Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
SITE FOR POSTING CLASS READING RESPONSES AS COMMENTS. FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON OTHER POSTS. History of Art, U.C. Berkeley. Instructor Sarah Hamill
FUR-LINED CUP, MERET OPPENHEIM, 1936
Students
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(17)
-
▼
January
(17)
- No title
- Minimalism: For Class 3/31
- Warhol and Pop: For Class 3/19
- Johns, Rauschenberg, Frank: For Class 3/17
- Abstract Expressionism: For Class 3/12
- Modernist Sculpture: For Class 3/5
- Surrealism and Gender: For Class 2/19
- Modernism and Mass Culture: For Class 3/3
- Modern Objects and Things: For Class 2/10
- Primitivism: For class 2/5
- Cezanne and after: For Class 2/3
- Impressionism and Science: For class 1/29
- Response #3
- Kathryn A. Tuma
- What is Analysis? For class 1/27
- Octave Tassaert’s ‘Ne fais pas la cruelle!’ (Don’t...
- Defining the Modern: for class January 22
-
▼
January
(17)
Felby Chen
ReplyDeleteHA R1B
Section 6
In Crow’s argument about trace and reference in his excerpt, “Saturday Disasters: Trace and Reference in Early Warhol,” Crow goes in depth about Andy Warhol’s style of painting.
Warhol constantly integrated repeated themes in his paintings, with an “impersonality of his image choices and their presentation” (49). Unlike modernist paintings, Warhol’s paintings do not especially connect with viewers on a personal level. Regarding subject-matter and Warhol’s image choices, they are often “regarded as essentially indiscriminate, [as] they represent the random play of a consciousness at the mercy of the commonly available commercial culture” (49). These commercial-influenced image choices definitely tie in with the lack of personal connectivity with viewers. Warhol furthermore rejects modernist painting through his “suspension in his work of any clear authorial voice” (49), without a pinpointing an exact underlying message that a modernist painting would have. According to Crow, many have debated whether Warhol’s paintings “cynically and meretriciously exploits an endemic confusion between art and marketing” (49), which has never been the case for a modernist painting since a modernist painting is straightforward in its depictions and image-choices. It has been stated that “Warhol, though he grounded his art in the ubiquity of the packaged commodity, produced his most powerful work by dramatizing the breakdown of commodity exchange” (51). A modernist painting would, first off, not even be considered as a variation of a commodity. A modernist painting would also not even dramatize the breakdown of commodity exchange if it does not depict or touch upon the commodity realm.
Many of Warhol’s subject matter are rooted in commercial-related themes, which one would never see in a modernist painting. Since a modernist painting never reflects commodity influence, the modernist painting would tend to not have the problem of connecting with the viewer on a personal level, since commodities and commercials are often mass marketed to everyone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBing Lin
ReplyDeleteThe most glaring statement in Crow’s article about Warhol’s attitude towards his own artwork reveals “it was the artist himself who told the world that he had no real point to make, that he intended no larger meaning in the choice of this or that subject” (544). His earlier works consisted of silkscreen stencils from public pictures of celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor, mass-producing the same image with different amounts of ink to portray different Marilyn Monroes. This act of replication and mass-production opposes the modernist thought of individualism and uniqueness, especially as Warhol is taking an image, a publicity still from a film, that the public has already seen countless times, and mass-producing it once more.
Also in contrast with modernist’s representational and abstract quality, Crow explains that Warhol’s images are organized in a straightforward manner, where “the emotional calculus is simple, the sentiment direct and uncomplicated” (548). Despite the straightforward manner, however, he nevertheless is able to convey, as Crow describes, “nuance and subtlety of response that is his alone, precisely because he has not sought technically to surpass his raw material” (548). I take from this that because Warhol does not try to stand out individually with new or unique materials or methods, he actually says more, using a commercial language that the masses can understand, opening up his message to more than just art appreciators and the like.
Gene Swenson’s interview with Andy Warhol further enforces Warhol’s opposition to modernity. In the interview, Warhol claims, “I think everybody should be a machine. I think everybody should like everybody” (553) and explains that everybody should be able to do everything. This thought allows people to change styles without fearing others’ judgments and also opens up art to the enjoyment of everyone. He further counters the idea of individuality in modernism by stating that because of silkscreen, his work becomes anonymous, something that anyone could do. Silkscreen allows art to become commonplace, to the point where one cannot distinguish or determine the artist who created the artwork.
