Charlie Rose

Dave Melnychuk  07/20/2008 07:22 PM Report

There's a vast difference between art that's good and art that's influential, though sometimes (hopefully) it can be both. This is true in all the various realms of artistic production. Using film as an example, the movie “The Sound of Music” isn’t a terribly good film at all, though it’s a phenomenal crowd pleaser and had an enormous influence on the world of cinema. One “The Sound of Music,” however, was enough. All the knock-offs that followed in its wake weren’t much better. The novelty wore thin, and the quality of them made their originator seem even better than it was by comparison.

Warhol's art, and a lot of Pop Art, is ultimately shallow, superficial, and as such makes an apt mirror for the rather shallow and superficial times in which we live. That many artists look to Warhol's work for inspiration simply speaks to the fact that most of them have nothing much to say and precious little of substance to contribute to society except, perhaps, a keen desperation for celebrity. To my mind, that’s not much of a contribution. I'm all for recognition, though I find that many people these days simply want recognition without any work. Time and again throughout Warhol's life, he told interviewers what his main inspiration was, in one word: money. I hope and wish that artists get paid well for their work (though they often don't), but to simply have money as one's motivation... Well, again, it's rather fitting for these times.

Many artists believe that things like technique aren't important, so why not look to Warhol and much abstract art? However, there are few Jackson Pollacks out there, and how many more do we need? How many modern artists are technically proficient, let alone brilliant? Yet, artists like Picasso and Matisse only started breaking rules after coming to an understanding of them, and were very technically accomplished. Too many artists today have little grounding in symbolism, history, myth, culture, anthropology, politics, etc. In these cases, it's far easier to appropriate stylistic tendencies of various modern movements that require little technical facility at all. Why learn to mix pigments, create harmonious compositions, or even draw? True, there are people who can't tell the difference between a work of genius and one that's rubbish, who are more than willing to part with their money. After all, it was those particular collectors in the 'art community' who Warhol targetted, in the first place. He understood what fashion designers and Charles Saatchi know: if you create enough demand for your 'label,' regardless of any artistic merit, people will be throwing themselves at your feet for anything you toss off. Remember Warhol’s “Oxidation” series (otherwise known as his “piss paintings”)? They’re the height of contempt both for one’s patrons, and for art in general. Warhol, literally, took this to the bank. His ‘fans,’ and many others (including a great deal of contemporary artists) weren’t in on the joke. Even the people that he told didn’t understand or care; after all, they were buying a name brand to display on their walls, not art.

A great deal of Pop - and modern - Art negates the affirming qualities of life. It is the celebration and commodification of the mundane; the exaltation of the meaningless. The only problem is that the more we celebrate the mundane and insignificant, the shallower and more meaningless our lives become. Like a great deal of contemporary culture, we worship the trivial. More people are interested in What Britney Spears isn‘t wearing under her skirt, than in things that are of actual relevance and significance to their own daily lives. This is occurring in all spheres of art and design, from architecture and the fine arts and music, through to newer mediums like video. Warhol explained his celebrated ‘technique’ once, summing up that “it’s faster to be sloppy than it is to be neat.” Apparently, a great many people seem to been listening, or have reached the same conclusion. Then again, where’s the surprise? When people have precious little inherent interest in their own work (apart from how famous it might make them), why should they care about things like quality and content?

There are some truly wonderful artists out there. The only problem is that their work gets lost in an enormous sea of other works that could be charitably described, at best, as mediocre. That many of us can no longer differentiate between the mundane and the meaningful, and in fact often knowingly celebrate the mundane as the meaningful, is a sad commentary on the vacuousness of much of contemporary life. If Warhol’s art has an importance, it is that it is a reflection of the vacuity of our times. Most of it, however, is just plain bad.

John Millei  09/13/2007 10:39 PM Report

I have been watching the 03/31/1998 on art with U.K. art 21 crew..

and Bowie said that he thinks Andy Warhol fell off over time which is wrong, most living abtract artist are looking at Warhol's abstract work for away to continue painting then they are looking a de kooning..

And by the way when are you going to have Jasper Johns on your show!!

John Millei  09/13/2007 10:39 PM Report

I have been watching the 03/31/1998 on art with U.K. art 21 crew..

and Bowie said that he thinks Andy Warhol fell off over time which is wrong, most living abtract artist are looking at Warhol's abstract work for away to continue painting then they are looking a de kooning..

And by the way when are you going to have Jasper Johns on your show!!