Compared to most of Andy Warhol's work, this is a darker and less superficial work of art. Even though most of Warhol's work is screaming for attention, this particular piece makes the viewer pay MORE attention given that it is not a mundane object or an image that you see often in everyday life. The subject matter itself confronts the viewer, while the choice of colours and the high contrast of the image give the illusion that it is flashing electricity all over the canvas. I love this painting (or print) purely for it's shock value (although I do find myself condemning Andy Warhol often for being so arrogant with his so-called "statement" pop-art. Though they may be social commentaries of the world we live in, people who figure themselves ABOVE art and don't feel the need to explain themselves are the definition of pretentious)
The piece I dislike the most of the gallery's permanent exhibit is Jo Baer's "Untitled".
I apologizes for my lack of enthusiasm about the apparent minimalist approach the artist has tried to achieve, but when it comes down to it, what are they really trying to say? If you were trying to find some sort of deeper meaning within this diptych, you could say that the lack of imagery in the painting allows the viewer to create their own image, thus making a critique on peoples' lack of imagination or some such toffery. However I feel that sabotaging these paintings with molten lead would make more of an artistic statement than whatever it is the Artist is trying to say. I guess what I am trying to say is that behind all the pretentious critique and 10 dollar words, all you have is just two white canvases.
You need not apologise for your own taste - you make a perfectly valid argument that would be backed up by many. We will look at minimalism this week in class, and you might change your mind about it.
ReplyDelete