Andy Warhol

Exit Dada, enter Pop art. For a radically different postwar era, in came a new art form.This post war movement was launched in England in the late 1950s and burst into America via the illustrator Andy Warhol. His ironic portraits of Campbell's Soup cans and Brillo boxes gave Warhol a huge name in the art world. He became even more recognized than Picasso. Pop Art often commented upon America's insatiable consummerism and the emptiness it strove to conceal.
I think he laughed all the way to the bank, but what do I know?

I have to disagree with that last comment you made.
Personally, I think he was brillant- love his work, I've gotten to see it- he really reigned in a modern age of art- large scale, graphic, bold, colorful- but still as art always has been, a comment on culture and society.
We wouldnt have half the art we do now without Warhol, he opened so many doors and so many minds.

Bah Humbug!
The whole "ART" thing has been a joke since the invention of Photography, full of politics and fools, trash and pretentiousness. Sculpture has even been infected, unfortunately. When an "artist" can sell 50cent hose clamps as $4000 rings, then it's time to shoot the horses!

Disagree! Art is not about copying nature- why would we do that- there are photos for that- or nature itself!

ART is about self expression of ideas of onself, ones culture and ones hstory! Art is a commentary on human society and emotion! The modern art has its place, and yes is contraversial, but art is about ideas. The fact that hose clamps can be sold at 4000 is a commentary on our culture.

Art today had changed a lot in recent times, artist have fallen away from scripted reality, but I think that you need to be open to expirenceing the reality that an artist makes with their art. Art brings the veiwer into the time, space and exprece of another person or culture. Don't be so close minded.

You're entitled to your own opinion, and I won't say you're wrong, it's a subjective thing so you are naturally right, as am I .
I don't have a closed mind, lol, just a jaded one. I had an artist for a mother, and I've tried my hand at just about every facet of artistic expression, with results that satisfied me, I even sold a couple. I've seen enough of the "Artistic World" to know that the biggest single factor to success is political skill.
You pick the right arses to kiss, and do it well, you'll be famous.
It doesn't matter in the least what you produce, only that brown nose will get you fame.
I'm not complaining from personal experience either, I only ever did it to please my mother, and amuse myself.

I can see where your dissallusion comes from- art now adays can be quite the gams of politics and who you know- but I wouldnt discredit the artists who have made it- yeah, they played the game, but I am not sure it means their ideas should be disregaurded.

That is fair enough too, although in my opinion they are producing..etc etc, which brings us back full circle.
I'm not a luddite who only sees representational art as valid, but I think that it takes more than just slapping things together and thinking up a name for it to produce real art. Even the obsessed young artists of today seem to be lost for a valid media, it takes a lot to reach out to others with the intensity of your expression.
Rows of bricks or pretty colours on a screen just don't cut it, nor does the endless parade of colour and collected crap that passes for "painting" these days.
Naturally, there are gems amongst the jetsam, but they're damned hard to find, because they usually won't play the fame-game.

I think there has been a movement in the art world to go back to the basics of representational art and simplify, go back to the basic design elements that attract a veiwer to art- it's kinds of like trying to say somethng in as few words as possible. I don't think the media is invalid, I think it's simpler, more etherial and philosophic- less convaluded in subject and more about basic principals. Its not for everyone- its personal preferance and taste- but it's not a bad thing, art goes in cycles like history--- and there is value in every stage.

A very good point, and well expressed. I was born Hyperactive, at a time when the standard response to childhood problems was a swift clip round the ear! My grandmother was old-school, of the "keep the little bugger busy" approach, and twixt her guidance and firm patience, and my mums hippyness, I got busy and tried Art, and enjoyed it. My experiences actually support what you've said above. Although I was never seeking "artistic release", I found that the "simpler" I made it, the more it held what I was trying to portray, weird as that may seem. I'm definitely of the "Minimist" approach, a Japanese sort of thing, but more than only that. You are far and away more in contact with Art today than I am, I've sort of lost the interest in it to a large degree, a symptom of becoming a G.O.M I'm afraid, so I bow to your superior knowledge.
And I thank you for the hope you've given me for the future, as long as Art is evolving, there will always be that VITAL link to the soul of the people it springs from, to become absolutely defined is to become petrified, dead!

(G.O.M. = Grumpy Old Man)

Oh, a bit later, it just occurred to me that my last line about dead wasn't exactly original, lol, but I can't remember who said it, I reckon it hits the nail on the head though.

Agree- especially about the vital link to the soul of the people. I think that is how are began- somehow this measn of visual representation expressed some part of the people who created it.
Perosnally- as an art major and an artist, I might be a tad idealistic about it all- but I think it's a little magial the wa one can express themselves through art- it's permanence- allowing every veiwer after to get a glipmse of the creator.

When I put this up I was hoping for this kind of controversy and finally got it. Creativity is creativity, some good, some inventive, some questionable. The point I believe is in the stimulation of the mind, emotions, and personal taste. I'm not fond of art that looks like a photograph; favoring Miro, the impressionists, Picasso, and artists of this type. The daughter of a professional artist I've been exposed to it all. There are many people who have little knowledge of art but wish to spend a bundle of money to look impressive. This is what I believe Marcus is speaking about. Knowledge is a major factor as is what appeals to the public. I'm not a fan of Wyeth or Rockwell but would never deny their tremendous talent. I do know very bad art when I see it; Elvis on velvet anyone.LOL!