The Triumph of Mordecai

Andy Warhol and Pop Art

Although, I do not consider myself an artsy person, there are a few artists whose work I really enjoy. One of my favorite artists is Andy Warhol. He was a painter who is famous for his pop art. Recently I read an article from the Art Journal written by Paul Bergin. In the article, which was written in 1967, Bergin examined Warhol’s art at the pinnacle of his career. He examined many of Warhol’s painting, which he had completed at the time. Bergin argues Warhol offers his image, his mask, for public consumption, but deprives the public of anything more (Bergin 359-363). When Warhol was asked about his background he once replied, "Why don't you make it up?" The remark is characteristic. It shows Warhol's unwillingness to expose himself beyond his public mask (Bergin 359-363).

Bergin supports his claim, that with regard to the public Warhol does not want to exist outside of his image, with support from his paintings. Warhol’s emphasis upon a stylized exterior and the lack of concern for anything other than the obvious is a major theme in Warhol's art, as well as in his deportment (Bergin 359-363). He also says how all of Warhol's art takes shape and exists close to the unconscious. Meaning, it is not conceived in a conscious mind; neither is it intellectually precise (Bergin 359-363).

Also, Bergin suggests that how Warhol paints attributes to the mysteriousness meaning of his paintings. Warhol paints on silkscreen and there are a number of advantages to the use of a silkscreen (Bergin 359-363). According to Bergin it’s easier to silk-screen images than to paint them freehand. The author talks about the Warhol’s art as art of the “machine”. He says that Warhol’s art is of the machine not about it. He says the machine is, to the artist, a way of life, representative of a unique field of twentieth-century experience, and all of Warhol's art is a striving to express the machine in the machine's own terms (Bergin 359-363). In some of his painting Warhol deliberately calls upon his viewer to make a comparison between his world and the “real” world. For example in his painting, Flowers, 1964, has his viewer compare his flowers in the painting to flowers in real life (Bergin 359-363).

Lastly, Bergin finds Warhol’s death-image paintings the far most striking and interesting of all which really contribute to his argument that Warhol offers his image, his mask, for public consumption, but deprives the public of anything more. I find this evidence the most convincing. Warhol’s death-images, which he painted of news photographs, suicides, and auto accidents and then sometimes arranged them rows and repeated a number of times (Bergin 359-363). Bergin finds the end product striking, enigmatic, and a visual experience (Bergin 359-363). He says that the death images, when stacked up force the viewer to do a double take, and force him to consider the picture longer than he might have and finally force him, if he is observing the canvas at all (Bergin 359-363). Bergin concludes his article saying, if the validity of Warhol's art depends on his actually becoming the machine, it surely fails (Bergin 359-363). It takes a lot to see the true meaning Warhol’s art and someone who does not have a trained eye, like myself, won’t be able to fully understand what Warhol is trying to say in his paintings. It takes a lot more than knowing art and seeing lots of Warhol’s artwork to understand Warhol himself, but that’s the way Warhol wanted it. He wanted to offer his image for public consumption, but deprive the public of anything more.

Works Cited:
Bergin, Paul. "The Artist as Machine." College Art Association. 26.04 (1967): (359-363). Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/pdfplus/775065.pdf?acceptTC=true>.

Nicolas Chaperon Expressions Through Mythology

Ramifications of Detail

Leonardo da Vinic: Expressoins in Paintings

In my past years, art has not been one of my hobbies to study. Today I have come across an interesting article by Kim Veltman about an artist that goes by the name Leonardo da Vinci. He was born in 1452, about 2 years before the printing press was invented. Leonardo da Vinci would travel around with little notebooks that he would keep is artwork in. When it came to his work it was fairly basic and simple but yet he would create wonderful detailed artwork. The work was so detailed that when he wanted to print his work, it was difficult. The author gives off the impression that she in a way glorifies Leonardo da Vinci by his work. Kim believes that without Leonardo da Vinci then the Renaissance would have become of anything.
Kim goes into detail on the little aspects of the great artist. She explains how Leonardo had two little notebooks that he would keep is drawing in when he travelled. One was used to focus on the world of nature, animals, and human beings. The other one was used to pay more attention to focused on the man-made world which consists of machines, fortifications, and inventions. “Although Leonardo is typically called a universal man, it was mainly as an artist that he was known and then mainly in terms of a handful of masterpieces such as Mona Lisa and the Last Supper”( Veltman,3). It is amusing to realize how he is such an artist that he “idealizes scenes”(Veltman,3) in a way that portrays him to be the kind of person that would have loved to use a digital camera as he travelled to the different countries perhaps. The author claims that the influence that Leonardo had one the art culture is how much of the Renaissance developed. The Renaissance was a period of growth in the artistic world. This was a time period where imagination and innovation expanded upon many individuals and expressions where seen through paintings and other forms of similar works of art.
The points that Kim Veltman made about Leonardo da Vinci make me believe that he was an inspiration to the whole art culture. In fact far more is known about his thought and the great range of his mind than of the events and circumstances of his life, especially its early stages. His impact on the Italian Renaissance was crucial enough to impact the world. Her whole article depicts the side of Leonardo da Vinci being a great artist. In the article it also explains how other painters also believe in the impact that Kim has portrayed.

In conclusion, Leonardo da Vinci was a great painter and played a huge role in influencing others to bring new ideas to art. Without da Vinci, the Italian Renaissance may not have become of anything. I assume that Kim Veltman must have been personally influenced by Leonardo’s paintings because of the way she speaks about his work with such grace and honor.

                                                                          

Works Cited

Veltman, Kim H. "Leonardo Da Vinci: A Review." Leonardo 41.4 (2008): 381-388. Academic

Search Premier. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.

Analysis of a Pop Art Painting at Ackland Art Museum

Noli Me Tangere by Gerard Seghers