes easier to understand.

Recently in Anthropology  101 we have been discussing  what an anthropologist does for a living.  The only way the anthropologist can really study humans and different cultures is to actually live in it and experience it first hand.  I can immediately relate this to Andy Warhol because in essence, he is studying the American culture, and living it all at the same time.  It’s hard for someone who is sitting on the outside of all the commotion to comment on what is going on.  Like the old saying, “to understand a man, you’ve got to walk a mile in his shoes,” Andy Warhol was doing just that.

Although he criticized consumerism, sensationalism, the spectacle of media and celebrities, he was himself all of the above.  After starting his talk show with celebrities, he became one himself.  He was also a consumer at the time and was questioned and influenced by the media.  I don’t think that Warhol was being a hypocrite in doing so because he was being honest.  I found that honesty in every one of his pieces.  I feel as though his works weren’t a call of action or anything, he was basically just stating the obvious.  I’m sure everyone in that time agreed with Warhol’s views even though they were all consumers themselves.

One aspect of his artwork that I really liked is the repetition.  For me, if I look at something over and over and over again, the first few times I’d get something different out of it but after a while, I’d just get tired of looking at it.  In this case, when these images are repeated and they all look exactly the same, it gives it more meaning.  It’s like I’m forced to look at it over and over again because there are just so many of the same images, but it feels like he’s trying to tell you something by doing so.  The repetition almost feels like a scream that can’t really be heard unless we’re actually analyzing the art work.  For example, in the last work of the exhibit, The Detail of the Last Supper, where the face of Jesus is repeated tons of times, Warhol is screaming out to us that he is actually Catholic.  The church was a part of his everyday life and I think that is what he was trying to show by repeating the image, but everyone didn’t find out for sure that he was religious until his death.

Warhol also criticized consumerism, ever since the beginning of his career as an artist.  Warhol’s most famous painting of the Campbell’s soup cans show how society is pulled in by the media.  These “pretty” pictures were all the people needed to just go out and buy a few cans of soup.  For Campbell’s, it wasn’t about the soup, it was about the money and about getting people to purchase their product.  Another artwork that stood out to me was a part of the Last Supper Series.  In this painting, there were pictures of Jesus from the Last Supper as well as motorcycles and a price tag of $6.99.  At the time, motorcycles were “in” and everyone was rushing to get one–the essence of consumerism.  Warhol criticized consumerism by putting a price on things that should be priceless like Jesus.  I’m sure that this must have stirred up controversy during his lifetime from Christians, like himself.

The fact that Andy Warhol was indeed a part of the society that he was criticizing made it all the more believable, honest, sincere, moving, and controversial.  The purpose of an artist should be to stir up conversation and that is exactly what he does in his pieces from The Last Decade.  In order to judge, he should have walked a mile in that person’s shoes–the person being the celebrity and the consumer.

Andy Warhol said, “If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings and films and me, and there I am.  There’s nothing behind it.”  Warhol believed that when you think about something for too long, especially one of his paintings, it loses its meaning, if he intended for there to be a meaning or not.  He admits to wanting to be “plastic” and says that anyone can get famous in fifteen minutes.  He wanted to prove how easy it was to become famous, even if he considered himself a loser who like “boring things.”  Andy Warhol was just one of us.

Stranger than your already eclectic artist, more abstract than even Picasso, able to urinate on a canvas and call it art…he’s a fruitcake… he’s a weirdo….he’s, he’s…well of course he’s not anything thing like that, he’s Andy Warhol.  A man for whom the word “pop” must have stood for “paint odd pictures,” because honestly, for some of his work you needed both a historian to explain the time period’s relativity to the piece, and a psychiatrist to measure my response to let me know if I’m “understanding it” correctly. The man was probably a genius, and he made his art speak volumes about everything, the problems in society, the society itself, and even about the more exclusive society of the rich and famous (of which he was an active member).

