by Amanda Hiltbruner
Initially, I thought of Warhol as a creepy artist who created works of art of his celebrity friends, but now I know that during the 1960's at least, that he capitalized on celebrity tragedy for the sake of creating his own celebrity and wealth, which I find disgusting. Yes, he was talented and creative, but I found that the only piece that I did admire in the exhibit was his "Cologne Cathedral" from 1985. Perhaps because it's an architectural piece and not a portrait. I do admire his skill and techniques in creating all of the works in the exhibit, but I feel the subject matter lacks sincerity, and were created for his own ulterior motives. Knowing this while visiting the Fabricated exhibit, I found it to be conflicting to be able to look at his artworks with an objective point of view. Having said all of that I would like to see from start (beginning with the photograph) to finish his technique in creating the screen prints. I would have to say the least interesting piece in the Fabricated exhibit for me is the Edie Sedgwick and Lou Reed piece. Filming them looking into the camera for 4 minutes and calling it another form of portraiture is not what I call art. That being said, I realize all art is subjective and one could even say that perhaps if this piece is to be called art then the art being created would be by the subjects themselves (Sedgwick and Reed) and not the person behind the camera. In that case, it would be a performance piece created by the subjects and not Warhol. I am glad that I was able to see the exhibit in person and that AEIVA gallery was able to curate such work from the foundation of a celebrity artist. I think that in itself is valuable to our university and city on a whole.
Initially, I thought of Warhol as a creepy artist who created works of art of his celebrity friends, but now I know that during the 1960's at least, that he capitalized on celebrity tragedy for the sake of creating his own celebrity and wealth, which I find disgusting. Yes, he was talented and creative, but I found that the only piece that I did admire in the exhibit was his "Cologne Cathedral" from 1985. Perhaps because it's an architectural piece and not a portrait. I do admire his skill and techniques in creating all of the works in the exhibit, but I feel the subject matter lacks sincerity, and were created for his own ulterior motives. Knowing this while visiting the Fabricated exhibit, I found it to be conflicting to be able to look at his artworks with an objective point of view. Having said all of that I would like to see from start (beginning with the photograph) to finish his technique in creating the screen prints. I would have to say the least interesting piece in the Fabricated exhibit for me is the Edie Sedgwick and Lou Reed piece. Filming them looking into the camera for 4 minutes and calling it another form of portraiture is not what I call art. That being said, I realize all art is subjective and one could even say that perhaps if this piece is to be called art then the art being created would be by the subjects themselves (Sedgwick and Reed) and not the person behind the camera. In that case, it would be a performance piece created by the subjects and not Warhol. I am glad that I was able to see the exhibit in person and that AEIVA gallery was able to curate such work from the foundation of a celebrity artist. I think that in itself is valuable to our university and city on a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment