/ Art, artistic ability and the common man?
And here are some choice quotes about said pictures:
"The 300 drawings from the 1950s show a skilled and sensitive side to the artist – more Egon Schiele than pop art"
"You see where he comes from. They show that he is an incredible draughtsman."
Now, I can't be certain, but I'd assume that if you were going to show off a set of 300, but wanted to rustle up some interest with a few, you'd pick a selection of the best...so, I think we can safely assume these are the best of the bunch, or at the very least, the most interesting.
So, being the common man in this scenario, can anyone tell me if I'm missing something here? To me they looks like something very similar to the level of drawing I, and many of my classmates, made when we were in our early teens...and so, to put it bluntly, they looks a bit shit and show, to me at least, not a shred of 'world class' or 'era defining' artistic ability with which Warhol is associated.
Now I know enough about Warhol to know that his most famous paintings were prints rather than directly painted pieces, but still, just because he did something good in one area, do 'critics' really have to wank on about all his work, even when it's patently pants?
ALL his stuff is a bit w@nk. Emperor's fur coat & no knickers. Love the velvet underground mind you & can never understand Lou Reeds love for him. Seemed like a total sociopath as well as a shit painter.
Aye, load of bollox.
Shows that guy on the pistonheads thread who drew the pics of the girls on the dating site to be the artist he truly is! :0)
Elsewhere on the site
Skiing Baffin’s couloirs has been on my to do list ever since I saw Andrew McLean and Brad Barlage’s inspirational... Read more
In this excellent film from Latitude Photography we see Raphael Slawinski, Ian Welsted and Jesse Huey travel to... Read more