Dangerous Minds / Bernard Gotfryd
Even Better Than the Real Thing: Why did Andy Warhol approve of fake art?
"Andy Warhol was adamant that a replica of a piece of art was just as good as the original.
As was his way, the icon of New York City cool was so adamant about this that he ruffled a hell of a lot of feathers when the Mona Lisa was exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1963. The da Vinci masterpiece brought the entire museum to a standstill upon arrival, as you can imagine. Several hundred disappointed punters were turned away every day, including many who had made the trip from France to follow the masterwork around the world.
This made Warhol quip that they should have sent an exact replica, and keep exhibiting it at home to ease up on the crowds. That way, everyone would get the chance to look at the piece not as an object whose age, status and price give it value but as an actual piece of art. Does the image itself speak to you? Or is it the sense of occasion that comes from “seeing the Mona Lisa in person” that speaks to you? Now, Warhol was a troll, so there’s a decent chance that he was just pissing people off for the sake of pissing people off but there is something to be said for his line of reasoning.
Art is an industry. A huge one at that. One that takes in billions of dollars across the world and that’s due to the idea of authenticity. Capitalism has found a way of taking the idea that there’s something uniquely special about something an individual worked on and poured their heart and soul into and translated it into a monetary value. Now, putting my nauseating pinko sensibilities to one side, I do think there’s inherent value to that. It’s the same reason that it’s worth lamenting that you’ll never see The Beatles live despite the myriad Beatles tribute acts who probably do a more skilful job playing Beatles songs than the Fabs ever did.
However, should that be a reason to commodify artistic expression? Does that justify the fact that art is now an investment opportunity for the Uber wealthy that us plebs get to gawk at if we’re really well behaved? Yes, Warhol was probably being a troll when he said what he said about the Mona Lisa, but like all effective trolls, there’s a kernel of truth hidden in the centre of what he’s saying. Art should be powerful in and of itself. Going back to the music comparison, is the actual work of art Abbey Road? Or its master tapes?
This was what Warhol was getting by making works of art about cans of soup and bottles of Coca-Cola. People have this idea that by making art about this, Warhol was embracing a John Waters style love of kitsch. That he was celebrating tackiness and falseness as a form of artistic expression and finding new ways for things to be beautiful. While their probably was a little bit of that anarchic spirit in there, I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that.
I think that Warhol genuinely believed that art was, above all, an experience that one felt rather than an object. Thus, everything was art, whether that was a film showing a man’s face while he was getting a blowjob, a can of Campbell’s soup or, yes, an exact replica of the Mona Lisa.
And y’know what? I can’t help but agree with him. "
No comments:
Post a Comment