So, Andy Warhol- social critic? Big time celebrity? Or hypocrite?  The answer is all of the above (except for the “hypocrite.”  The artist’s roles in society often overlap, because in order for him to criticize and point out the flaw in society, he needed to be a part of it.  As a big time celebrity he experienced the pros and cons of that life and its seen over and over in his work.  How else can one say they are accurately criticizing?  One needs to be in the thick of it all, much like Andy Warhol was, because his opinions were able to reach a greater number of people thanks to his celebrity status.

Andy Warhol’s work can be seen as uniquely strange (I mean come on, oxidation paintings??? I never even realized urine was a medium) but his art captures images of common objects that are familiar and relatable to the public.  One example would be his Marilyn Monroe pieces; she was such a recognizable celebrity that her image, along with pieces depicting the Mona Lisa and Jesus Christ, and that of the Last Supper are works that the public understood (somewhat) and could appreciate.  They were iconic and meaningful, however somewhat daunting as well.  One of his works consisted of a silk-screening of Jesus Christ over a hundred times, (I found it a little intimidating) and the message I found within it was that he was reminding the people the God was always watching.

Andy Warhol. A name everyone knows. A person nobody can fully understand.

The role of any artist as a social critic goes hand in hand with their role as an active member in society. As a member in society, one is able to see the corruption from the inside, and experience it as anyone else would. Anyone who experiences a community from the inside and can understand why this community does what it does, can become a social critic. Social critics ask themselves why. Why do these people do what they do? Why do they say what they say? Why do they wear what they wear? Truth is, there’s no right answer. But Andy Warhol is able to uncover a few good ones.

Through his artwork, Warhol shows the way everyone in society conforms to one idea. The Detail of The Last Supper shows Christ repeated 112 times. This artwork shows Warhol’s view of Christ as a repetitive, ongoing subject in society. As said in the piece’s description, the inspiration for this piece most likely came from Warhol’s experiences in church as a child. Right there, his immersion in religious society is shown, and he can therefore pass judgment on the constant repetition and glorification of Christ.

Other pieces of his artwork also show the conformity of people to society. In one of his pieces, he muddles together motorcycles with Christ(nicknamed “The Big C”) and colors of red, white, and blue. He then puts a price on it. 6.99. That’s all it’s worth to people. 6.99. Is it even realistic to put a price on such things as Christ? Apparently, to Warhol, it is. The way he sees it, there’s no reason for anyone to glorify and worship Christ, or motorcycles just because that’s what’s “in” right now. Because that’s what it comes down to. People began to buy motorcycles and began to worship Christ because that’s what everyone else was doing. Warhol knows this because he went to Church and he was a part of the motorcycle group, Hell’s Angels, who are known to represent freedom. Once again, he is criticizing these things, this time by pricing them cheaply, and he was able to do so because he was a part of them.

Much of Warhol’s art captured moments of other celebrities. Television celebrities were a main focus of his, because he felt that he was “watching tv instead of living life….I knew that I was watching television. The channels switch, but it’s all television.” He had a very negative outlook on television, even though he personally knew celebrities like Jodie Foster, Marilyn Monroe, and Elizabeth Taylor. He glorified their achievements, such as Jodie Foster’s going to college in his piece, The Kid Goes to College: Jodie Foster. He mocked celebrity lifestyle as he became one of them. He knew that there was no reason as to why they were glorified. They were just people. He proved this by becoming a celebrity himself, illuminating the fact that anyone could.

There were also many of Warhol’s self portraits. He turned the focus onto himself, turning himself into a celebrity. He noticed how much attention was received from television celebrities and how much influence these people had over others, and he wanted this for himself. He wanted to see what the big deal was. Why did everyone glorify these celebrities? Why did everyone want to be a celebrity? WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?! Truth is, he found out, there is none. It’s all ridiculous and implanted into people’s heads that somehow, celebrities are better than the rest of us.

