Andy Warhol did not just have a cool hairstyle, he had serious talent as well. When I left the Andy Warhol exhibit last week, I was surprised that viewing art could be so much fun.  Warhol’s work was fun to view though, as it is some of the most colorful and eccentric that I have ever seen.  The man used a mop for a paintbrush, made yarn look electrifying, and urinated on a picture to create a glittering gold color.  Through doing all this work, however, Warhol still found time to live the life.

He mingled with the best of celebrities and there are tons of photographs to show that. Warhol knew/photographed the Jacksons, Farah Fawcett, Ian McKellan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nancy Reagan, Sylvester Stallone, and many, many more famous people.  Perhaps it was his social life and connections that helped him criticize society.

I think that an artist, such as Andy Warhol, can be an active member of society and criticize it as well.  Otherwise, how would the artist know what to criticize?  In other words, if you are living your life in a hole, how can you intelligently say something negative about a world that you are not a part of?

Warhol was able to criticize the world because he was a part of it.  For example, Warhol criticized consumerism in his artwork.  I remember seeing a photo in The Last Decade exhibit that showed Jesus in the background, with pictures of motorcycles, the Wise Owl symbol, and a price tag overlapping Jesus’ image.  In this artwork, Warhol was criticizing superficial items, such as motorcycles, that people are so obsessed with.  He was saying that in their obsession with material things, people forget more important things, like their religion and their values.  Warhol was often in the public’s eye and had a wide circle of associates.  I think that Warhol was able to make such a statement precisely because he knew so many people and therefore, knew what people obsess about.

One of the people that I remember that Warhol was photographed with was Nancy Reagan, President Ronald Reagan’s wife.  I also remember seeing an artwork where Warhol criticized President Reagan’s spending budget.  Warhol was not a politician, of course, but he knew his own share of politicians.  In this way, I think that Warhol had his background information when he criticized some politicians’ choices.

Like a good student writing an essay, artists have to be able to defend whatever criticisms they make about society.  They have to have their supporting details.  Artists can get those supporting details by doing research, by being active in their society and thereby learning what’s wrong with society.   I think that they would just be blowing smoke if they made negative or even positive statements about society without even knowing what society is like.

My teacher once told my class a story about five blind men who are all touching an elephant.  The men are blind, so none of them can tell that it is actually an elephant that they are touching.  They actually think they are touching a snake, or a giraffe, or some other animal.  An artist is blind just like the men in this story if the artist does not do his or her research before criticizing society.  Without doing research, the artist will end up making false statements about society.  Doing that would just be offensive to the society and the people that the artist is commenting on.

When I think about my first month in Arts in New York and honors English, my eyes are more open to the world of the artist.  Personally, before I took these courses I did not take much interest into the artist world and what they had to go through.  Now I realize how difficult their life is and how frustrating it can be to involve yourself into the world of art.  The artist has it hard and I wonder if their role can ever be approved by all of society.  They have so many roles to fill I just do not know if its completely possible to fill all of their roles.

I agree that one of the roles that the artist should have is to be a social critic within society.  I believe that this role is critical when it comes to the artist.   It gives the opportunity for expression, to blatantly state the flaws of society without a given consequence.  This is one of the most commonly seen roles of society that the artist should have.  I think that social criticism is needed in society because society is not perfect and it gives room for correction.  However the artist as I begin to realize has such a burden to bear as a social critic. Their work maybe displayed to the public and cause certain controversy for years to come because the public might look on the work with disgust.  An example of this was a piece I read by Leonard Kriegel, who believed that graffiti was absolutely a despicable form of art. In fact, he believed that graffiti would lead to urban cities’ destruction because it will cause so much public opinion to arise.  Graffiti indeed is a form of art artist can express the flaws of society in this way but there can be other Kriegel’s in the world who do not agree with their work.

