Post your funny pictures here!!! part Deux

[drunkenshoe]

LOOL
Somehow it feels like, this was written on some toilet door in Stanford or MIT decades ago...

[drunkenshoe]

How do you paint people as they are but also paint them as better-looking than they are?  🤔  Either you are painting them as they are, in which case you're not painting them as better-looking than they are.  Or you're painting them as better-looking than they are, in which case you're not painting them as they are.

Your punishment is to sit through a traditional history of art course until a soup can drawing appears. :p Lool.

[In a way, according to Baudrillard that was the last thing we originally produced as human species. And I think, we've even failed at that.] E: I didn't mean Warhol's work.

[Hydra009]

Your punishment is to sit through a traditional history of art course until a soup can drawing appears. :p

I never understood what was so compelling about soup cans that they made their way into art history textbooks.  I'm sure there's some symbolic meaning, but to me, it's literally like taking a photo of my pantry.  Sure, I could do it, but would it be important or mean anything?

All cards on the table, my own biases/assumptions:
* classical/medieval/renaissance naturalism = chef's kiss
* impressionism = made an impression
* surrealism = not bad
* abstract expressionism = can be good in small doses
* cubism = seek mental help
* postmodernism = literal garbage

[Unbeliever]

My favorite artist is M. C. Escher. I just got a book of Escher prints at a thrift store the other day for $5.
His work called Drawing Hands is my metaphor for friendship, since it involves mutual creation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I never understood what was so compelling about soup cans that they made their way into art history textbooks.

The Pop Artist, Andy Warhol, painted a Campbell's soup can. Imitation is the most vapid form of flattery.

He also made an eight hour movie of a man sleeping. Nothing but that, just sleeping. Posers were all over it, gushing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My favorite artist is M. C. Escher. I just got a book of Escher prints at a thrift store the other day for $5.
His work called Drawing Hands is my metaphor for friendship, since it involves mutual creation.

The flowing waters was rather cool. He created the big dead alien in "Alien".

[Hydra009]

The Pop Artist, Andy Warhol, painted a Campbell's soup can. Imitation is the most vapid form of flattery.

I didn't mean "I don't understand what's compelling about it" in the sense of "oops, I fell and hit my head and never heard of one of the most famous American painters ever", I meant it more like "why the fuck would anyone go to an art museum with the express purpose of seeing a painting of soup cans?" with the implication that that's boring and (if the can is empty) literally rubbish.

Van Gogh, I can understand.  Any of the Renaissance Turtles, I can understand.  Zdzisław Beksiński, I can really understand.  Warhol's soup cans (and going on a limb, the entirety of his career), I don't understand.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, the painting on was display at the MOMA IIRC, so being the eastern pole of posers in the US it was going to be a hit. (MOMA is in NYC, for reference.)

And I think it was MOMA, wasn't that interested in it to begin with.

[drunkenshoe]

...  I'm sure there's some symbolic meaning, but to me, it's literally like taking a photo of my pantry. Sure, I could do it, but would it be important or mean anything?

It wasn't about who, but when. Historical context. In a world pop art didn't exist, where art is understood very differently, it is/was very important. So, a very long story short, it's exactly what it is.

Warhol hated the certain set of circumstances and ideas imposed on/about art. Like 'high art' or 'low art', that art was accessible by the elite, and understandable-enjoyable by the educated or certain milieu only. Especially in a world that was/is thriving on consumerism, commercialism, and mass production. 

So, basically this was the way of him saying "Fuck You!" In a nutshell, when you draw anything from 'nature', you imitate nature too... So, it "...conveys a truth."

chatgpt:

Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans series, created in 1962, holds a pivotal place in art history for several reasons:

1. Pop Art Movement:

Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans are a defining work of the Pop Art movement, which emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. Pop Art challenged traditional fine art by incorporating imagery from popular and commercial culture. By using a mundane, mass-produced product as his subject, Warhol blurred the boundaries between high art and everyday life.

2. Commentary on Consumerism:

The series critiques and celebrates consumer culture. Warhol chose Campbell's Soup cans because they were familiar and ubiquitous, representing the standardization and mass production prevalent in mid-20th-century America. The work reflects society's increasing dependence on mass-produced goods and the rise of consumerism.

3. Repetition and Mass Production:

Warhol's use of repetition mimicked industrial production techniques. By replicating the same image multiple times, he highlighted the uniformity of consumer goods and questioned the notion of artistic originality. This approach challenged traditional concepts of uniqueness in art and mirrored the mass production of consumer products.

4. Democratization of Art:

Warhol believed that art should be accessible to everyone, not just the elite. By using familiar consumer goods as subjects, he made his art relatable to the general public. His work suggested that art could be found in everyday objects and experiences, democratizing the art world.

