AndyWarhol3

@Crazyhorsemonkyman
you do realise that is the same thing that modernist work does?

In the book Porn Studies ed. Linda Williams, there is a great article called "Andy Warhol's Blow Job: Toward the Recognition of a Pornagraphic Avant-garde" by Ara Osterweil. Osterweil talks about the importance of the effect on audience. He frustrates the audience by denying showing the phallic, the face clearly, the climax, or real explicitness despite the title. apparently some people went nuts when they watched this in the 60s

warhol doesnt make people think, that's the point of his products. it's just pleasing to the eye.

Andy is a genie.

You can not see it as art because you are looking at it from a modernist perspective. This is a postmodern work, meaning it blurs the line between "high" and "low" art as well as leaving a pluralistic meaning behind. In that silent man you can see your desires and fears, or you can see nothing. Warhol does not dictate meaning, and that is why it is art.

I don't understand how in any way shape or form this is art. I am an artist myself, but very young. It seems like a lot of people just see weird things and try too hard to analyze it which suddenly makes it some great work of art. This video means absolutely nothing to me. Not to be rude, I know a lot of you adore Andy Warhol, but help me understand.

There is nothing to understand, Andy warhol is the epitome of superficial, garbage taking advantage of consumerism. just as trends get old, so does warhol. He's nothing special, and never claimed to be an artist or anything special. he mocked those who admired him.

Haven't any of you seen Salvador Dali's 'The Great Masterbator'?