#art, On Andy Warhol and Frida Kahlo (part 2/conclusions)

Andy Warhol (Pittsburgh, PA 1928-1987) supposedly a leading figure in Pop Art. But I’ve some serious criticisms and I can explain them and support my view that he is unimportant in art history.

Shallow or Commercial: Warhol’s repetition of mass-produced images (Campbell’s Soup cans, Marilyn Monroe) are empty and purely commercial. It is banal, lacks depth and relies…totally…on shock or novelty.

Factory Production: The only way he could mass produce was through the use of employees, operators in his studio called “The Factory”. There is as much authenticity to his work as there is in the Chinese trinquetes sold on Canal Street in Manhattan. Is that what it means to be an “artist”? I would reduce his art to branding.

Cultural Critique or Capitalist Embrace?: While some see Warhol as satirizing consumer culture, I think he wasn’t critiquing it at all. He was profiting from it. That ambiguity makes his legacy controversial.

So Why Are They Still Considered Important?

Despite these critiques, «experts» (good grief!) still think that both of these artists made significant contributions. Kahlo brought…in a very mediocre way…Mexican culture and what some think are feminist themes into the global art narrative in a deeply personal way.

Warhol, they think, redefined art in the 20th century by…supposedly…blurring the lines between commercialism and fine art. Experts and fans think he was challenging the art world’s elitism.

Personally I don’t subscribe to any of these justifications. Everyone knows my views on «experts» and I know that the art world/art business moves on what sells and what the big boys…dealers/collectors/gallerists…can sell to the new art collectors that cannot purchase the classical art that now is unavailable.

What do you think?

CHEERS