re: #582 Walter L. Newton

We do agree to some extent, but then again we don’t. The only enemy of art are those who want to eliminate it. That’s it. Every thing else is opinion, equal or otherwise.

You mean you never read something and you never consider the possible moral and sensibilities of the author? You read in a vacuum? A person can’t look at art and say “the artist is sick.” Of course they can. You may not agree, you may not respect the persons opinion, but if it elicited ANY response, then it has accomplished something. Maybe not what the artist envisioned, but something. That’s good.

You ask… “Do you see where I could perhaps become exasperated with the tone floating around here?” I can that you are, but in my opinion, it’s because you don’t trust to let art be art, and speak for itself. You are doing all the talking for it.

I trust art to be art, of course. I can’t do all the talking for it, he’s one of the most important artists in earth. Warhol’s impact is a million times bigger than any of us on a blog.

Here’s my problem with people looking at art and saying ‘the artist is sick”. First, it’s usually said by people who have no frame of reference for the work, who aren’t taking things in context. I’d certainly be called sick if you saw some of the things I’ve drawn. I’ve personally drawn thousands of images! Which one do you pick to pass judgement, ya know? Sometimes artists ARE sick and then continue to work, thinking of Goya and his Black Paintings. But that’s a fact, not a smear.

Censorship is the final nail, but the road down to censorship is filled with people who compare artists to Belgian racist political entities. ;-) That because a guy painted Mao, the baffling conclusion some have come to is that he’s endorsing the regime. It happened in Britian not too long ago. Google Video Nasties. People in Britian who passed judgement on the character of artists, helping to get their work banned. And yes, it’s good that the work elicited response, (and that the response elicits responses as well, heh) but I don’t have to treat all responses with respect. And I never have.

I guess the thing is, we’re NOT actually not talking about Warhol’s work, we’re talking about peoples’ response to art in general, and the willingness of people to make snap judgements and attack the character and essential worthiness of a man for a thing he painted. Manet’s character was smeared for his work, Picasso’s character was smeared for his work. It isn’t new, and it’s almost always wrong. Comparing him to dangerous racists and nationalists for one image. If we were truly talking about Warhol’s body of work, I’d be much more comfortable.