I think Andy Warhol’s pieces are great examples of the artist’s role as a social critic.  Joseph Ketner, who wrote a book about Warhol’s exhibit summarizes Warhol’s objectives best. He says that Warhol is a “creator of literal images that mirror society” and uses “symbols that sustain us” (Ketner 39).  Warhol’s pieces will show images that reflect the society that we live in.  He will mainly use symbols that allow us to show what kind of society we live in.  At first some pieces confused me because  I could not realize what exact message did Warhol want to convey.  He uses symbols such as painting Jesus with The Big C on his face to show the religious aspect of our society combined with motorcycles showing other images that were important during that time.  Andy Warhol is reflecting on what was happening in his society in a form of abstract.  I think Warhol was creative in taking an abstract approach to his social critique.  He is criticizing society at times painting the motives that it has in an abstract form.

The artist role is not only to be a social critic, I wondered is it possible to be an active member of the community.  If for example an artist places a criticism on a society that is against public opinion, will the public willingly welcome this artist into the community?  I think that the artist fulfilling both roles is a very difficult task.  Even if it is one piece of art that critiques society, can one truly be as active in the community.  I think the artist in terms of these two roles can only fill one at a time. Either he presents work that criticizes society or he makes a piece that the community enjoys so that he can be active in the community.  This is a conflict that I realize that the artist must face.

The only example that I have in terms of an artist who faced both roles was Andy Warhol.  He was able to master abstract to the point where he could socially criticize a society and at the same time be an active member of the community.  He presented great works such as Eggs which have nice colors but has a message that he wanted to convey.  Society can enjoy the painting for its bright yet simple colors and abstract appearance. In addition Oxidations is also enjoyable for it metallic like appearance even though he did use his own urine it still gives off an amazing look.  These abstracts Warhol uses are powerful tools which allows him to be a social critic and member of the community which people enjoy to this day.

I do not think that there is a hypocrisy when it comes to  these two roles only if the approach was taken similar to Andy Warhol’s.  If the artist decides to give up his or her role for the other then I think there is a hypocritical aspect.  An artist should never have to give up what he is trying to convey in his work in order to achieve another role in society.  An artist should be firm in what they want to do.  Andy Warhol although he filled both roles, I think overall he wanted to just become a social critic within society but his skill allowed him to be accepted by the community.  He definitely opened my eyes about the roles of an artist and I will definitely remember his work.

Urine oxidation painting. Three words very unlikely to be used in the same sentence, let alone make any sense at all. At first the idea struck me as absurd. Urinating on a canvas and calling it art. Just what exactly was artistic about it? Then again, what is art? I came to the conclusion that the artist was either an unfathomable genius of his time or some deranged screwball trying to make a fortune.

But then again none of this was what we had discussed in class. I had learned that Andy Warhol was a prime example of the artist as a social critic. I would assume that now is the time to “read between the lines.” Let’s try this again.

Urine oxidation painting… You know, no matter how long I look at this, it still looks like blotches. Well… if I tilt my head sideways, I can almost make out a butterfly.

Moving on with the rest of the exhibit. Biblical references to Christ, exaggerated food items, Harley-Davidson motorcycles and southern cotton picking. It was obvious that Warhol was very opinionated about American culture. I couldn’t help but wonder what impact did his art have on society? Eventually I found myself pondering all sorts of things. Is the role of an artist fundamentally tied to the role of his art? Or is it tied to something else, like the government? And again, what is art?

Honestly I know nothing about art. It would be difficult for me to even make up some readable crap about it. The closest I’ve gotten to understand real art is what it has done for our society.

Art is the visual personification of the needs of the community. It is the voice of the people that serves to raise awareness about specific issues. Another interpretation would be that artwork is an indirect attack against government policies.

Now if this is true, why would the government choose to fund museums and public exhibits? They are practically hanging themselves. And what about the paid artist? It wouldn’t be a surprise if the artist in question sought to represent the opinions of the government for a payoff.

That’s bull****.

The artist is an integral part of the community. Not only must the artist understand the community, it is a requirement in order to produce quality art that will appeal to its people. If the artist is not an active member of the community, how else does he expect to paint a thousand words, let alone a thousand voices? It is the artists’ duty to express something about the community. More than often, he will act as a social critic, exposing more bad than good.

