Warhol and Lichtenstein

“Art is whatever you can get away with.” — Andy Warhol

I picked up some Warhol books from the library yesterday. Andy Warhol, A Retrospective is an overview of his art and influences. The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (from A to B and Back Again) is a potpourri of insights and observations on everything, from the Warhol perspective. When I was looking at it last night it reminded me of Jack Handy, a weird wrinkled way of looking at the world. I noticed also, based on a photo in The Life & Death of Andy Warhol, that he died at age 58, the age I’ll be in a few weeks.

What led me to pick up the Warhol books was an article on Roy Lichtenstein that I’d seen recently. Lichtenstein was a pop artist who produced large reproductions of comic book panels or paintings in that comic book style. Both he and Warhol, with those soup cans, had emerged big time on the New York art scene in the 60’s. As an early 70’s art student I was put off by both. I took my inspiration from painters, from Picasso and Matisse to Dali and Magritte. Even Duchamp, who abandoned painting altogether, was at least philosophically stimulating. The pop art movement didn’t get me, or rather, I didn’t get it.

A half century later I believe I was half right. Even though Lichtenstein continues to be praised, I just don’t get into his work. He coined a style and I thought the style silly as it became a caricature of itself. I would love to discover that in some private part of his life he was actually painting landscapes or tigers and that these comic book blow ups were just what he did for a living because a few rich people were willing to pay him a small fortune to do it.

Lichtenstein is referenced in the book 501 Great Artists, “a comprehensive guide to “the giants of the art world.” And this Urban Monarch page called him one of five artists you should know about. But why? Who decided this stuff was great art?

Warhol, on the other hand, might be one of the most influential artists of the second half of the 20th century. Can most people even name an artist from the last thirty years? Paula Rego? Giovanni Anselmo? Donald Judd? Claes Oldenburg? O.K., most people have probably seen an Oldenburg sculpture, but probably don’t know his name. I liked David Hockney’s paintings, and Rauschenburg’s innovations, but these talented guys have never transcended the art scene have they?

Warhol’s work, on the other hand, bled across all barriers so that his most basic observation about fifteen minutes of fame is as well known as any line from Shakespeare. Warhol himself was a work of art, his persona crafted. “Oh, that’s interesting.” But his process of mass reproduction (via screen printing) enabled collectors all over the world to have a piece of his action.

Whether you like the man himself or not, his values, his genius for self-promotion and his understanding of the culture are undisputed. Hence his cult status in many circles. Was his art really a joke? I don’t think so, even if much of what he said comes across that way.

Originally published at pioneerproductions.blogspot.com in August 2010.

An avid reader who writes about arts, culture, literature & other life obsessions. @ennyman3 Look for my books on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/y3l9sfpj

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store