Andy Warhol

Icons of America

by Arthur C. Danto

Em Andy Warhol, Arthur C. Danto nos oferece um breve mas profundo relato das transformações pessoais, artísticas e filosóficas que marcaram a obra do criador da pop art. Professor emérito da Columbia University, Danto parte das conquistas de Warhol para elaborar uma nova interpretação filosófica sobre a revolução artística da primeira metade dos anos 60. Em tom informal e divertido, Danto considera que as experiências de Warhol marcam um passo final na história da arte e explica por que e como o artista se tornou um verdadeiro ícone cultural nos Estados Unidos.

Genres: Art, Biography, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Art History, American History

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

About the author

Arthur C. Danto was Johnsonian Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Columbia University and art critic for The Nation. He was the author of numerous books, including Unnatural Wonders: Essays from the Gap Between Art and Life, After the End of Art, and Beyond the Brillo Box: The Visual Arts in Post-Historical Perspective.

Reviews

[Myke Cole · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great introduction to Warhol and his significance in the art world, especially for the uninitiated. By focusing on Warhol's art, and more importantly its reverberations through the global concept of art, rather than on the artist's life, Danto provides a quick summary that gives philistines (like myself) a quick grasp on why we should give a damn.

And we *do* give a damn by the time Danto is done, because his prose style is engaging, at times intellectual and high-fallutin', and at times colloquial and conversational. It's a short, engaging read and will leave you wanting to learn more about the man, his times, and most of all, contemporary art from Warhol's reverberations in the 60s all the way up to their obvious outcomes today.

[Madison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too philosophical just tell me about his paintings

[Zachary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arthur C. Danto's ANDY WARHOL, part of Yale University Press's Icons of America series, is a short book (162 pages, including bibliography and index) with a narrow scope. Considering the breadth of Warhol's work, such narrowness is welcome, but it yields a number of troubling generalizations and omissions. For instance, Danto draws too neat a line between Warhol's pre- and post-1968 work (although I give him credit for resisting the myth that the shift in Warhol's artistic approach was caused entirely by his brush with death) in establishing an "important" Andy Warhol and a merely "iconic" Andy Warhol. In pursuit of this narrative Danto also omits any mention of the brilliant work Warhol did with Jean-Michel Basquiat in the 1980s or his Rorschach paintings and Polaroids of the 1970s, choosing to focus only on what Warhol termed "business art"—art, such as commissioned portraits and dollar sign paintings, that celebrated and enacted business practice.

The brevity of Danto's book makes it unsuitable as a biography or as a survey of Warhol's career, and it will likely be of little general interest to anyone already familiar with Warhol's life and work, but it redeems itself in two ways:

1. As an explanation to the uninitiated of Warhol's artistic innovation: The evident simplicity of Warhol's art, which often takes the form of mechanical reproduction of familiar objects and images, can, for a first-time viewer of his work, hide the theoretical complexity on which it is based. To a new viewer of one of Warhol's Brillo boxes, which Danto believes to be among the most important sculptures of the twentieth century, there may be no obvious reason to value the reproduction more highly than the original, resulting in a failure to register Warhol's genius. Danto succeeds in succinctly explaining what makes such objects high art.

2. As an explanation of the value of Warhol's artistic innovation: Critics often refer to Andy Warhol as the greatest artist of the second half of the twentieth century, but Danto has, as far as I am aware, defined this reference more directly and methodically than any other author. It is his belief that Warhol's art of 1961 to 1968 fundamentally revolutionized our understanding of what we are willing to accept as art, thus necessitating a new answer to the millennia-old question, What is art? The space between the objects that Warhol duplicated and the art he produced in careful reproduction must be filled with an entire philosophy of art that could not have existed before Andy Warhol. It is Danto's revelation of this novel philosophy that gives his book genuine merit.

ANDY WARHOL is a sloppy book, marred by typographical errors, omissions, generalizations, and tangents—one having to do with Wittgenstein's "language game," the questionable inclusion of which Danto explains by mentioning that its resonance with certain of Warhol's artistic practices at the Silver Factory "came to me in a dream while writing this book, and for better or worse I could not resist including the comparison here." Despite its failings, this book is valuable, maybe even essential, reading for the new or seasoned enthusiast of Warhol's work because of its success in positioning Andy Warhol more securely as a god in an important alcove of American art.

