Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Of “Brillo Boxes” and “Campbell’s Soup Cans” by Andy Warhol [View all]I don't disagree that being in a museum or gallery is part of what makes it art. if only because it is put there with the purpose of making us look at it a different way. But then MOMA has a whole floor of commercial products that are meant to be look at for their artistic design.
What Warhol taught was that there is no way of telling the difference merely by looking. The eye, so prized an aesthetic organ when it was felt that the difference between art and non-art was visible, was philosophically of no use whatever when the differences proved instead to be invisible.
Well, the are not invisible, i could tell they weren't real Brillo boxes, and of course the Soup cans where images. I agree the location is essential for the purpose of these reproductions, but they are discernibly different.
I would say his ideas are more appropriate to much minimalist art. Piles of stones, or wood beams which are only seen as art due to where they are.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
50 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Last Fall, I was visiting relatives in Pittsburgh and took my family there. We loved it and spent
FSogol
Aug 2015
#3
Soup or art? Makes me think of Lily Tomlin and Jane Wagner's character Trudy explaining human
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2015
#5
It is a running motif/gag in the play and in Lily's amazing performance of it it was very funny and
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2015
#7
well, there is a difference between satire and art or at least I think there is...
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#10
I read that Warhol had originally wanted to do comic book art but Roy beat him to
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#21
it's funny, he's trying for all those great artists and he gets this...it shows he was
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#34
Thanks. But I do think Magritte had a sneaky kind of sense of humor in his works.
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#35
I agree with this entire post. I think these works are, in part, a commentary
RadiationTherapy
Aug 2015
#23
so much research is possible now and sharing of images. I couldn't do this without
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#25
Oh, boy! Now you've got my heart! Not with Spam which I would never even try to eat
CTyankee
Aug 2015
#46