What stands out the most about Warhol’s works is that it does not seek individuality or to be a mode of personal expression. Warhol makes the process of creating art into a mechanical one. He was a man who “said he wanted to be like a machine” (49) and believed that everyone should think alike. He transforms art into something that can be a commodity, not something that is carefully crafted to be observed and analyzed.
ReplyDeleteWith most modernist paintings, the artist deliberately selects or develops a meaning behind his or her paintings. The underlying meaning could be a statement arisen from symbolism in the painting, or the purpose could be purely emotional expression. Whatever it may be, the artist usually has an intention. But Warhol had no point to make in his paintings. There is no larger meaning in the choice of his subject or emotional expression. He essentially detaches himself from the art, even making his assistants do the physical work in creating his art.
By having his assistants produce his artwork for him, Warhol is turning his artwork into a commodity. It is almost as if he is creating an assembly line that works for him, producing his goods in a mechanical fashion. His works lack the personal touch modern artists would give their paintings.
The way in which Warhol’s paintings look make it difficult for the viewer to connect with the emotion or mood the subject may have. He uses a repetition of the subject all over a canvas to remove the emotional attachment that would ordinarily be connected to the picture. For example, with Jackies, Warhol repeats four distinct pictures of the First Lady. While each of the pictures clearly dictates a mood, the viewer is unable to “penetrate beneath the image to touch the true pain and grief” (60) that these pictures would exhibit on their own. But because of the repetition and commercialization of these images, the emotion becomes detached.
I find that many of Warhol’s works could have some kind of statement behind them because of the highly political and controversial subjects he chooses. For example, Suicide and Little Electric Chair are both sensitive topics to the general public and exhibit pessimistic views of American society. But Warhol makes all of these subjects monochrome. In this sense, Warhol strays from modernist painting.
Jenny Zhang
ReplyDeleteHA R1B Section 6
Reading Response 12
I think Tim Crow’s response to Andy Warhol’s “pop art” painting was interesting. In his essay, he suggests that Warhol choice of using iconic celebrities and consumer products was particular to show the pessimistic side of America’s consumerism. More specifically, Warhol uses pop art to remind the international society and Americans of the “dark” side of objects and persons who are used exchangeable commodities. Not only does he use celebrities and daily items in his paintings but also photos of historical events like the introduction of the death penalty (Little Electric Chair) and anonymous suicides to make his point. When I initially saw his Liz painting in SFMOMA, I was impressed by his silk screen printing technique because although the entire painting is simply a repetition of a film screen-capture of the Elizabeth Taylor, each photo is uniquely printed. The effect of the printing technique on each photo was different and as the viewer gazes to the right corner of the painting, the picture becomes more transparent. I agree with Crow’s comment that although physically Liz is more transparent, the viewer’s perceptions of her in the faded photographs are more vivid. It is similar to the saying in which people do not know what they once had until it is gone. Warhol’s transition of heavy inking to the transparent effect on a photograph opposes the obvious “transition of life to death” (Crow 53). Normally, death would be associated with the fading effect of the photographs but in Warhol’s painting, her presence is more obvious in the faded pictures. I think this response to the faded picture of Elizabeth Taylor is reflective of American’s obsession with celebrities. Often times, iconic stars like Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, and Elvis Presley are sources of fantasy for many people because they seem to lead extravagant and seemingly perfect lives, symbolic of the ultimate American (capitalist) dream. Even Jackie Kennedy, associated with the famous Kennedy family was revered by many people for her beauty and marriage to a president. Often times, celebrities are representative of the face of the American citizen-successful and happy (at least in pictures). And because of their being symbols of the American dream, their death and related tragedies are also felt by the average citizen because their own “dream” has been shattered and brings them to the harsh realities of America. Furthermore, celebrities are almost a commodity because their image are mass produced—become a fetish for many people.