Most of his self portraits show him camouflaged or moving his head in a manner that suggests he would like to escape. This is highly symbolic of his immersion in society and his desire to get out. Also, the desire to hide and escape are representative of his difficulty in outwardly expressing the fact that he was religious. Another fact that I found interestingly hidden was that he was a homosexual. I think he also tried to camouflage this because of it’s general societal rejection. Oftentimes when people found that he was gay, they were wary of accepting his artwork, so in order to feel socially accepted, Warhol tried to inconspicuously tell the world he was gay without announcing it. Personally, I think that Warhol’s role as an active member in society as well as a social critic branch off of his homosexuality. Since homosexuality was generally not accepted at this time, he was critical of society from the beginning. He wormed his way into becoming a celebrity in order to see why these people were unable to accept him. I believe that because he was able to be a celebrity, and see what was going on “behind the scenes” he was also able to realize that it was the same thing as everywhere else, and he was able to say that it was all crap. The whole idea of being a celebrity and of people worshiping celebrities. It’s all crap. There’s no reason for celebrities to be placed on a pedestal and to be worshiped by the more common and less wealthy people in society. IT’S ALL CRAP!

Who is  “Andy Warhol”?  Before this year I really thought I knew. One day in English 110h, the class was assigned to read an essay by Leonard Kriegel all about his opinion of graffiti.  In this piece were references to Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat. Not knowing too much about them, I Wikipedia-ed (not an actual word) their names and Andy Warhol came up on both of their pages. I thought to myself, “Might as well look at Andy Warhol also, I do have to go to his exhibit.” Thus began my journey to discover that I really did not know that much about this iconic figure. After a quick skim of his page, I found this really great quote he said about coca-cola:

“Warhol also used Coca Cola bottles as subject matter for paintings. He had this to say about Coca Cola: “What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca-Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca-Cola, and just think, you can drink Coca-Cola, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the cokes are the same and all the cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.^[14]

Who knew a picture of Coca-Cola or a can of Campbell’s soup could speak to a random guy on the street and a Hollywood actress.  Warhol was able to control society in this way. He was able to take your average box of detergent and create something that was considered art.  He was able to bring this sense of unique culture to an ordinary America.

I think for Warhol, being an active member of his community, and being a social critic were one in the same. He was friends with famous figures, and then would create art with their images. He was involved in high society yet was also able to create art works about consumerism. Warhol started Interview magazine, which also put the ideas of being a social critic and part of society in harmony with each other.

As seen in the exhibit “Andy Warhol: The Last Decade”, Warhol collaborated with many other artists, including Jean-Michel Basquiat, who was a new face and a graffiti artist in the 80’s. Warhol would usually begin with his original artwork and Basquiat would paint his own work over it. In this, Basquiat would almost create a new message or a commentary on Warhol’s original piece creating something completely critical and different.  Their collaborative efforts were just another example of Warhol’s role. By joining forces with Basquiat, Andy Warhol was able meld two seemingly different voices as well as extend his audience and community.

Andy Warhol was always pushing the boundaries of the concept of art, and the definition of an artist.  I was able to see his complete immersion in art and culture and society effectively through the exhibit. He really dabbled in everything in his last ten years of his life. From self-portraits in his classic silkscreen format, to freeing his hands and using his own urine as a centerpiece, Warhol was definitely not what many would consider a traditional artist. There were parts of the exhibit with clips from his television programs he created as well as photos of celebrity buddies.  All of this is art.

I don’t think the mesh of an artist as a social critic and active member of society reflects any hypocrisy in an artist’s role.  Who is to say what the limits of an “artist’s role” really are. As was shown in the Andy Warhol exhibit, the boundaries of art and who an artist is will forever be pushed and reshaped. The Evolution of art and the artist is still in motion.

14. Warhol, Andy (1975). The philosophy of Andy Warhol: from A to B and back again. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ISBN 0-15-189050-1. OCLC 1121125.

Andy Warhol did not just have a cool hairstyle, he had serious talent as well. When I left the Andy Warhol exhibit last week, I was surprised that viewing art could be so much fun.  Warhol’s work was fun to view though, as it is some of the most colorful and eccentric that I have ever seen.  The man used a mop for a paintbrush, made yarn look electrifying, and urinated on a picture to create a glittering gold color.  Through doing all this work, however, Warhol still found time to live the life.

He mingled with the best of celebrities and there are tons of photographs to show that. Warhol knew/photographed the Jacksons, Farah Fawcett, Ian McKellan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nancy Reagan, Sylvester Stallone, and many, many more famous people.  Perhaps it was his social life and connections that helped him criticize society.

