Art Lovers discussion

Why are the Andy Warhol soup can paintings considered great art? by Martin Fox. Art Historian



"Andy Warhol's art resonated with an affluent culture of the 1960s: a time when American consumers were becoming increasingly aware and conscious of advertisements, design, and branding. Ads were becoming more sophisticated and appealing to the consumers' knowledge that they were being advertised to, for instance. Warhol tapped into the culture of mass consumption and this makes his work iconic and instantly recognizable.

By not spelling out the meaning of his subjects, and by adopting an air of ironic or nonjudgmental detachment, Warhol allows each viewer to determine his or her own opinion towards his art, which itself reflects American culture in a way that is ingeniously ambivalent.

Every soup can painting here is pretty much the same - but each one is different too. 32 different flavors of soup, each a form of comfort food. These represent the 32 varieties that Campbell's sold at the time. These cans are displayed in a way that is similar to the shelves on a grocery store, too - a symbol of American abundance and our expectations as consumers that each can of soup will taste the same because of its brand.

Of course these aren't really soup cans. They are a series of pictures that are flattened out, rendered like a schematic or a presentation from a graphic designer. Warhol worked as a commercial artist, and surely would have admired the design of the can labels. Though the purpose of a successful product design is to draw our eye to the product; we aren't usually supposed to think about product design as art or even as design, except as branding. But these paintings, presented in a museum or gallery, flattened out and abstracted, do in fact draw our attention to that design. Warhol's art is instantly recognizable - in a way, he adopted Campbell Soup's branding as his own.

These paintings are hand-painted, with a stamping process adding details to the bottom of each can. But Warhol soon turned to making silkscreens on canvas, a printmaking process. Using silkscreen on canvas made each element repeatable, and ensured that it was nearly the same, in a way that is analogous to how each identical can comes out of the Campbell's factory. Warhol's art seemed to thumb its nose at the seriousness of most modern art, especially at Abstract Expressionism. His work remained firmly within the realm of art, however." More...https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-And...

To you all the members... WHY?

I don't really know if they're good, or great; I suppose what matters most is that they're iconic. But I have zero interest in anything I see by Warhol. If my general interest level at a given moment is at some resting equilibrium, and I see a Warhol work, it just bottoms out.

Lobstergirl wrote: "I don't really know if they're good, or great; I suppose what matters most is that they're iconic. But I have zero interest in anything I see by Warhol. If my general interest level at a given mome..."

I hadn't thought of that idea, Lobstergirl about them being iconic as the real issue of decision. I wouldn't be able to say whether that is good art at all, because in my opinion it's not. But on the other hand, some say that the originality of a piece is what makes it art, the idea involved in what is made rather than the object, painting, or whatever is in discussion.

Of course they're good art. Art makes a visual statement. Warhol,is throwing the banal right back in our faces.

Lobstergirl, we`re in agreement on this one. I had the misfortune of watching one of his terrible movies as at the time I still had AN OPEN MIND but since then, my opinion has veered drastically to the negative. His work is seminal in that he was a harbinger to a new movement, just as Franz Kline and Helen were to AE In all three, their work was in artistic merit, secondary to their followers. Such is the nature of being the trendsetter.

A few notes to be added. There were POP ART starters before Andy and I never understood why they didn´t garner the laurels he did. Perhaps they weren`t schizophrenic enough? Albinos? Pretentious enough? I am thinking of the guy who did the image in 1956(?) of the muscle bound man in the living room with the blond bombshell.

I think those people who stock canned food for the apocalypse in such compulsive and meticulous manner, ensuring all cans are aligned and arranged for visual presentation are just as much artist as hoarder.

Now that they're able to snapchat their inventory they'll be able to get more notoriety in the art world I hope.

Of course this is "fine art" mocking commercial art, which I hated enough to drop after a year and a semester (commercial art that is)

Richard Hamilton, the Brit is the one who did that fantastic image of the strong man. And then there was Tom Wesselman. Much more interesting work than AWful`s.

Also to be noted that Pop Art has evolved into a comic book derived art, so despite AWful´s dominance of the 60`s pop art scene, it was more that Roy Liechtenstein with his huge comic blow ups, (Well if it doesn´t work out we can always get a divorce) has steered todays direction of pop artists, although I doubt many of today`s X generation of artists are familiar with his work

I wasn't familiar with him by name, but I do recognize the style for sure. You can find that in comic strip as well.