It’s tough being an artist. You can sing hymns and praises about your community with your “masterpiece.” But on the other hand you can really piss people off with the “garbage” you produce. Andy Warhol for example, was shot for having too much influence over some very powerful people.

The life of an artist is a hustle. You put yourself at risk in an attempt to procure more for the community. The artist is neither a hypocrite nor a social badmouth. By acting as a critic and pointing out the flaws of the community, the artist is only pointing out what needs to be corrected. How can the community grow if it cannot contemplate its own problems? For what reason do we blame the artist?

It’s not just pretty to look at. Art speaks volume.

In order to make a valuable argument, shouldn’t you know a little about what you’re arguing about? Let’s say you were in a heated debate about sports. In order to make your argument stronger, shouldn’t you know some inside information? Let’s say a Yankee fan and a Met fan were arguing about baseball. In order for the Yankee fan to make a more valid argument, they should know a little bit about baseball.How can you criticize something without knowing anything about what you are criticizing? The answer is you can’t. In order for you to be able to criticize something, you must know a little about what you’re criticizing. That’s why it shouldn’t be viewed as hypocrisy when an artist is an active member of society. An artist plays a very important role of being a social critic. In order for the artist to be a social critic, doesn’t he need to know a little about the people he’s going to be criticizing? As an active member of society the artist can know what elements of society need to be criticized and what elements don’t.

Andy Warhol was an active member in society, as well as a social critic. You may wonder, wouldn’t that make him a hypocrite; how could he criticize the very environment that he was a part of? Well as said before he got to know his community better this way, and was able to criticize society in a more effective way by understanding the society that he was a part of.

If you were to go into the Andy Warhol exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum without knowing anything about Andy Warhol, by the time you were exiting the first part of the exhibit, you could come to the conclusion that Andy Warhol did in fact live the life of a celebrity. The last room of the first part of the exhibit consists of photographs. These photographs are of so many different celebrities. These celebrities were a part of his social circle. If Andy Warhol were to have a facebook, that room would represent what his facebook would be like. The photographs throughout the room would be the ones he would have posted online and the people in the photographs would be his “friends” on facebook. This shows you that Andy Warhol himself was a celebrity as well.

From being so closely connected to celebrity life, Warhol was able to know its pros and cons, and was able to accurately portray its flaws through his artwork. Much of Andy Warhol’s work was focused on simple, everyday things, for example his black and white advertisements; especially his remarkably famous Campbell’s chicken noodle soup can, as well as many other simple everyday things. Here he takes a moment to appreciate the simple things in life. So although he was involved in the extravagance of celebrity life, his paintings reflected the opposite, which was the simplistic view of life, and appreciation of the little things.

Andy Warhol also brings up religion in his artwork. The very last room in the exhibit consists of many religious images, for example the painting of the Last Supper. We also see religious messages appearing in some of his other works of art, for example in many of his pieces where it says “sin no more”. This constant reminder of religion is Warhol’s commentary on society and society’s values.

Andy Warhol’s success in being a social critic was due to the fact that he understood society so well. He was an active member of the society that he criticized. He was able to capture the beauty of simple things in life, while still being able to live such an extravagant lifestyle.

Before viewing the exhibit of Andy Warhol’s work at the Brooklyn Museum, the only knowledge I had of Andy Warhol was of his friendship with Keith Haring. Keith Haring created the sculpture that resides outside of a hospital near my house, a statue that has always been visually appealing to me. When I received the assignment to visit the Brooklyn Museum in order to view a collection of Andy Warhol’s work created during his last decade, I was excited to have the opportunity to learn more about him.

Andy Warhol’s paintings contain vibrant colors embezzled with important themes and messages. He was both an active member of the community as well as a critic of it and this dual role in the community was essential to the success of his paintings and other artistic pieces. One room of the exhibit had walls that were covered with photographs of Andy Warhol and other famous figures including Edward Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. There were also pictures of him with other celebrities. These photographs show Warhol’s active role in the community. Additionally, Warhol founded Interview magazine whose articles were interviews with famous celebrities including Stevie Wonder and Don Johnson.