I think that an artist, such as Andy Warhol, can be an active member of society and criticize it as well.  Otherwise, how would the artist know what to criticize?  In other words, if you are living your life in a hole, how can you intelligently say something negative about a world that you are not a part of?

Warhol was able to criticize the world because he was a part of it.  For example, Warhol criticized consumerism in his artwork.  I remember seeing a photo in The Last Decade exhibit that showed Jesus in the background, with pictures of motorcycles, the Wise Owl symbol, and a price tag overlapping Jesus’ image.  In this artwork, Warhol was criticizing superficial items, such as motorcycles, that people are so obsessed with.  He was saying that in their obsession with material things, people forget more important things, like their religion and their values.  Warhol was often in the public’s eye and had a wide circle of associates.  I think that Warhol was able to make such a statement precisely because he knew so many people and therefore, knew what people obsess about.

One of the people that I remember that Warhol was photographed with was Nancy Reagan, President Ronald Reagan’s wife.  I also remember seeing an artwork where Warhol criticized President Reagan’s spending budget.  Warhol was not a politician, of course, but he knew his own share of politicians.  In this way, I think that Warhol had his background information when he criticized some politicians’ choices.

Like a good student writing an essay, artists have to be able to defend whatever criticisms they make about society.  They have to have their supporting details.  Artists can get those supporting details by doing research, by being active in their society and thereby learning what’s wrong with society.   I think that they would just be blowing smoke if they made negative or even positive statements about society without even knowing what society is like.

My teacher once told my class a story about five blind men who are all touching an elephant.  The men are blind, so none of them can tell that it is actually an elephant that they are touching.  They actually think they are touching a snake, or a giraffe, or some other animal.  An artist is blind just like the men in this story if the artist does not do his or her research before criticizing society.  Without doing research, the artist will end up making false statements about society.  Doing that would just be offensive to the society and the people that the artist is commenting on.

When I think about my first month in Arts in New York and honors English, my eyes are more open to the world of the artist.  Personally, before I took these courses I did not take much interest into the artist world and what they had to go through.  Now I realize how difficult their life is and how frustrating it can be to involve yourself into the world of art.  The artist has it hard and I wonder if their role can ever be approved by all of society.  They have so many roles to fill I just do not know if its completely possible to fill all of their roles.

I agree that one of the roles that the artist should have is to be a social critic within society.  I believe that this role is critical when it comes to the artist.   It gives the opportunity for expression, to blatantly state the flaws of society without a given consequence.  This is one of the most commonly seen roles of society that the artist should have.  I think that social criticism is needed in society because society is not perfect and it gives room for correction.  However the artist as I begin to realize has such a burden to bear as a social critic. Their work maybe displayed to the public and cause certain controversy for years to come because the public might look on the work with disgust.  An example of this was a piece I read by Leonard Kriegel, who believed that graffiti was absolutely a despicable form of art. In fact, he believed that graffiti would lead to urban cities’ destruction because it will cause so much public opinion to arise.  Graffiti indeed is a form of art artist can express the flaws of society in this way but there can be other Kriegel’s in the world who do not agree with their work.

I think Andy Warhol’s pieces are great examples of the artist’s role as a social critic.  Joseph Ketner, who wrote a book about Warhol’s exhibit summarizes Warhol’s objectives best. He says that Warhol is a “creator of literal images that mirror society” and uses “symbols that sustain us” (Ketner 39).  Warhol’s pieces will show images that reflect the society that we live in.  He will mainly use symbols that allow us to show what kind of society we live in.  At first some pieces confused me because  I could not realize what exact message did Warhol want to convey.  He uses symbols such as painting Jesus with The Big C on his face to show the religious aspect of our society combined with motorcycles showing other images that were important during that time.  Andy Warhol is reflecting on what was happening in his society in a form of abstract.  I think Warhol was creative in taking an abstract approach to his social critique.  He is criticizing society at times painting the motives that it has in an abstract form.