[Tosh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ah another book on Warhol. Is there reason for another one? Well, first of all Danto is a good writer, and he points out what makes Warhol an interesting artist - a great one in fact. One, is that Warhol is very much part of the mainstream American taste for consumer items, like yes, the soup - but he also quite subversive in his own manner as well.

This is a very quick read, and I think for the Warhol curious, it will them check out other books -and hopefully the artwork and the films. So, the book is not essential by any means, but a good introduction to Warhol and his world.

[Moriah Russo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Danto's like, "... for that I must direct the reader to my collected writings on the philosophy of art." Reads as an obligatory contribution to the wide body of works on Warhol. Offers and then repeats few insights, mostly repeating this 101 query "what is art?" Some fun details on art world particulars, but overall a very basic book.

[Emilio Bazaldúa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Danto no se enfoca en hacer una biografía de Warhol, sino que, por el contrario, busca dar un repaso por su vida artística bajo una mirada filosófica, donde expone la filosofía del arte defendida (y manifestada) por el neoyorquino.
El autor, pues, evoca pasajes de diversas fuentes para poder ofrecer una vista panorámica de lo que las obras de Warhol fueron y del cómo repercutieron en su época.

Aparecen también diversas cuestiones filosóficas suscitadas a partir de las obras de Warhol, como es el caso de la crítica (ya elaborada antes del artista pop por los vanguardistas y, sobre todo, el dadaísta M. Duchamp) a las artes figurativas y de la concepción de la obra de arte y de la belleza por parte del idealismo alemán, por lo que la mirada crítica del filósofo norteamericano nos permite ahondar en la ontología del arte.

Una maravillosa lectura, donde además de aprender sobre la vida artística de la gran columna del pop art también se puede apreciar el traslado filosófico de las concepciones tradicionales, pues el rompimiento de las estructuras fue siempre el imperativo del vanguardismo: vanguardismo al cuál rompió, además, el propio Warhol, reivindicando el estilo, el tema y la manera de crear obras de arte en su más amplio sentido, tanto común como de carácter filosófico.

[Carlos Valladares · Rating 2 out of 5]

Apolitical bloviating about art, disguised as coolness, is unbearably boring and tedious to me.

[Nat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Marvellous book that investigates and analyses the place that Andy Warhol's work occupies in the World of Art, and looks further deeper into its philosophical meaning, (of course, as Art.)
It raises and answers several questions that have been around since the contemporary art of the early XXth century appeared: what is truly art? How can we define a piece of art? What makes something become art? What's the difference between an ordinary object and art? Does Art need to be beautiful? Does Art need to be understood?
Most importantly in this case: What did Warhol do to change all the previous answers we knew to these questions?
This isn't, in any way, a biography of Warhol. It does talk about several of the moments and defining phases of the artist's life and work, and what led him to get there, but to concentrate purely on his work and the place of it in the world of art.
A very important thing to notice is that this isn't a book that should be read without any knowledge of Andy Warhol, or/and without knowledge of at least the basics of the history of art of the last century. (Notice the use of 'at least.')
However, it is quite enjoyable to see how the author remains at a distance from all of this; from the beginning he points out that he is not the person who knows about Warhol more than anyone, and often quotes many people to justify what he knows about him. He also expresses that a lot of the content of this book is largely subjective. He does not claim to hold the universal and absolute truth about Art, or Warhol, or that we should all agree with his point of view. Arthur C. Danto simply proposes in very critical and intelligent way, a new perspective on Pop Art and of his defining (if not The Defining) artist of the movement.
Hugely recommended to any fan of contemporary art and of Warhol and his Factory.

[fleegan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book. I’m not a huge fan of Warhol, but I do respect his work. And it was nice just to sit and read a well-written book on art. It was a little too-something though. I think maybe it takes Warhol’s work a little too seriously. I’m not saying his work wasn’t serious or important, mind, but this book takes it a step too far. I think it’s when the author brings up the Holy Grail that I thought that maybe he likes Warhol and his work a little too much to be objective in his critiques.