In Warhol’s interview with Gene Swenson, he offers some interesting critiques for modernist paintings. Warhol seems to suggest that modern painting is way of categorizing and judging the styles of the different artists. He believes that as a whole, people are becoming more alike because everyone is creative and has the capacity for being individualistic; but to an extent, when everyone is individualistic, there is not uniqueness to a person, people become alike, taught to be skillful in different ways. Each artist has their own unique style but if modern painting categorizes only those styles that unique, isn’t that a way of judging an artist’s style—which we and art historians are taught not to do. Warhol also contradicts Crow’s analysis of the theme of death revolving most of his works. Warhol says that because death is around him, in the news, everyday, he has become emotionally numb to the news of a stranger’s death. Crow believed that Warhol’s style of repeatedly printing photographs is not meant to numb death but to magnify the viewer’s sensitivity to death. On the other hand, Warhol is suggesting that his choice to include the death theme in much of his painting is because it is inevitable and happens all the time in America. He isn’t trying to hide America but rather to show the reality of American life, that it is not as extravagant as it seems. Because of this point that he makes, I cannot help but associate him with Jasper Johns who also painted an iconic symbol of America’s dream, the national flag. Like mentioned in class, when we pass by his painting, we are sort of numb to the Flag’s presence because we encounter it often. But, when we look at the news clippings serving as the background material of the painting we cannot help but notice the reality or darker side of American life.
Julia Herron
ReplyDeleteReading Response for 3/31/09
Crow saw Andy Warhol as an amalgamation of three separate personas: the self-created person, the complex of interests evident in the work he created, and the experimental personal that pushed the idea of culture and art. Warhol strove to remove himself from his artwork, to “be like a machine” (Crow, 49). Warhol wanted to create impersonality, passivity, and anonymity in his works so that the viewer could not discern the artist’s influence from the art itself. But Crow argues that despite Warhol’s intentions, there is still a trace of Warhol present in all his paintings. Warhol chose his images carefully, often seeking out prints that were not readily available to the public. He also chose which part of the image to repeat, how many times the images was repeated, and what colors to use. Warhol claimed “he had no real point to make”, but his images reference different dichotomies and tensions in American culture, such as freedom, affluence, and individualism. He challenged the idea of celebrity, that happiness comes from money and possessions, and that buying into mass culture creates individuals.
Warhol rejected modernist painting by making his works seem random, like the “play of a consciousness at the mercy of the commonly available commercial culture” (Crow, 49). He hoped his works would seem easily duplicated, much like Johns’ hope for his own paintings. If Warhol took an image that was available to the public and altered it just by repeating it and changing its colors, was there really any artistic merit to his process or the finished product? Warhol aimed for absence from his works, claiming that his assistants did all the work in creating his paintings. He saw creativity as separate from uniqueness, and therefore challenged the value of the artist and their intentions. Although Warhol rejected modernist painting in many ways, his paintings are modernist because they create a reaction in the viewer, whether it is a reaction the painting’s relatability or its calculated emotional content.
Firstly, I’m not so sure Warhol rejects modernist painting per se, but his work lives in the same vein as Benjamin, which he describes in “The work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility”. His work is highly reproducible, and he even encourages others to embrace silk screening to mimic and share his style. Warhol seems to embrace the machine, which is definitely a modernist ideal. He claims he enjoys and strives to be a machine. Similarly he announced that he was in favor of uniformity and conformity of culture. However, his work is not completely of the surface as he claims. To interpret his work as ironic can bring a whole new slew of meaning. In which case, Warhol utilizes modernist style and medium to denounce their ideals. Thus, to interpret Warhol’s work we must first address this binary, and then depart into mutually exclusive realms.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would rather believe Warhol’s work was largely ironic and negative in terms of commercialism and cultural ideals. It becomes difficult to completely decide whether this is his intention or not. Crow portrays Warhol as an enigmatic and elusive character, and even in his interview it is difficult to completely interpret his message. There are subtle contradictions in Crow’s article and what Warhol states in the interview with Gene Swenson. For example, Crow sites Warhol as claiming to “have no real point to make,” (50) while Warhol makes claims in the interview such as “I think everybody should be a machine.” (747) These contradictions indicate that what he tells us is not completely the truth. In which case, it is possible to interpret his work by analyzing the converse of Warhol’s claims.
Crow seems to agree, yet achieves this conclusion by analyzing Warhol’s work through tracing the progression, or rather the connectivity and correlation of his works. These range from the early Monroe’s, to Elizabeth Taylor, to Jacqueline Kennedy. Then, with his works that involve suicide and death. Crow’s believes that Warhol, “Grounded his art in the ubiquity of the packaged commodity, produced his most powerful work by dramatizing the breakdown of commodity exchange.” (51) This seems like a valid point, especially in light of the “tunafish disaster” and photographs of automobile accidents. In both cases Warhol portrays the commodity, with its superficial claims, in instances of contradiction. Crow states, in regards to the “tunafish disaster”, that “The pictures commemorate a moment when the supermarket promise of sage and abundant packaged food was disastrously broken.”(60) Thus, it seems Warhol utilizes the same methods of depiction frequently seen in commodity advertising to display the reality and brittleness behind the façade. The depictions of the women also follow this because Warhol draws attention to their “larger-than-life personal myths.”(56) This especially gains significance in the face of their death, which ultimately grounds them in reality and humanity. Additionally, this seems to be related with the infamous and elusive statement by Warhol that, “In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes.”
