tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429965211044100252.post5282491035299349119..comments2024-01-09T14:16:39.032-08:00Comments on Short on Words: Andy WarholSkellerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021374799688814697noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429965211044100252.post-55708173936009295072016-03-29T12:16:57.770-07:002016-03-29T12:16:57.770-07:00I think it looks and sounds fascinating. I never ...I think it looks and sounds fascinating. I never thought about the changing role of art in the "documenting" of culture. Can art be art without being as much a commentary (i.e. biased) as it is a record? Does Warhol's work not mirror an era of mass production brilliantly? Hello plastic. I have no idea. But I love that you (two) just made me ask those questions. Glad you braved the traffic and saw College Dude. My favorite art was the art wandering among the art. ;-)Tracy P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07750283241399825265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429965211044100252.post-394847304227895422016-03-28T22:43:05.499-07:002016-03-28T22:43:05.499-07:00"If nothing were to remain of the years from ..."If nothing were to remain of the years from 1962 to 1987 but a Warhol retrospective..."<br />...which will never come to pass. The data recorded in Warhol's lifetime and the modern era makes art obsolete as a means of documenting culture. There are probably MILLIONS of real life photographic images of grocery items from the 60s. Thousands of articles and novels painting verbal pictures of the same. So perhaps his "art" is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the death of art as a means to record culture. No longer significant? Then why waste your time; just draw a soup can and be done with it.<br />The bigger than life sized frog was OK.<br /><br /><br />Eddie Otthttp://www.yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.com