[Andrew Noselli]

With his ever-present flat affect, Andy Warhol denied being a communist during an interview, suggesting that his ambition to secure an order for a painting from Imelda Marcos was sufficient proof of his status as a capitalist. In this short look at Warhol's place in the history of art, Arthur Danto says that, in creating his portraits of celebrities, which were sold on commission, Warhol achieved something akin to a Hegelian sublation: he exteriorized the internality of his subject, at once canceling out and preserving an idealized portrait of the sitter. Furthermore, Danto claims, in creating a star-system where he celebrated the ruffians and ne'er-do-wells of underground New York, Warhol accomplished what the communists could not do with all the spying technology inside the Kremlin; that is, whereas Josef Stalin was obsessed by the need for an internal cleaning of a Russian society filled with dedicated citizens, Warhol divested communism of its ideology by creating paintings which made communism into an American-style commodity. Danto makes clear his view that Warhol's pop art reflected the political equality that developed out of the ending of the ideological Cold War period. In the post-Cold War Warholian universe, God was an unappeasable consumer who militaristically deployed goods into people's lives according to the politically-derived wage-scale of their employer's largesse. The Kennedy assassination gave pop art it's cue to celebrate history in the televised recall of the tragedies of the present. Perhaps Danto is correct in seeing Andy Warhol as a key bellwether American personality, in that he viewed personality as nothing more than a quantum of social capital based on an individual's earning power. Had he not died in a New York hospital, Warhol might have seen his giant portraits of Chairman Mao sell for as much as $47 Million. To be sure, Warhol was always a financially-minded artist; he was always checking to see if his collection of cookie jars had gone up in value, kept detailed notes of receipts and tips in his diaries, which Danto suggests was a sign of his IRS troubles, (Warhol experienced numerous audits from his having been a major contributor to the Democrat party when he created a portrait of a green-colored Richard Nixon with fangs, with a caption suggesting a vote for George McGovern was a better idea.) Danto reveals that Warhol always wished he could be a Republican but couldn't accomplish the switch in good conscience; he leaves open the question of whether he wished he could be straight with both good skin and a clear conscience. Now, thirty years after his death, what is the lesson to be learned and, moreover, what do we have left of Andy Warhol? His work, it seems to me, has the value of the cultural capital which provided him with his image-repertoire, ephemeral, conceptual and, from the perspective of 2022, faded from memory as fast as a flash of lightning. But like the experience of watching MTV, you had to be there in order to remember why it was significant. His was an art void of presence: like the silk screen rendition of Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper, the reigning values of his sign-system were the price tag attached to the artworks he created; it may be that the lasting significance of his art is in its distorted commercial value, rather than in the cry of protest embedded in the artwork itself; this, to me, is the true standard of artistic validity and importance. After reading this book I have decided that Warhol's art, a product of the Cuban Missile Crisis and other historic events from the 1960s, lacks the sincerity that truly great and consequential art demands. Two stars.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a Warhol fan and I'd read another book by Danto, which I think I thought was OK, though tbh I don't really remember it. This one is short, Danto's a philosopher; for me Warhol's ideas and Warhol the character are infinitely more interesting than his artistic output considered as stuff to look at. So that's where I'm coming from in terms of what I hoped this book would have to offer.

It kind of went some way in the right direction, but it wasn't revelatory or riveting for me. First off, Danto says upfront that this book isn't primarily a philosophical essay, although there are bits of that sort. It is a sort of skim biography with commentary focusing mainly on the questions: was Andy a great artist? If so, what made him so great? With questions as generic, not to say silly, as these, everything depends on how interestingly they're addressed, which, of course, is in part a matter of the reader's taste.

The answers are: yes he was; and for two reasons: first, he was - without any irony - all about the stuff of ordinary Americans' real everyday lives (canned soup and Coke, money) and preoccupations (celebrities, catastrophes) and, on a slightly less obvious point, about trying to cope with the inadequacies of the ordinary self; and second, ACD credits him with creating the fact that art is art because an artists decides to make it art (the only significant difference, allegedly, between Warhol's Brillo boxes and real Brillo boxes). He has an unconvincing account of why Warhol's execution of this magic trick is the real thing and Duchamp's 50 years earlier wasn't (in a nutshell, as I understood it, it's because Duchamp refused to consecrate as art things that were nice to look at, and Warhol didn't, which means that Duchamp actually had a trad aesthetic, just inverted).

It's true that ACD has fancier ways to say all this, and he says a few other things too, but that seems to me to be a fair thumbnail summary, and as you can see it's hardly breaking new ground.