The artist role is not only to be a social critic, I wondered is it possible to be an active member of the community.  If for example an artist places a criticism on a society that is against public opinion, will the public willingly welcome this artist into the community?  I think that the artist fulfilling both roles is a very difficult task.  Even if it is one piece of art that critiques society, can one truly be as active in the community.  I think the artist in terms of these two roles can only fill one at a time. Either he presents work that criticizes society or he makes a piece that the community enjoys so that he can be active in the community.  This is a conflict that I realize that the artist must face.

The only example that I have in terms of an artist who faced both roles was Andy Warhol.  He was able to master abstract to the point where he could socially criticize a society and at the same time be an active member of the community.  He presented great works such as Eggs which have nice colors but has a message that he wanted to convey.  Society can enjoy the painting for its bright yet simple colors and abstract appearance. In addition Oxidations is also enjoyable for it metallic like appearance even though he did use his own urine it still gives off an amazing look.  These abstracts Warhol uses are powerful tools which allows him to be a social critic and member of the community which people enjoy to this day.

I do not think that there is a hypocrisy when it comes to  these two roles only if the approach was taken similar to Andy Warhol’s.  If the artist decides to give up his or her role for the other then I think there is a hypocritical aspect.  An artist should never have to give up what he is trying to convey in his work in order to achieve another role in society.  An artist should be firm in what they want to do.  Andy Warhol although he filled both roles, I think overall he wanted to just become a social critic within society but his skill allowed him to be accepted by the community.  He definitely opened my eyes about the roles of an artist and I will definitely remember his work.

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.

In order to make a valuable argument, shouldn’t you know a little about what you’re arguing about? Let’s say you were in a heated debate about sports. In order to make your argument stronger, shouldn’t you know some inside information? Let’s say a Yankee fan and a Met fan were arguing about baseball. In order for the Yankee fan to make a more valid argument, they should know a little bit about baseball.How can you criticize something without knowing anything about what you are criticizing? The answer is you can’t. In order for you to be able to criticize something, you must know a little about what you’re criticizing. That’s why it shouldn’t be viewed as hypocrisy when an artist is an active member of society. An artist plays a very important role of being a social critic. In order for the artist to be a social critic, doesn’t he need to know a little about the people he’s going to be criticizing? As an active member of society the artist can know what elements of society need to be criticized and what elements don’t.

Andy Warhol was an active member in society, as well as a social critic. You may wonder, wouldn’t that make him a hypocrite; how could he criticize the very environment that he was a part of? Well as said before he got to know his community better this way, and was able to criticize society in a more effective way by understanding the society that he was a part of.

If you were to go into the Andy Warhol exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum without knowing anything about Andy Warhol, by the time you were exiting the first part of the exhibit, you could come to the conclusion that Andy Warhol did in fact live the life of a celebrity. The last room of the first part of the exhibit consists of photographs. These photographs are of so many different celebrities. These celebrities were a part of his social circle. If Andy Warhol were to have a facebook, that room would represent what his facebook would be like. The photographs throughout the room would be the ones he would have posted online and the people in the photographs would be his “friends” on facebook. This shows you that Andy Warhol himself was a celebrity as well.

From being so closely connected to celebrity life, Warhol was able to know its pros and cons, and was able to accurately portray its flaws through his artwork. Much of Andy Warhol’s work was focused on simple, everyday things, for example his black and white advertisements; especially his remarkably famous Campbell’s chicken noodle soup can, as well as many other simple everyday things. Here he takes a moment to appreciate the simple things in life. So although he was involved in the extravagance of celebrity life, his paintings reflected the opposite, which was the simplistic view of life, and appreciation of the little things.

Andy Warhol also brings up religion in his artwork. The very last room in the exhibit consists of many religious images, for example the painting of the Last Supper. We also see religious messages appearing in some of his other works of art, for example in many of his pieces where it says “sin no more”. This constant reminder of religion is Warhol’s commentary on society and society’s values.

Andy Warhol’s success in being a social critic was due to the fact that he understood society so well. He was an active member of the society that he criticized. He was able to capture the beauty of simple things in life, while still being able to live such an extravagant lifestyle.