xeni at April 15th, 2014 09:36 — #1
kermeel at April 15th, 2014 10:07 — #2
Bravo Andy! More elegant, less self-conscious.
jardine at April 15th, 2014 10:28 — #3
No David Hasselhoff eating a hamburger?
irmo at April 15th, 2014 10:31 — #4
dfaris at April 15th, 2014 11:54 — #5
I bet the seasoning doesn't come out because they used a brand-new bottle and they seal those babies up with a paper seal inside the lid to keep it fresh.
madzack at April 15th, 2014 12:17 — #6
Warhol keeping it true yinzer style with the Heinz. There is no other ketchup.
tornpapernapkin at April 15th, 2014 12:32 — #7
Why do I like Culkin so much? I don't know... I guess I should have gone to see the show.
steampunkbanana at April 15th, 2014 12:40 — #8
Because "what is art?"
Are these art? Is one art and not the other? Are they art because of who they are or is that irrelevant?
Most of Warhol's stuff can be boiled down to that basic question and what Pop Art is trying to challenge a lot of. Is a painting of a soup can art or is the can itself art?
luketemplewalsh at April 15th, 2014 13:32 — #9
And of course gestural mimicry has a different nuance in a different era.
boundegar at April 15th, 2014 15:25 — #10
milliefink at April 15th, 2014 15:48 — #11
questionsthree at April 15th, 2014 16:32 — #12
Everything tastes better in glass.
asphaltcowboy at April 16th, 2014 02:20 — #13
How about Andy Warhol eats Macaulay Culkin?
madzack at April 16th, 2014 07:23 — #14
Can the soup can and the painting both be art.
steampunkbanana at April 16th, 2014 09:41 — #15
You bet, that was Warhol's point, the elevation of the daily and mass produced into art. Someone took the time to create that soup can label and he wanted their work recognized.
xeni at April 20th, 2014 09:36 — #16
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.