It seems that Andy Warhol has provided us with profound and powerful art in a genre that is otherwise superficial. Though his real claims are never made clear, and his depictions are never highly cynical or negative, he has managed to turn the world of capitalism and commodity fetish in on itself.
According to Thomas Crow, what makes Andy Warhol’s artwork so significant and radical is that it is able to convey “the power of the image as a commodity” white exploiting “an endemic confusion between art and marketing” (49). By selecting the subjects that he selects such as Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, or soup cans, Warhol toys with the ideas of mass culture and celebrity. He translates these mass produced images into silkscreen projections, furthermore playing with the idea of reproduction and overabundance.
ReplyDeleteCrow writes in his essay that Warhol “produced his most powerful instances in which the mass-produced image as the bearer of desires was exposed in its inadequacy by the reality of suffering and death” (51). This claim is supported by many of Warhol’s artworks. The finest and most obvious example listed in the essay is Warhol’s “Marilyns.” Monroe, the current face of Hollywood, was indeed a mass-produced item and Warhol reflected her status by replicating her portrait several continuous times. This piece was made only weeks after Monroe’s suicide. Warhol exploited the notion of celebrity through “the reality of suffering and death” (51). This focus is continuously repeated through Warhol’s artistic career. He goes on to shine light on the reality of the superficiality. His “Liz” and “Kennedy” series all revolve around a public figure, respected and worshipped. But Warhol questions the hoopla surrounding these faces by contextualizing tragedy into the artworks. Warhol used other subjects other than celebrities to integrate reality into mass culture. Before his soup can series he created pictures titled “Tunafish Disaster.” He used repeated images of a supermarket item, tuna cans. A mass produced object and a part of mass culture, the tuna cans, however carried another meaning. They were responsible for two deaths. Warhol projects truth and horror in artwork that seems simple, innocent and irrelevant. I think this is what makes him such a revolutionary artist.
Warhol repudiates modernist painting in the sense that he disvalues that sense of “one of a kind.” Modern painters such as Matisse or Monet were concerned with creating paintings that cannot be copied or duplicated. They strove after capturing something personal within them. Warhol on the other hand does the opposite. He rejects the notion of originality. Instead he wishes for machinery, mechanization, and the identical. In an interview he says, “I think everybody should be a machine” (747). Warhol idealizes the notion that everyone likes the same things and wants to do the same things. He argues that this takes out a lot of work in the complicated reasoning of understanding what is creative and what is not. Warhol strays from modernist painting in that he refuses individuality and instead strives for the idea that everyone will think alike.
Brendan Cronshaw
ReplyDeleteHA R1B Section 6
Response 12
3.30.09
Andy Warhol dismissed modernist painting through his explicit statements saying his painting didn’t mean anything nor was it chosen for a specific reason, and at the same time managed masterfully to “[control] the interpretation of his own work” (544).
Thomas Crow immediately tells us that Warhol felt that both “he and his art were nothing but surface” (543) as well as that “he wanted to be like a machine” (543). These two statements begin to paint a picture for us of a man who seemed to feel that his work was merely a comment on popular culture, mass media and what was the norm at that time, and that none of it had any meaning or preconceived idea or purpose behind it. More blatant and to some confounding were statements such as that he “had no real pint to make…intended no larger meaning in the choice of this or that subject, that his assistants did most of the physical work of producing his art” (544). This is in clear defiance of modernist painting that often has a motive behind it or a hidden meaning or representation.
However, as Crow alludes to, his apparent departure from modernist painting seems to be contradicted by his ability to “[control] the interpretation of his own work” (544). Yet at the same time Warhol directs us in the direction of seeing his work as merely a “surface” (543) and this is not a representation or a meaning that he seeks for us to understand as is common in many modernist works.
