No, it's not a statement that I necessarily believe in, or one that I believe even Andy Warhol (the artist I am quoting) totally believed in. I came across news of an exhibition ("Andy Warhol Enterprises") at the Indianapolis Museum of Art in October later this year (2010), that features Andy Warhol's work in relation to his commercial art background. A background that carried directly over to his later work in many ways, whether it's his pop-art paintings, his factory-studio movies and projects, his band promoting, or his publishing.
"Good Business is the Best Art"
-Andy Warhol
Art and business are subjects that are often found together - this is an idea behind much of Warhol's work. I think he was tapping into that exploitive, dumbed down, quick version of popular culture that we are especially seeing now in the 21st century, while at the same time cashing in on it, creating and or predicting it. Warning us of our future cultural doom while at the same time having a hand in it's invention.
Some quick thoughts off the top of my head about money and art are that on some level it's easy to be commercial, and I am not necessarily saying that Warhol's work is shallow, but some might see it that way. For example - I could paint puppy dogs or cottages in the woods or whatnot and I could sell some paintings consistently no question in my mind. I would not only not want to do that idealistically, but if I had to starve I still would not be up for that.
But on a different level, maybe your current work is ideally what you would want to do but it has no commercial appeal whatsover. Then you have to ask yourself - are you happy doing your art for yourself on your own time and not as a way to make money? If this is an option, that's not a bad thing of course. Without any commercial appeal though, that could mean that other people don't even dig your work on any kind of aesthetic level, which is kind of a general bummer, right?
I mean speaking for myself, I really get off on seeing people's reaction to my work, I want to interact with them and talk about it, maybe sometimes even if it's not a positive experience at first. Good art to me should have some kind of attractive quality to it, something that draws me in, the work needs to stand on it's own visually and appeal to me somehow. And even if one person digs it, that usually means that marketed well enough you could achieve some level of commercial success. And success can be defined not just in making money selling your art, but in sharing it and growing an audience for it. Even if it's only the latter you're after, if you want to be successful, good marketing is essential and Warhol was a master of it.
On another level my own experience is similar to Warhol's (except for the part about being hugely famous and successful). Similar in respect to the fact that I stumbled into picture framing as a young man and worked full time in that field for more than several years. I learned sales skills, attention to detail, excellent craftsmanship, color and composition theory on daily basis, amongst many other things; many of the skills I imagine that Warhol learned in his early years as a graphic designer. If your are lucky enough to have a craft or skill that is close to what you ideally want to do, this can be a great thing. Some artists shy away from the marketing or commercial aspect of the job, but for my money, the more you know and do the better you're chances are.
The Andy Warhol Enterprises exhibition will feature many items from the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, PA. I saw that museum when when I lived in the 'Burgh, and the visit is one of my most vivid memories of that city. The silver pillow room is awesome if you are ever near there and are able to go. I gained a tremendous amount more of respect for Warhol and his work after seeing this museum. Although after much thought on the subject over the years; I still disagree with some of the basic philosophy of art that Warhol maintained throughout his work, (blending the line between pop culture and art, exposing/exploiting this fact has a basis for all his work). His work is important however you want to look at it and I think the debates that his work presents to us, are ones that deserve to be examined over and over again, which Warhol's work allows us to do.
Posts
3 comments:
Warhol was, in many ways, the prophet of our age: reality TV, youtube, the way advertising has wheedled its way into the most sacred spaces of "art." According to the line you quote, he'd think that was all just great--but I doubt it. Much as he liked to talk like a businessman, and actually made a whole hell of a lotta money, it should goes without saying that he was deeply transgressive, like any real artist, he was far more about expanding perameters than finding the lowest common denominator (thus, for instance, while, with the Velvet Underground, he was certainly trying to enter the world of "pop music," he was specifically doing so with a band that was about exploding all of the boundaries of pop music).
I agree his work is important and had a lot more to say than the mere label pop-art implies. He claims like you do about him, that he was merely a witness, a prophet, not a partaker. But I disagree, not only did Warhol partake in it, he created it, promoted it, and swam in it. A great artist any way you want to look at it.
He had uncanny knack of grasping the ‘ripeness of the moment’. His was a life of celebrity acutely tuned to the pulse of media space. This ability along with the ability to grasp an image and instilling it with ‘visual clout’ put him at the centre of the orgy of fame and kept him there for a long time.
http://modernartists.blogspot.com/2011/09/andy-warhol-ii-string-of-banalities-as.html
Post a Comment