Andy Warhol also painted a series of black and white advertisements, the most famous of which is the Campbell’s soup can ad. He was an active member of society promoting items that the traditional family would purchase in the supermarket. The Campbell’s soup can ad also happens to be one of Warhol’s most famous pieces of art. When I told someone that I was going to the Brooklyn Museum to see an Andy Warhol exhibit, his response was “Oh yeah, wasn’t he the one with the Campbell’s soup can?” Andy Warhol had an unbelievable artistic talent that enabled him to create such a renowned painting based on a can of soup.

Religion also played an important role in Andy Warhol’s life and artwork. He created a painting that was a recreation of “The Last Supper.”  Moreover, many of his paintings have an outline of Jesus hidden in the painting. Through his paintings, Andy Warhol persuades the public to become more religious. The ubiquitous Jesus figures found in his paintings remind the viewer that God is always watching Andy Warhol’s poster which reads “Repent And Sin No More” directly warns the viewers to be aware of their actions.

I definitely believe it is possible for an artist to be both an active member of the community and a social critic, and I believe Andy Warhol is an example of this. Although it is a bit hypocritical and the artist could be compared to an “undercover cop,” the artist must be involved in the community to fully understand the issues and problems in society. Additionally, if the artist is known to be active in the community, then other members of the community will have more respect for the artist’s paintings and will pay attention to the messages they reveal since the artists are more likely to be looking out for the best interest of the community.

Another reason why it’s important for an artist to be a social critic and an active member of the community is that it makes their artwork more interesting. When I walked into the room full of photographs, I was interested in looking around because of all of the familiar faces I recognized. Even though I wasn’t alive at the time, many of the photos were of important political figures and celebrities, who I had learned about over the years. These photographs gave me a better idea of the time period in which Andy Warhol created his art and yielded more insight into his character.

The artist could and should be an active member of the community and a social critic. Andy Warhol claimed both of these roles and his paintings were proof of this. The Andy Warhol exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum was an incredible collection of Andy Warhol’s work, and I am looking forward to viewing more of his pieces in the future.

There is absolutely no reason why an artist shouldn’t be both a social critic and an active member of the community.  At first glance it may seem like hypocrisy on the artist’s part because the artist is criticizing the very community he is an active member of, but if you take a second to actually think about it, you realize that there is no true hypocrisy and that the two facts don’t have to be contradicting.

If you say that a social critic cannot be an active member of society, then what is he supposed to do?  Live in exile, cut off from all societal contact? No, of course not!  No one actually expects that of an artist. Why can’t an artist try to improve society by actively helping out at soup kitchens and trying to end world hunger, while also raising awareness through social criticism?  They could be seen as two different methods of getting the same result- two means to the same end.

Also, it’s highly unlikely that an artist would hate everything about his society (and if that were the case then he should probably move, like Gauguin)- it’s more likely that he approves of some aspects but not others, so in his criticism he will criticize the aspects he feels need improving, not the ones he is active in.

Andy Warhol is the perfect example of an artist who was both a social critic and an active member in society because he was both an artist and a big celebrity.  In his self-portrait wig series, his head floats against different backgrounds and the description card said that the image depicted Andy as a “ghostly spectator rather than the star who prances around the city”.  He has two sides- the public celebrity persona who is an active member of society AND the private “spectator” side of a social critic.

If anything, I think that being an active member of society actually HELPED Andy Warhol become a more powerful social critic.  As a celebrity, Andy Warhol was very much involved in his society and used symbols and objects the public could relate to in his art.  And his celebrity status also drew large crowds to come see his work.

I think Andy Warhol had the same goal as our Photojournal assignment.  Both try to find the beauty in our daily lives.  Things that we take for granted, that we see every day, such as a stop sign or a Campbell’s soup can, can be beautiful.  We just need to stop and find the beauty.

