Anne Hathaway + Emma Watson ≠ Sienna Miller (dinner, work, party)

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

If you ever see the film "Factory Girl", Andy Warhol comes off as a real jerk. He used people (and their money) until he grew tired of them (or the money ran out). If that's how he wanted to live...

No, I don't think he was an extremely kind and generous person, but I can't imagine that growing up as an artistic gay man in Steeltown Pittsburgh was essentially easy.

[BrianTH]

Jerk or not, I think we can agree it would be a good thing if a young gay artist growing up in Pittsburgh today did not feel the need to move elsewhere to find a tolerant community.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Jerk or not, I think we can agree it would be a good thing if a young gay artist growing up in Pittsburgh today did not feel the need to move elsewhere to find a tolerant community.

I don't think tolerance was the real motivation. He stayed to study art at, then, Carnegie Tech. Anyone in commercial art back then, and even today, would go to New York. I believe New York's pull on the artistic community was especially strong in the 1950s.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

yea, i had heard he was quite the elitist...but then we dont celebrate people for being nice rather than for their accomplishments or influence on others.

He's perhaps the most interesting of artists because he would present stuff, even everyday objects, and declare it art. He demonstrated the power of fame in imparting value to what would otherwise be considered talentless art. The emperor (Warhol) had no clothes but few would try to expose him as a fraud and risk looking "un-hip".

The question still remains. Andy Warhol...artist...or con-artist?

Closest thing today to it are the Kardashians and Paris Hilton. They are famous because they are famous.

[Goodjules]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

He's perhaps the most interesting of artists because he would present stuff, even everyday objects, and declare it art. He demonstrated the power of fame in imparting value to what would otherwise be considered talentless art. The emperor (Warhol) had no clothes but few would try to expose him as a fraud and risk looking "un-hip".

The question still remains. Andy Warhol...artist...or con-artist?

Closest thing today to it are the Kardashians and Paris Hilton. They are famous because they are famous.

But Warhol could paint. He revolutionized how we think of art, fame, film. Many famous artists, musicians, etc are single minded in their pursuit of their vision. Many have failed marriages, alienated children and are known for not being the nicest people. Warhol was certainly not warm and fuzzy. I think it often comes with the territory for trailblazers in many fields. Many consider Warhol to be one of the most influential and important artists of the 20th century. He was not on par with Paris Hilton or the Kardashians. Take a docent led tour at the Warhol Museum if you are interested in learning about him, his work, and his influence.

[Hopes]

Since Warhol didn't have wealth, he clearly brought more talent to the table than Paris Hilton and the Kardashians.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Since Warhol didn't have wealth, he clearly brought more talent to the table than Paris Hilton and the Kardashians.

But he understood, like Hilton and the Kardashians, how much "fame" adds to the value of whatever you do. It got to the point where Warhol could just throw paint on the canvas, sign it, and it would be a masterpiece. When Paris Hilton created her own perfume, they just gave her some oils, she mixed some together, they mass produce the same mixture and slap her name on the bottles.

And believe it or not, there are Andy Warhol works that weren't done by Andy Warhol. He was both hands on and hands off in his "factory".

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by juliegt

But Warhol could paint. He revolutionized how we think of art, fame, film. Many famous artists, musicians, etc are single minded in their pursuit of their vision. Many have failed marriages, alienated children and are known for not being the nicest people. Warhol was certainly not warm and fuzzy. I think it often comes with the territory for trailblazers in many fields. Many consider Warhol to be one of the most influential and important artists of the 20th century. He was not on par with Paris Hilton or the Kardashians. Take a docent led tour at the Warhol Museum if you are interested in learning about him, his work, and his influence.

He takes multiple frames of a picture and paints over them. He mocked the art world and dared it to refute his work as art. He is widely thought of as biggest con-artist of the art world ever. And oddly, that in itself gives his work value.

Though deceitful, deep down we admire someone who pulls off an outlandish and successful con. The latest I recall was Michaele and Tareq Slahi's crashing of Obama's State Dinner party.

White House Party Crashers Met President Obama - ABC News

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

But he understood, like Hilton and the Kardashians, how much "fame" adds to the value of whatever you do. It got to the point where Warhol could just throw paint on the canvas, sign it, and it would be a masterpiece. When Paris Hilton created her own perfume, they just gave her some oils, she mixed some together, they mass produce the same mixture and slap her name on the bottles.

And believe it or not, there are Andy Warhol works that weren't done by Andy Warhol. He was both hands on and hands off in his "factory".

His work had to be recognized as art before he could pull off "fame" and "factory" productions. There are many artists who sell out after they achieve recognition. They may sell out in different ways but they still sell out.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Hopes

His work had to be recognized as art before he could pull off "fame" and "factory" productions. There are many artists who sell out after they achieve recognition. They may sell out in different ways but they still sell out.

He sought out contacts, attended the right parties, he played the art world game. A lot of stuff was made and credited to Warhol but Warhol didn't touch it. Attempting to own a "Warhol" is a very risky purchase.