And I cannot stress this enough: bury their bones in an unmarked ditch.
Those are original Warhol boxes. Two Brillos, a Motts and a Campbells tomato soup. Multiple millions worth of original art, set on the floor by the front door.
Theres a regular customer whom i do plumbing work for, for the last 3 or 4 years. These belong to her. She also has Cherub Riding a Stag, and a couple other Warhols that i cannot identify, along with other originals by other artists that i also cannot identify. I have to go back to her house this coming Monday, i might get photos of the rest of her art, just so i can figure out what it is.
Even though i dont have an artistic bone in my entire body, i can appreciate art. I have negative feelings on private art like this that im too dumb to elucidate on.
eat the fucking rich. they are good for nothing.
You couldn’t even resist your “not a fan” toxic fan bullshit for Andy Warhol so you immediately made yourself a liar.
You’re claiming, apparently, that everything in the entire world is made by Andy Warhol after Andy Warhol blessed us with his presence. I was expecting that tiresome and trite Great Man Theory nonsense from you. It’s laughably false, because even if he contributed and certainly made bank by his contributions, the belief that he singlehandedly created all art that followed by way of some Great Man theoretical determinism is pure liberal bullshit.
Even if it were true, and it’s not, it’s like expecting endless pledges of allegiance, awe, and praise (while not liking him as a person, right?) for William the Conqueror for establishing the roots of what we call modern English after 1066.
It’s getting thin over here on the app LMAO
That’s what happens when a “not a fan” of Andy Warhol goes all out in defense of Andy Warhol’s godlike and unique contributions to the art world that no one else could have matched, surpassed, or replaced in his absence.
Emojis? Andy Warhol did it.
This site? Andy Warhol did it.
Your posts and mine? Andy Warhold did it.
deleted by creator
We can only dream of aspiring to the awe-inspiring greatness and high level thinking of taking an undergrad art course
Performatively praising Great Men is a big part of the “in group” in humanities departments.
In the overlap between literature and performance arts, “bardology” is like a malignant tumor that chokes the resources out of anything not Shakespeare, for example. And God help you if you mention anything negative about Shakespeare (such as
) or his Tudor patrons (that were definitely pleased by the character assassination of Richard III) for any reason.
Funny how every creep eventually turns to “anti-intellectualism” as their weapon of defense. The French are experts at this today.
Was everyone who criticized “Cuties” anti-intellectual?
It doesn’t really speak to the strength of someone’s position when they have to just depart from the critiques themselves to brandish buzzwords. If your position is strong you should be able to defend it while sticking to the art in question.
If I criticize you it’s because I’m a shrewd critic. If you criticize me it’s because you’re anti-intellectual.
No, my pedophillic fantasy novel isn’t gross, and by criticizing it you’re being the same as literal Nazis (who doesn’t love a little Nazi trivialization?)
“You can’t criticize or even dislike the rich connected fed-funded very smartists or their treats or else you are not very smartist.”
“Yeah well conservatives also said rap was bad. Care to reconsider your ‘graphic sex scenes between a 12 year old and a 50 year old are bad’ position?”
“Also your criticism is itself a vindicating performance art piece! Dance, unwashed barbarian puppets! Dance for the glory of the abusive sex pest auteurs!”