What Does Andy Warhol Mean by Saying Art Is Anything You Can Get Away With

Despite what the mutual consensus might have you believe, the in a higher place quote did not originate with Andy Warhol, just rather Canada's very own media guru, Marshall McLuhan. I'thou not certain why people are so quick to credit Warhol with these insightful words (perchance he's responsible for popularizing them) but if I had to venture a judge, it seems to me that it is probably considering it just makes more sense that the words would exist coming from a well-established 'Creative person', rather than an crumbling punster and intellectual. Interestingly, I don't recall hearing of Warhol ever crediting McLuhan with this in one case popular catchphrase either, but then it also seems Warhol never really credited anyone for anything that he appropriated.

The truth is, McLuhan had a deep respect for art, and at times was even considered past his peers to exist quite an creative person himself (though more so in a conceptual sense with his understanding of the world, language, and technology than in any 1 of the more "traditional" art forms). Equally such, McLuhan was very much interested in how art communicated ideas to the world, and even referred to art as a "Distant Early Alert" system that could portend where a given culture was headed by their electric current trends.

Plenty most McLuhan though; I could go on forever about him. He'south absolutely brilliant, and I've thought so e'er since I audited a media studies class almost him when I was still living in Greece. As for Warhol, I don't desire to leave the impression I despise the man, or fifty-fifty boldness him. I retrieve he'southward contributed lots to the art globe, and at the high-bespeak of his reign, I call up he really did button the envelope on a lot of things, even bringing into question the very nature of art. Do I like his work? Over all I recall what he produced is highly overrated, only I certainly admire many of the processes he introduced to achieve what he did, and the gall it took him to do information technology too. I think ultimately he achieved what he was going for as well, and then I'd take to be a fool to say that he wasn't successful as an creative person (and not but by the standards thrust upon someone through fame, simply I think he legitimately held his own as a credible artist based on his approach to his work, and that he even offered a fresh alter in management for a waning modernist movement). The fact still remains though, Warhol stole images and ideas all the fourth dimension, it's what he did; so it should be no more than a surprise that he took some ownership of McLuhan's argument on 'art being anything you tin can get away with' , than that he did and then with Campbell's at present iconic soup can. And who knows, maybe Warhol was consciously plagiarizing McLuhan as a commentary, or even an embracement, of Warhol's own typical, often-appropriated, 'get-away-with-it' way of work.

My point to this blog post though has fiddling to do with Warhol, and probably even less and then McLuhan. I just figured it was a proficient opening quote, and I felt I might need to clarify it somewhat earlier continuing on with the real 'meat' of my argument, and maybe not so much argument, but examination. It also gets to the heart of what I'm trying to introduce here, and that is how nosotros ascertain "Art", and more specifically, how far can we have something before it crosses the line from "Art" into the absurd (often this line is blurred, I realize, merely at what indicate exercise people say "well that'due south but ridiculous, that can't exist fine art!").

For case back in 1917, Marcel Duchamp, then living in New York, introduced a piece of piece of work he chosen "Fountain" to a show with the Society of Contained Artists. It was a real porcelain urinal, singed R. Mutt, and that was it. At present was he trying to exist funny? Clever? Was it a publicity stunt? Was he merely ignorant? Was it an insult to the pervading institution of art at the time? Was information technology simply inappropriate? Or, did it redefine our agreement of art equally we know it.

As it turns out, despite a considerable amount of opposition and criticism (the Society refused to exhibit the piece), today nosotros can look back and say with certainty that Duchamp's "Fountain" marked a crucial turning point in the fashion we sympathise fine art. In fact in 2004, "Fountain" was selected as "the most influential artwork of the 20th century" by 500 renowned artists and historians. What Duchamp'due south "Fountain" did was redefine, no, revolutionize, the way we look at art. Hours of painstaking piece of work in a studio? Non anymore. A elementary institute object, or "Readymade" as Duchamp called it, could, if re-contextualized under the right conditions, suddenly take on an entirely different meaning, and thus be constituted as "Art". Even today some might argue whether found objects are actually "Art", only the fact that "Fountain" instantly created then much debate and forced so many people to reconsider what they were really looking at, makes the piece undeniably fascinating. It pushed the technical subject area of art into the groundwork, and moved the concept, or idea behind the work to the fore.

Today, people present feces, semen, urine, dead animals, blood, vomit, and sometimes even the absence of anything at all, equally legitimate "Fine art".    Is it really art?  Who are we to decide?  If it creates dialogue, controversy, advances ideas, exemplifies, typifies, intrigues, and forces people to recall but for an instant outside their immediate understanding of the globe, then I think "Art" is probably an advisable label, and equally my opening quote would suggest, if you tin go away with information technology, why non characterization it every bit such?

In the end, Art has come to mean (and perhaps it has always meant this) annihilation that engages our senses in a manner that aims to enlighten an audience; and fifty-fifty if the intent is to specifically not enlighten u.s., we should still be enlightened by its conscious endeavour to do just that. It's non just almost paint on a sheet (but it can exist). It'due south not just about technique (but over again, information technology can be). It's not just about the idea, (and all the same, it can be). In my stance though, art is but a philosophy of the senses. Depending on the piece of work beingness considered, vision, sound, bear on, scent, fifty-fifty taste tin all come into play. And as a philosophical discipline, I think art should always effort to be something constructive (even when it is existence destructive, if that makes sense), and something that perpetually builds-on and evolves from its past. It'due south kind of like writing an essay, where you lot might not take something new to say, only you might have something to contribute to the discussion, and and then, in that sense, I think art should always have something to say, even if what it has to say is that it has nothing to say at all.

One more thought. If art is annihilation you can get away with, what happens when you can't get away with it?

My point is, if you plan to become away with something, you lot'd better be able to defend yourself on some level or another when you're called upon to do and so. In art, as in philosophy, yous still need back-up your work with some context, understanding and background on what you lot trying to pass-off as valid. I'1000 not maxim everyone has to concord with you, but you should be able to explicate why your work is art. Marcel Duchamp was ridiculed for his "Fountain" (afterward all it was but a urinal), but he stood past it and made a assuming example for its status as fine art, and today (if he were alive) he'd accept the satisfaction of knowing that its "creation" proved to be a significant and defining moment in art history.

Not every piece of art has to be a "Fountain", only it should be something even if it's intended to exist nix at all.

connorscriful2000.blogspot.com

Source: http://ardellpadenom.blogspot.com/2011/05/art-is-anything-you-can-get-away-with.html

Share this post