The Dense Con

"Referring to himself as a re-creator, rather than a creator, Andy Warhol (1923 – 1987) established himself as a Pop Art icon through his iconic multiple silkscreened images of Campbell’s soup cans." -Art.com

While commonly considered revolutionary in his artistic endeavors through painting, his final product leads to question what he really did for the medium of painting and whether or not his actions signaled more of a political upheaval than an artistic one. In presenting a simple picture of a Campbell's Soup can, did he iconize the American product, or vice versa? Consider too whether presenting it in painting form was even necesary or relevant as anything more than Andy Warhol passing off somebody elses work through his own medium.

Imagine if you will an art gallery. In this art gallery there are several exhibits and each and every one of them depicts a Campbell's Soup can. To your left there is a photograph, to your right there is a mosaic. In the center of this Olympic hall is a twenty foot marble statue lit by the midday sun passing through the glass skyport. Now, if you can, explain where the art is in any of this and why simply leaving a can of soup on a well lit counter wouldn't suffice to send the same message. Moreover, if you were to admire the beauty of the label on the can, why not give credit to the actual creator of the label's design? It's like taking a picture of the Statue of David and taking credit for it as your own art. Warhol latched on to Americana to boost his own position. These images did not require his help to become iconic. Coca Cola? Campbell's Soup? These products were already nationally known and many artists in other medias were already paying tribute. Please refer to Norman Rockwell and Frank O' Hara. The point is that he had gained more than these images did through their relation.

Andy Warhol lived in a time of extreme self-indulgence, so claiming to recreate something as massive as Art would come naturally to him. It is in my personal opinion however that while it widened the definition of art, these paintings did nothing original with it, as is admitted in the original passage, but beyond that they did absolutely nothing for the action of painting. Overall, the moral of this story is credit where credit is due.