It's quite readable as it goes on, but I think if you want to read really interesting - and entertaining - stuff about Warhol, you're much better off reading Andy's own "From A to B and back again", which in fact Danto cites a fair few times and which I thoroughly recommend.

[Claire]

I was expecting a bit more, perhaps. It is very insistent on its main point: Warhol changes the pertinent question from What is art? to What is the difference between identical things, one of which is a work of art and one of which is not? The book is definitely illuminating, particularly about Warhol's relationship to fame and political equality; his distinction from Duchamp; and his film and Andy Warhol Enterprises eras. Purity to impurity. Danto believes so much that repetition can make something significant, that it can be transformative, and that it can be the product of "mechanical strategies for *not* making choices." I loooooove that it's dedicated to the Obamas, so very 2010. (I do wonder if this book saw even one round of edits though)

[Sofia Fresia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Testo completo e approfondito che riguarda più il pensiero anche sta dietro l'arte di Wahrol che non le opere di per se stesse. Nodo centrale è cosa ha reso Wahrol l'artista capace di rivoluzionare il mondo dell'arte degli anni sessanta, al punto che era noto a tutti - anche a chi di arte non se ne interessava punto. Molto interessante anche se l'esposizione del pensiero dell'autore divaga spesso ed è' difficile rintracciare un evidente filo cronologico che lega gli eventi narrati, il che rende alcune parti un po' confuse. A mio avviso avere già una lieve infarinatura della biografia di Wahrol permette di apprezzarlo al meglio.

[Jesse Chavez · Rating 2 out of 5]

A sort of career biography on Warhol by someone who knew him somewhat personally. The book focuses on his visions for his art career, successes and failures. The book feels very colloquial, which I can give credit for but otherwise the book is sort of pretentious, rambling, repetitive, and feels like whiplash. It is sort of unfocused and doesn’t inform on his life biography. Shocked that I didn’t like it, but can say that I learned more about reasons to appreciate Warhol than before reading it.

[Hoai Nguyen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I confess: I have absolutely zero knowledge of art or Andy Warhol. I kinda know Andy Warhol is a popular figure, but never do I imagine it would be because of a soup can or a grocery box. And to be honest, even after reading the book, I have not figured it out. However, with the book itself, the author did a fine job of integrating Warhol work the story of his life into a short, easy-to-read book.

[Esteban · Rating 3 out of 5]

Arthur Danto es un filósofo del arte bastante conocido por su argumento en favor del carácter post-histórico del arte contemporáneo. Después del pop art la narrativa modernista que alimentaba la lucha del arte contra su propio pasado dejó de tener sentido. La figura de Andy Warhol es fundamental para su argumento, y por eso resulta un poco decepcionante que permitiéndose todo un libro para tratarla no logre ni conformar una biografía ni ahondar en su propia tesis. A pesar de eso el libro se sostiene por el material biográfico que dio el propio Warhol.

A nivel de mi lectura personal rescato el énfasis de Danto en el rol de la religión ortodoxa en la subjetivación del artista. También me gustaron las alusiones a su "irreprimible lascivia" y el descubrimiento de su primera etapa como ilustrador comercial.

[Zhiyi Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

Started a while ago, and finally finished it. It provides pretty decent insights on Warhol's works, particularly their philosophical meaning and artistic significance. I found the book very helpful. However, the writing is pretty loose and episodic. That is probably why it took me so long to finish it.

[Marcos Ramon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Arthur Danto apresenta aqui um perfil de Warhol sem isenções. Mostra a obsessão de Warhol pelo dinheiro e pelo modo de vida americano e destaca a influência disso na construção de sua obra. Sendo um artista, mas também um grande empreendedor (não da arte em geral, mas de si mesmo), Andy Warhol reinventou, no século XX, o conceito de artista.

[Alejandra Diaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Más allá que una biografía más de Warhol, Danto explica en qué consiste la filosofía del arte de Andy, presentando como tesis,siendo el arte de Warhol punto de partida ante la enesima pregunta de la estética: ¿Qué es Arte?

[Elisefur · Rating 4 out of 5]

At some point I got really tired of all the discussions on Warhol in the art world.