Crow again makes it clear to us that
“Though [Warhol] grounded his art in the ubiquity of the packed commodity, produced his most powerful work by dramatizing the breakdown of commodity exchange. These were instances in which the mass-produced image as the bearer of desires was exposed in its inadequacy by the reality of suffering and death” (546).
What he is saying is that an image that many believe is of something immortal or at the very least divine and of high affluence and stature, is brought down to size by its association with death and suffering. This is prevalent in Warhol’s Marilyns that were completed not long following her suicide. What he does is associate two clearly different things (at least in the minds and eyes of the masses) and thus creates tension and this “pop art” that seems to comment on society and American consumerism.
Warhol creates Pop Art via juxtaposing two things that at the time and even now were not often associated with one another. Thus he was able to elicit feelings, emotions, and ideas about American culture, death, the masses, and celebrities, as they were in both life and death. He was also able to get people to take a step back and look at how they viewed those of wide recognition and great fame.
Danielle Beeve
ReplyDeleteHistory of Art R1B
Section 6
While modernism sought to cherish and glorify individualism, Andy Warhol used his work to denounce the individual and further his theory that “Everybody looks alike and acts alike, and we’re getting more and more that way.” (553) Warhol’s use of repetition is, in my opinion, his most useful technique in negating the ideal of individual worth. Repeated images produce a loss of uniqueness in Warhol’s work, and the photo-silkscreen technique seems easily reproducible, driving the idea of singularity even further away.
Warhol’s use of a less celebrated image in his Marilyn series seemed a significant choice. According to Thomas Crow, Warhol began this series “within weeks of Monroe’s suicide in August 1962…some of the artist’s formal choices refer to a memorial or funeral function” (545). In this picture Marilyn Monroe, although still beautiful, does not appear to me to be happy. Her smile looks forced and her eyes are half closed: this look is not at all charismatic or compelling. Crow states that Warhol considered and rejected a more famous photo of Monroe’s, implying he found the alternative more appropriate for his intended message. It doesn’t seem that Warhol’s Marilyn Diptych is a tribute to the actress and her career, but more of a commentary on the fleeting quality of life. Crow says that this piece “is a memorial in the sense that it resembles memory – sometimes vividly present, sometimes elusive, always open to embellishment as well as loss...[it] lays out a stark and unresolved dialectic of presence and absence, of life and death.” (545) Crow seems to be saying that Warhol’s piece is not meant to idolize Monroe but to function as more of a commentary on the sudden absence that comes along with tragic and unexpected death.
Warhol’s choice of subject matter reinforces the idea of his focus on absence in these silkscreen paintings. He chose three beautiful women with tragic stories, and he linked them together by “the threat or actuality of death” (548) in their lives. The most interesting to me is his piece 16 Jackies because instead of just one face repeated throughout the painting he has four different shots of Jacqueline Kennedy repeated four times each. Crow describes this piece as an “expression of feeling…the emotional calculus is simple, the sentiment direct and uncomplicated.” (548) For me, this piece, more than Marilyn Diptych, shows a depth of emotion that Warhol was only truly able to capture through his photo-silkscreen technique, the repetition of the photographs pronounces the feelings Jacqueline Kennedy gives off in these pictures rather than stifling them with over exposure.
Thomas Crow writes about Andy Warhol's approach to his creations, trying to illicit how society promotes mechanical and anti-individual actions. Andy Warhol states, "I want everybody to think alike... I think everybody should be a machine" (544). He finds it ironic that the American capitalist state, which pushes individuality and advances, is trapped in a socialist ideal - the equality and sameness in all areas. This is hard for the Western public to swallow, particularly because they strive so hard to avoid socialism. Interestingly, Warhol has had his fifteen minutes of fame. Perhaps it is caused by his controversial stance on where America is going. Warhol further supports his goal of becoming a machine by his technique and subjects. He uses a silkscreen which allows him to hand most of the creation process to his assistants. It is reproducible and does not take a particular artist's unique talent or style. In his more popular art series, Marilyn, Liz, and Jackie, the repetition of the iconic women's faces enhances the idea of reproducibility. Through the use of celebrities, Warhol exaggerates to the public how those who are idolized also fall into the same trapped, monotonous life as the common people. The lesser known works include newspaper recreations of how death and tragedy has become a normal part of daily life. No one really cares for the individual cases because it is so common.
