Don't know if this has been posted, or seen by anyone else, but apparently some early drawings from Andy Warhol have been unearthed and are going to get a showing off:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/20/1358688...
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/20/1358704...
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?
