Official Mr. Brainwash Conspiracy Thread

[Solar]

"New York City's Museum of Modern Art hosted a Symposium on pop art in December 1962 during which artists such as Warhol were attacked for "capitulating" to consumerism. Critics were scandalized by Warhol's open embrace of market culture."

"By this period, Warhol was being criticized for becoming merely a "business artist". In 1979, reviewers disliked his exhibits of portraits of 1970s personalities and celebrities, calling them superficial, facile and commercial, with no depth or indication of the significance of the subjects. They also criticized his 1980 exhibit of 10 portraits at the Jewish Museum in Manhattan, entitled Jewish Geniuses, which Warhol—who was uninterested in Judaism and Jews—had described in his diary as "They're going to sell.""



He uses the same play book. Start to finish

Warhol was an innovator; MBW is a hack rehashing Warhol's 50 year old concept.

[gorkie]

He uses the same play book. Start to finish

[o4phish20o]

"New York City's Museum of Modern Art hosted a Symposium on pop art in December 1962 during which artists such as Warhol were attacked for "capitulating" to consumerism. Critics were scandalized by Warhol's open embrace of market culture."

"By this period, Warhol was being criticized for becoming merely a "business artist". In 1979, reviewers disliked his exhibits of portraits of 1970s personalities and celebrities, calling them superficial, facile and commercial, with no depth or indication of the significance of the subjects. They also criticized his 1980 exhibit of 10 portraits at the Jewish Museum in Manhattan, entitled Jewish Geniuses, which Warhol—who was uninterested in Judaism and Jews—had described in his diary as "They're going to sell.""



He uses the same play book. Start to finish

Warhol was an innovator; MBW is a hack rehashing Warhol's 50 year old concept.

Yet your and some of the public view for the time are the same.

[fribhey]

"New York City's Museum of Modern Art hosted a Symposium on pop art in December 1962 during which artists such as Warhol were attacked for "capitulating" to consumerism. Critics were scandalized by Warhol's open embrace of market culture."

"By this period, Warhol was being criticized for becoming merely a "business artist". In 1979, reviewers disliked his exhibits of portraits of 1970s personalities and celebrities, calling them superficial, facile and commercial, with no depth or indication of the significance of the subjects. They also criticized his 1980 exhibit of 10 portraits at the Jewish Museum in Manhattan, entitled Jewish Geniuses, which Warhol—who was uninterested in Judaism and Jews—had described in his diary as "They're going to sell.""



He uses the same play book. Start to finish

Warhol was an innovator; MBW is a hack rehashing Warhol's 50 year old concept.

Warhol was also a commercial artist as well as a fine artist... MBW is neither.

[Dubflakes]

"New York City's Museum of Modern Art hosted a Symposium on pop art in December 1962 during which artists such as Warhol were attacked for "capitulating" to consumerism. Critics were scandalized by Warhol's open embrace of market culture."

"By this period, Warhol was being criticized for becoming merely a "business artist". In 1979, reviewers disliked his exhibits of portraits of 1970s personalities and celebrities, calling them superficial, facile and commercial, with no depth or indication of the significance of the subjects. They also criticized his 1980 exhibit of 10 portraits at the Jewish Museum in Manhattan, entitled Jewish Geniuses, which Warhol—who was uninterested in Judaism and Jews—had described in his diary as "They're going to sell.""



He uses the same play book. Start to finish

Warhol was an innovator; MBW is a hack rehashing Warhol's 50 year old concept.

Yet your and some of the public view at the time are the same.

And somehow that legitimizes MBWs contribution to the art world?
A similar opinion regarding 2 artists 50 years apart does not create an equivalency, nor does it anticipate a similar historical outcome.

[HenryGaleWasHere]

OMG, MBW is Banksy and Warhol!

[mattkardish]

Yall are confusing the ebay policy with the paypal policy. With PayPal as long as something arrives the seller is basically off the hook. Unless the fudge is really fugged up.

^

[o4phish20o]

And somehow that legitimizes MBWs contribution to the art world?
A similar opinion regarding 2 artists 50 years apart does not create an equivalency, nor does it anticipate a similar historical outcome.

No, I think that you are all about 25-50 years too early to have any comment on his contribution to the art world. And maybe even more.
Perhaps not, but when I ask my parents about the perception of Warhol in their day, it's funny to hear most of the comments on EB, b/c they are pretty similar to how people reacted and things they said then. No one can predict the future...

[sidewaysscott]

No one can predict the future...

speak for yourself.

[sixstringer]

[o4phish20o]

No one can predict the future...

speak for yourself.

Didn't say I could... but Im a gambler and risk taker. So...

How many artist are painting with FLOTUS? The biggest names in Sports history. Some of the biggest musicians of the time. The biggest celebrities of the time. Just saying... not many others doing what he does. And those people he does that with... all have enough money to keep the dream alive for the next 100 years. His "PR machine" might even be greater than that of Warhol. (thanks to modern technology)

I mean why doesn't everyone's parents just have stacks of Warhols laying around? $6 back in the day...

[gorkie]

Didn't say I could... but Im a gambler and risk taker. So...

Warhol started out with almost no demand for his work and grew into being one of the most critically acclaimed artists in history. His soup cans show at Ferus Gallery only sold 5 of the original 32 canvases (which were then bought back to keep the series in tact).
Thierry started out with a big bang with lots of demand for his work and has been critically bleeding to death ever since. Thierry has been on the scene now for almost a decade. He has arguably not put out any truly interesting and thought-provoking work since 2011. The major secondary market auction houses will not even take on his work.
But none of this should matter to the individual buyer really. If YOU love the work, that should be all that matters to you. The fact that you say you are a gambler is worrisome. This means you are buying on speculation. Never a good idea. Buy what you love and leave it at that.

[Dubflakes]

And somehow that legitimizes MBWs contribution to the art world?
A similar opinion regarding 2 artists 50 years apart does not create an equivalency, nor does it anticipate a similar historical outcome.

No, I think that you are all about 25-50 years too early to have any comment on his contribution to the art world. And maybe even more.
Perhaps not, but when I ask my parents about the perception of Warhol in their day, it's funny to hear most of the comments on EB, b/c they are pretty similar to how people reacted and things they said then. No one can predict the future...

Why is it too early? People can't have an opinion on his contributions in the present? Warhol was doing something different and unknown at the time, so it's understandable why there was a negative opinion as some people criticize what is new/different.

MBW is playing out a hackneyed concept and that is why he draws so much criticism. So while the critique sounds similar it comes from two completely different contexts. With that said, you could be right and maybe in 30-40 years the uninspired and trite works of MBW will be considered masterpieces in irony.

[ErocAfellar]

like sand through an hourglass...

[35mmpaul]

The fact that you say you are a gambler is worrisome. This means you are buying on speculation. Never a good idea. Buy what you love and leave it at that.

Words to live by, but most will not listen to on this forum.