The Arts in New York City

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.