5. Artistic Innovation:

The Campbell's Soup Cans series was innovative in its use of silkscreen printing, a technique that allowed Warhol to produce multiple copies of the same image. This method aligned with his interest in mass production and further blurred the lines between fine art and commercial art.

6. Cultural Icon:

The series has become an iconic representation of 20th-century art and American culture. It has been widely reproduced and referenced in various media, solidifying Warhol's place as a central figure in contemporary art.

7. Personal Significance:

Warhol's choice of Campbell's Soup was also personal. He claimed that he ate Campbell's Soup for lunch every day for 20 years, making the cans a part of his daily life. This personal connection adds a layer of intimacy to the work, blending the personal with the commercial.

In summary, Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans are significant because they encapsulate key themes of the Pop Art movement, such as the critique of consumerism, the use of mass production techniques, and the democratization of art. The series challenges traditional notions of art and continues to influence contemporary artists and culture.

Further reading...chatgpt:

The concept of the "philosophical disenfranchisement of art" refers to a perspective within the field of philosophy that tends to undermine or diminish the value, significance, and autonomy of art. This idea is associated with the argument that philosophical discourse has historically marginalized or subordinated art, treating it as less serious or important compared to other forms of knowledge and inquiry. Here are some key points related to this concept:
Historical Context

    Plato's Critique:
        One of the earliest examples of this disenfranchisement comes from Plato, who famously critiqued art in his dialogues. In The Republic, Plato argued that art is an imitation of reality and thus a copy of a copy, leading people further away from the truth. He believed that art could be deceptive and morally corrupting.

    Philosophical Hierarchy:
        Throughout history, many philosophers have placed reason and rational thought above the sensory and emotional experiences evoked by art. This created a hierarchy where philosophy was seen as a pursuit of truth and wisdom, while art was relegated to mere entertainment or distraction.

Key Themes

    Mimesis and Representation:
        The idea that art is merely mimetic, or representational, has contributed to its philosophical disenfranchisement. If art is only an imitation of reality, it might be considered less valuable than direct engagement with the world through science or philosophy.

    Autonomy of Art:
        The disenfranchisement often involves denying the autonomy of art, treating it as a tool for moral, political, or educational purposes rather than recognizing its intrinsic value. This utilitarian view reduces art to its potential instrumental effects rather than appreciating its unique contributions to human experience.

    Epistemological Concerns:
        Philosophers have sometimes questioned the epistemological status of art. If knowledge is defined in terms of propositional truth and logical argumentation, the non-discursive, often ambiguous nature of art can seem less capable of contributing to knowledge.

Contemporary Perspectives

    Aesthetic Philosophy:
        In the 20th and 21st centuries, philosophers such as Arthur Danto and Hans-Georg Gadamer have argued against the disenfranchisement of art, advocating for its unique capacity to convey meaning, truth, and understanding in ways that are different from but equally valuable as philosophical or scientific discourse.

    Art's Cognitive Value:
        Contemporary aesthetics often emphasizes the cognitive value of art, arguing that art can provide insights, foster critical thinking, and offer profound experiences that contribute to our understanding of the world and ourselves.

    Interdisciplinary Approaches:
        There is a growing recognition of the importance of interdisciplinary approaches that bridge the gap between philosophy and art. This includes considering how philosophical concepts can be explored and expressed through artistic practices, and vice versa.

Key Figures

    Arthur Danto:
        Danto's work, particularly his concept of the "artworld," argues for the philosophical recognition of the unique ways in which art creates meaning and engages with reality.

    Hans-Georg Gadamer:
        Gadamer's hermeneutics emphasizes the interpretive and experiential dimensions of art, highlighting its role in expanding our understanding through engagement with aesthetic experiences.

    Maurice Merleau-Ponty:
        Merleau-Ponty explored the phenomenology of perception and the ways in which art can reveal aspects of our embodied experience and our engagement with the world.

In summary, the philosophical disenfranchisement of art refers to the marginalization of art within philosophical discourse, treating it as less serious or important than other forms of knowledge. Contemporary philosophers and aestheticians, however, have challenged this view, advocating for the recognition of art's unique and valuable contributions to human understanding and experience.

-------------------

(God, I love AI. )

In my original post, I didn't mean Baudrillard said the Warhol's soup cans were the last original thing we produced -it looks like that. I meant, he pointed out that, since Renaissance humanity has failed the produce anything original. Personally, I'm not sure about that either.

Probably, that's why we have produced postmodernism, why it is garbage, and everything we love is also the product of postmodernism...



 

[aitm]

Now hear this! Now hear this! More funny pictures....less jibber jabber!

[Hydra009]

Warhol believed that art should be accessible to everyone, not just the elite.