Andy Warhol used such common items such as soda bottles, food labels and other objects in his artwork to show the beauty within them.  Our photojournal assignment attempts to do the same thing- the assignment is to take at least one picture every day of something that strikes us.  I think the purpose of this is to make sure that we take time to look at the world around us and see the art in everything.

For example, Marianna’s picture of a teapot seemed like just a plain teapot not worth a second thought, but once I saw the close-up picture of it, I started to really notice how beautiful its bright, shiny red color was.  That photo turned a common household item into something beautiful.

I believe that Andy Warhol did the same thing by using common items in his art.  He encouraged people to find their own art in their own homes and beauty in their own lives.

The exhibit we saw at the Brooklyn Museum did not feature only his Pop Art;  there were also many abstract pieces such as his Egg Series and Oxidation Series. Andy Warhol’s egg series used ordinary kitchen ingredients (eggs, duh) and by organizing them into a specific arrangement and making them different colors, he turned them into a work of art.

In his Oxidation Series he tried to transform urine and metallic paint, two unexciting, even unsanitary things into a beautiful work of art with different patterns and color splotches.  If Andy Warhol could turn something as gross as urine into a work of art, then anything can be turned into art!  And I believe that was the message Andy Warhol was trying to send.

Life itself is art.  Life is precious and we need to appreciate everything in it.  Don’t take anything for granted.  If you just look you can find the art in the world around you.

“WHOAAAAA THERE’S PEE IN THAT PAINTING!!”

In that quiet museum, I think perhaps we were a bit too loud saying that.

But we could not help it, our surprise made us forget a bit of our manners. Andy Warhol made a painting with urine. And it looked pretty cool.

Walking into the Warhol exhibit last week was quite surprising. There were so many paintings, and they were all so different. There were the oxidation paintings, pop art, portraits, and the very sparkle-y diamond dust paintings. It was hard to believe that just one person did all of this.

What was even harder to believe was that Warhol was such an active member of his community. I have always thought that artists often isolate themselves. That they must be outcasts of society in order to truly observe what is around them. No one can really criticize something while they are taking part in it.

But I guess I was wrong because Andy Warhol was a celebrity himself. He painted portraits of celebrities and of classic icons in American culture, which he was still a part of.

This contradicts my view of the role of an artist. The artist has many roles in society, but I think the artist’s most important role is to open the eyes of a society. An artist is someone who views the world differently and it is his responsibility to contradict the social norms. Because an artist sees things differently, I find it only natural that they be set apart from their community.

When viewing Warhol’s work, I thought that some of it, like the black in white pieces, belonged in magazines. They seemed random and made me question if all of Warhol’s work is truly art, if it was truly social commentary. I think his art is mostly for the purpose of entertainment. However if you look closer, or maybe even think about the artwork more, you can see that there is some subtle social commentary.

For example the painting of Marilyn Monroe and of the Mona Lisa are duplicated to portray that they are no longer unique individuals. By having many images of them on canvas Warhol is trying to show that iconic figures are not as special as people think they are.

He also turned commercialist products such as a soup can into an iconic piece. The fact that people admire such a simple work of art that they can see in a supermarket criticizes a society’s values. People admire a soup can just because a famous artist painted it. There is clearly something wrong with a society that does that. The oxidation paintings can produce the same commentary in a way: people are marveling at a man’s urine.

Even though Andy Warhol is a celebrity, his criticism of society is not hypocritical. He became famous because of his art yet he continues the duty of an artist as a social critic. This goes against my view of a ‘normal’ artist as an isolated person, but Warhol’s fame added to his art. He somehow became a work of art himself, as seen in his self-portraits (again, there are many duplicated images, perhaps to lessen individuality).

In short, seeing the Warhol exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum was an interesting experience. While staring at many paintings and wondering, “what can this mean??” after seeing more of his artwork I began to understand more and realize that being a celebrity was just part of his career as an artist. His art and fame are inseparable.