When I was in my early 20s, both Warhol and Danto had considerable influence on my thinking about art. But even back then I already knew that the definitions and boundaries of art bored me. And who cares? I watched Chelsea Girls in its entirety at a film festival and was fascinated. It felt both superficial and real. Perhaps it's okay not to understand anything, and just let time washes through you. It becomes tiring when it starts to make perfect sense.

Anyway this is a good book that helped me trace the history of 1960s, and Warhol had become a context just like Duchamp had become a context, meaning their works and ideas remain relevant if not timeless.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolutely fascinating book that not only explored the details and mindset of Andy but also brought on the feeling and setting of the time to life. I really enjoyed Arthur's writing style and will be looking into more of his work as well. Would recommend!

[Christina · Rating 1 out of 5]

Did not finish

[Rodrigo Pimentel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gostei. Super sucinto e bem escreito.

[Sean Bae · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reading for school is never fun, but appreciated the insight on Warhol's artistic journey and how he completely altered the landscape from abstract expressionism to pop/minimalism.

[Melani · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book raised Andy Warhol's importance to art in my eyes. Sometimes I talk to people who don't consider themselves art lovers, they conceive of modern art as something of an inside joke. I have spoken with some lovers of art who also feel that much of what is contemporary (read here after 1960) is a sort of con job. I have not always known how to respond to these remarks, as there are many contemporary pieces I really enjoy. Danto helps readers to understand not only Warhol and his art, but what came just before and what has come since. He gives readers a context that helps them understand the changes Warhol brought to the idea of what art is...

It did not totally convince me to abandon a kind of animosity for Warhol despite liking some of his work, especially his very early work with everyday objects. He did do some great things, but he also seems to be one of the first artists who did not just push the envelope for the sake of art, but tried to explode it for the sake of fame and fortune. So now we have plenty of art that opens the mind and increases our understanding of the world, art that is alive and fascinating, art that can represent all kinds of people and perspectives, but we also have plenty of art that can be really shocking and difficult to grasp.

Sometimes good ideas are shocking, but not everything that shocks is good, I guess.

[Rena Sherwood · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love art but am not in love with biographies of artists. They tend to be so esoteric that I pretty well get disgusted by the whole art world. However, "Andy Warhol" is a lively little look not only at Warhol's career, but how he helped changed how people look at art. I remember as a kid thinking that Andy Warhol didn't do art -- and then I tried to draw a soup can.



My total failure at doing so gave me a much healthier appreciation for pop artists, particularly Warhol.

This is a very short book with some black and white illustrations. Danto is very clear about his sources and what is his opinion or not. You still need to have a good knowledge of art history and modern art, though. You may wind up Googling most of the names in order to figure out what Danto's trying to describe.

Warhol's fifteen minutes are not up. Behold:

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short book was a great introduction to Warhol's life and art. Most interesting was the topic, "What is art?" Is an item from everyday life art? The author suggests that anything can be art, but only if an artist intends it to be so. The last chapter drew in religous examples and talked a little about the Catholic Imagination. Items can be more than they appear (a Brillo Box can be art) just as an ordinary cup could have been the Holy Grail or as Jesus is not just a man (as you would imagine by just looking at him), but God.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have somehow made it through an entire undergrad education without really learning too much about Warhol (a few days in Contemporary Art History, tops). So this was a great little read-in-one-day introduction. Loved the first few chapters about Warhol's relation to AbEx people, admiration for Johns/Rauschenberg, early work, etc. Especially where Danto is writing about the Brillo Boxes - awesomeness.

Was much less interested in the parts near the end all about the Moles and Solanas, but Danto tops it off with a great final chapter on religion in relation to Warhol.

[Elliot Chalom · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are many biographies of Andy Warhol. Probably too many to count. Danto says as much in the preface to his book, which he describes as “no more a piece of art history than it is a biography, but rather a study of what makes Warhol so fascinating an artist from a philosophical perspective.” With that in mind, I love Danto's approach and think this book is well worth reading.

Check out my detailed review over at http://2bitmonkey.wordpress.com/2012/...

[Debra Komar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a biography of Warhol. Rather, it is an extended, academic essay by Danto outlining why Warhol was a significant force in the modern art world. It feels more like a lengthy journal article, rather than a book (it is very short and sparsely illustrated). Danto makes his argument well, although I'm not sure I learned anything.