I understand this, but that battle had been fought and won loooong before Warhol.  They were called landscapes and they were excellent.

I get the logic in duplicating mass-produced stuff as a critique of the uniformity and sterility of consumer culture, but at the end of the day, he's essentially just making more of a bad thing.

Consumerist logos are everwhere now - t-shirts, pants, handbags, etc - yesterday I saw a baby wearing socks with the Nike swoosh on them - and I absolutely despise it.  Needless to say I don't like this stuff finding its way into art museums, no matter the intention.

[drunkenshoe]

I understand this, but that battle had been fought and won loooong before Warhol.  They were called landscapes and they were excellent.

I get the logic in duplicating mass-produced stuff as a critique of the uniformity and sterility of consumer culture, but at the end of the day, he's essentially just making more of a bad thing.

Consumerist logos are everwhere now - t-shirts, pants, handbags, etc - yesterday I saw a baby wearing socks with the Nike swoosh on them - and I absolutely despise it.  Needless to say I don't like this stuff finding its way into art museums, no matter the intention.

Oh no, not like that. See, Hydra, probably as you know, there has always been a conflict about what is art, who is artist, and who says what is art, what is not. This unfortunately has not changed that easily. What do you think about an ordinary Gauguin being sold for 200 million dollars? It's bullshit. Also, landscape is always low art if not as low as naturemorts, lol. But there are some landscapes... When I saw Turner up close I was stunned.

He is not making more of a bad thing, (first because art doesn't have to be useful, pragmatic or good) but then because nobody has made anything in that context before, and it doesn't matter if anyone does again as you said. Because it meant something new then, it doesn't mean something new now.

Think about this as a story. It's a story that goes on in some weird world called 'artworld' (Danto). We don't know when it started, it is old has human, but we always try to load meanings on it; try to understand it because it manages to convey beyond anything else. It2s not just intelligence. It's not just knowledge. It's also human truth.

By the way, an art work doesn't need to be interesting, beautiful, useful, good, charming or meaningful to everyone in accordance to be art. This is very important, this is exactly what Campbell Soup cans mean. It doesn't have to be good. But it has to tell something of its zeitgeist. I mean, 'not have to' but it'd better, if it wants to be timeless.

I understand what you feel about it. Maybe this is going to sound weird, but jokes aside, if you were interested in art history and followed fro the beginning to this day; spent time with it, you'd feel different about these kind of works. You still wouldn't like it -I don't- but it would mean something to you.

OK, a personal question. What do you like to see in museums? What do you want to be called as art?
     
Danto also has an essay called End of Art. Maybe you'd like it, I dunno. This subject is not something I can explain like that. It's about interest, about one's conditioned eye. For example, why hyper-realism has found home in the States? Why isn't there anything 'new' anymore? There really isn't?

I wish we could all get together, and visit art museums in Europe, hell everywhere. We would have sooo much fun. You guys would fall asleep, while I am running around. :p lolol

 

[drunkenshoe]

Now hear this! Now hear this! More funny pictures....less jibber jabber!

Pfft, go make me a sammich. Wouldn't say no to a beer either...

[drunkenshoe]

... Van Gogh, I can understand. ...

He is amazing. And they treated him as if he had the plague. Well, he died young, but then it is not like he'd be taken seriously if he didn't.

Potato Eaters is my favourite painting. And I don't even necessarily like paintings.

[Hydra009]

What do you like to see in museums? What do you want to be called as art?

Landscapes, portraits, sculptures, etc.  Mona Lisa, Starry Night, Creation of Adam, Oath of the Horatii, The School of Athens, Liberty Leading the People, Sunday Afternoon On The Island Of La Grande Jatte, etc.  Those are the creme de la creme of paintings, imho.  Obviously, they're not all that good, but that's the goal to shoot for.  Anything in that sort of vein is absolutely fine, imho.

What I don't want to see are consumerist logos, urinals, blank canvas, or bananas taped to the wall.  Basically, if it can be mistaken for literal trash, I don't want to see it at an art museum.

Imho, the bare minimum standard would be something like Dogs Playing Poker or some kitschy painting with an AT-AT or T-rex painted onto it after the fact.

*edit - while I undoubtedly have a classical bias, I acknowledge that there is lots of good contemporary art and good art is still being made today, even in this bizarroworld where "art" is being produced by AI.  Imho, some of the best fantasy art out in the world today adorns mass-produced playing cards and some of the best sci-fi art can be found wrapping sci-fi books or video games.  Some of it is absolutely meme-worthy, too.

And yes, video games are art.  The game studio hires professional artists who produce art for months or years - concept art, in-game art, art booklets, etc.  If you put a bunch of art together, you don't get non-art, no matter what Pluto-is-a-planet Boomer art critics say.  The future is now, old man!