[WS:] I did not deny he was an artist - I do not know how you got this idea. I merely stated that his art did not have any merits to me, which means he is not appealing aesthetically to me. You can also interpret "merits" in the sense of being influential for other artists - but I am not sure whether this applies to Warhol. A lot of people talked about him, to be sure, but I am not sure that he influenced art that followed that much. I think that he merely rode a trend that gained popularity at that time, and thus he became a signifier or a symbol of that trend, but he did not influence the art any more than a surfer influences a wave on which he is riding. However, this is just my impression and I can be persuaded otherwise, even though his aesthetic appeal to me may not necessarily change.
Wojtek
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Wojtek writes, of Andy Warhol:
>
>> I am not an American, so I wonder what I am missing here.
>> Can someone provide any evidence of the merits of his art?
>
> Art has to have merit now?
>
> If you don't think Warhol was an artist who spoke favorably to your sense of
> the aesthetic, that's one thing.
>
> But: you deny he was an artist, and that what he did was art?
>
> /jordan
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>