The Pop Art of Andy Warhol

1. a) Andy Warhol, Interview in Pop art Redefined, edited by John Russell
and Suzi Gablik (New York: Praeger), 1969, pp116-118.
2. b) Thomas Crow, “Saturday Disasters: Trace and Reference in Early
Warhol,” in Reconstructing Modernism; Art in New York, Paris and
Montreal, 1945-1964 (M.I.T. Press, 1990), pp 311-326.
These 2 comparisons take up the point that artists’ statements may not reveal too
much about what the artwork’s subject matter or visual language is actually
doing. Warhol was famous for claims in the 1960s that his art (soup cans and silk
screened images of movie stars and celebrities) was not associated with any
meaning and that he simply wanted to make images as a machine would. Critics
and historians didn’t question much further. Thomas Crow’s analysis of Warhol’s
art written some 2 decades later made a different argument and Warhol’s images
are assessed with attention to the historical and social significance of the subject
matter. Indeed Crow points out that Warhol’s statements about himself and his
work created a kind of myth….a deliberate one it would seem, that obscured the
complexities of his images.
What is Crow’s argument and how does it force us to re-think Warhol’s claims
about his work? Limit your analysis to 5 double-spaced pages.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