|
Forums >
General Industry >
Would anyone consider Andy Warhol a GWC?
Im still a bit confused on the whole GWC issue . What defines someone as a GWC? Would you consider a photog who went to art school, majored or minored in photography a GWC still? Dec 06 06 06:51 pm Link no i do not like his work BUT i do respect it as art Dec 06 06 06:55 pm Link Andy Warhol and his Superstars were about pushing limits and doing whatever the hell they felt like doing. Each CHOSE and gave the three fingered salute to anyone who attempted to tell them what to do. The model had free will. GWC is about control and denigration. The model was a puppet. Dec 06 06 11:47 pm Link missing fingers product wrote: School has nothing to do with a "GWC". Anybody can be a GWC. A piece of paper doesn't make someone immune to being a GWC. Being a cultural and artistic icon usually does however. Dec 06 06 11:59 pm Link Andy Warhol had a point. Is that point taught in schools? Nope. Some technique, if you are lucky. But, no point. Dec 07 06 12:05 am Link Actually, I'd consider him deceased. Dec 07 06 12:32 am Link thanks for everyones replys. Dec 07 06 01:59 am Link cww corpse with worms can't believe his estate is worth 500,000,000 he didnt seem to do that much.. Dec 07 06 02:03 am Link Warhol saw the world differently than the average guy. Dec 07 06 10:00 am Link missing fingers product wrote: No, missingfingers. Using the camera as an excuse to be in close proximity to someone that he/she would not be communicating with otherwise, in my opinion based on firsthand experience, illustrates GWC aka Guy/Girl With Camera. Dec 07 06 10:15 am Link missing fingers product wrote: I majored in Marketing and minored in Photo Processing Mechanics and Chemistry. Dec 07 06 11:05 am Link Eric S. wrote: I wonder if he really saw the world differently, or just had the balls to show the world what many others didn't have the nerve to show? Dec 07 06 11:13 am Link Photography is about a vision. A lifestyle you sell- be it to a museum, end consumer, or yourself. Photography is not about style, not about substance, and not about technique. If you see it that way it's up to you, but essentially it is an image that stirs a response (no response is a response also). A strong response to an image is what is valued by editors, gallery owners, and end consumers. Except the makers and shakers think about the consumer's response, and the consumer thinks about their own highly valued opinions- since the only freedom a consumer has is the optimistic belief into the value and originality of it's pitiful tastes and preferences. So Andy Warhol was a brilliant photographer, cinematographer and artist because he created/curated/discovered/faked or whatever else- a new universe and a new vision. Some of the above are very bitter about the success Andy has recieved- well nothing is stopping you from getting yours. Sell a lifestyle, not an image. Dec 07 06 02:04 pm Link  hehe Dec 08 06 09:22 am Link Natasha O wrote: Yes, but he was there first. Maybe anybody could have done what Warhol did, but while others stood around thinking about what they could do, he was doing. Dec 08 06 09:53 am Link i dont particularly like like warhols works....but some of it was interesting and creative...a guy with a camera is more like karl lagerfeld...i saw some of his "works" unbelievably mundane snapshots....ugh....but because he is mega rich...everyone parises his slop as art........ugh Dec 08 06 10:10 am Link Andy Warhol - GWC or GWPB (guy with paint brush) - genius - hack - visionary - Call him whatever you want the one thing he did best was self-promotion. His work has value because he told us it has value enough times that people started to believe it. This was a man who publicly stated that "Art was whatever you can get away with." and then went one to prove it. Personally I like some of his stuff, dislike others, and am pretty indifferent about most of it but I wish I had half his skill at hype. Dec 08 06 10:22 am Link I think if Andy wasn't as widely accepted as he was, then people would probably consider him a GWC. The whole art, people, labels thing is weird. Dec 08 06 10:24 am Link missing fingers product wrote: What does the acronym "GWC" stand for? Dec 08 06 10:25 am Link He was a hack with a Xerox machine. I saw a television show about 10 years ago where an "artist" in New York City pissed on giant sheets of copper and the oxidization from the ammonia in his urine would discolor the copper. Ignorant curators hung his piss in their galleries and actually bought into his crap. I respect guys like that and Andy Warhol, because they are the most talentless "artists" in the world, yet they are sociopathic geniuses who know how to manipulate and convince the stuck-up idiots of the "art world" that they are brilliant and innovative. Andy sucked. He knew he sucked. He admitted he sucked. Yet these fools touted him as fantastic. I love that he just messed with people like that. Dec 08 06 10:30 am Link No he was not. He was an artist and everything was beautiful. If he was GWC his work would have reflected it. He was way out there...odd if you will. There was a series of paintings(screens) that he had men(like Basquait (SP?) come in and piss all over them.) A Guy with Camera would have photographed it. An artist would have been caught up in the moment, the act. No---Andy was not a GWC. EDIT:Someone beat me to it...shit~! Oh BTW, Andy was a graphic artist/art director and had years of exp in the commercial art world...not a hack, just odd Dec 08 06 10:32 am Link I can see how some people would think it: I happened to be reading an interview with a business woman the other day who Warhol had painted. He persuaded her to pose nude after initially inviting her so he could paint a 'formal portrait', and at the end of the three hour session unveiled the finished piece which was something along the lines of a snake wrapped round an apple  Dec 08 06 11:26 am Link Not that it necessarily answers this question or not (and I'm honestly not too interested in it, no offense intended), but there are people (myself included) who feel that he was one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Perhaps one of the best, perhaps not, but clearly one of the most influential, and his influence was VERY far-reaching, and reached well across the lines of various media. Dec 08 06 11:43 am Link 'guy with camera' is a phrase to discribe a person who takes vicarious photographs.. where a woman is usualy the subject all of warhol's photography is vicarious, it's not vicarious in the panty shot sense, but it's vicarious.. Dec 08 06 11:43 am Link My life changed when I learned about Mondrian and what led up to his simple colorful linear paintings that look like they were done by a first-grader. I ended up doing one of my art history thesis papers on him. Ever since, I always try to find out if the "artist" has a soulful philosophy, or if he's just "pissing on copper sheets" Or both   Just like in Life......... If you don't get it, you simply haven't or don't want to explore any further what's behind door number one. But the door will always be there for you to peer behind. Just reach for the knob. Dec 08 06 11:51 am Link missing fingers product wrote: A GWC is a guy or girl who uses a camera to gets girls to undress for him/her. Dec 08 06 11:51 am Link Andy Warhol was the artistic version of P.T. Barnum - and he proved that there is still a sucker born every minute. A GWC no, an AWC yes (artist with a camera), and a Master Manipulator. Dec 08 06 11:53 am Link the emperor wears no clothes Dec 08 06 11:57 am Link Scott Harrill wrote: Here are some quotes from the master: Dec 08 06 12:00 pm Link |