ReplyDeleteIn an interview with Warhol, he says that pop art is about the liking of things (553), which leads to conformity. Thus, we might as well yield to the fact that all things will become the same due to trends and fads. With the notion of becoming mechanical is anonymity. Warhol promotes the idea of not knowing an artist, that it does matter who has made an artwork. It will help him to change styles without the critique that he has lost his touch and have to quit becoming an artist, like his examples of G and A (554). Ideally, to be allowed the creativity without the judgment of one artist being assigned to one talent or style is what Warhol wants. The judgment is what pressures people to be unique, but at the same time prevents people from being individual because of the fear of not having societal approval. Warhol states, "Some day everybody will think just what they want to think, and then everybody will be thinking alike; that seems to be what is happening" (554). Unlike other pop artists, Warhol seems to have come to terms with where society is going. He is anticipating and bracing what may come in the future, instead of fighting against what is happening.
P.S. sorry I meant to describe "National Velvet" instead of "Liz" in my response
ReplyDeleteThomas Crow’s article Saturday Disasters provides a well thought out depiction of how Andy Warhol rejected modernist painting by not having any subject matter. By getting away from the individual, he accepts the ideal of rejecting the singular to the masses. However, how much can we say that Warhol is rejecting modernism? He goes against the modern artists’ view of celebrating the individual and essentially letting the individual carve out a new painting or sculpture. Yet, the mass media and basically all of mass culture loved him and his artwork.
ReplyDeleteThe mass culture of Warhol’s days whole-heartedly accepted his artwork. As Crow states, Warhol’s Monroe Diptych becomes a way to cope with the “sense of loss, the absence of a richly imagined presence that was never really there” (53). Yes Warhol conceded that the painting had to ephemeral meaning. But everyone loved it. It became a mass icon for the masses. And as Crow indicates, the people accepted it as a façade of something they did not understand. Did they ever have a conversation with Marilyn Monroe? Do they know what her interests are, what are her turn ons and turn offs? No, but they have an idea of who she is. The Monroe series gives exactly that, an idea of who she is. Can you really reject modernism if the people love what you make? Isn’t it in and of its own a modernistic idea to make art for the sake of making art?
I think the most striking thing about Warhol’s supposed “rejection of modernism” is the almost utter acceptance by the people of his time. We’ve never seen the people of an artists’ time actually like what the artist produced. We always hear of people fainting at art exhibits, of whole communities completely rejecting an artist. Modernism is supposed to challenge the new, to stir up controversy. Warhol didn’t do that. But then is that modernist? It falls into a category where all we can do in the end is go with a gut instinct or throw our hands up in the air and give up on trying to define it as modern.
So I guess the question really comes down to who are we to put our faith in, a select group of people who think they know best or the people the art is made for?
Erik Narhi
ReplyDeleteHAR1B
3/31
Andy Warhol was not so much an artist as a created essence, a celebrity. His work lent itself to fame because of interest, not because of awe-inspiring composition or thought provoking qualities. As such, he was a stark contrast to the artists before him. Whereas the “modernists” thrived through creation of art that inspired thought and created extreme reactions, Warhol’s work is rather mundane. His commercial reproduction could be likened to Duchamp, but even then, Duchamp chose works and situations that created reactions of disgust and surprise. Warhol did no such thing—his art was presented as bland reproductions, and the subject matter never approached the shock level of the reproduction art before him. Rather than create art with a strong intention or ideal, Warhol strove to create a fantastical essence that surrounded both his art and his persona.
Crow argues that Warhol’s most important artistic element lies in addressing “breakdown of commodity exchange”, as is evident in one of his most famous works, Marilyns, which can be seen as a very strong statement due to its timing after her suicide. It is curious that he diverges so strongly from his prior observations regarding Warhol’s take on his own art though, ignoring Warhol’s description of art to make “everybody think alike”. I am much more convinced by this idea of flatness and single minded presentation of the commodity than of Crow’s take on some works such as Marilyns—to me, it feels as though he is trying to force meaning onto a piece of art that was created purely as commercial reproduction, along the same vein as Warhol’s other works. When the artist himself states that his art “has no real point (Crow 53)”, it is dubious that an interpretation as extravagant and unsubstantiated as Crow’s is accurate.
Although he does bring up some interesting points in regard to the implications of the process behind the art and plausible underlying meanings, my general feeling is that his interpretation just complicates an uncomplicated art—Warhol strove for simple reproduction that avoided modernist ideals, and Crow instead approaches the art from an in-depth, modernist perspective that is likely irrelevant.