> Criticizing Warhol
> is not just an aesthetic statement, but a rejection of the whole
> system of social mythologies that he and his art signify, and
> therefore met with thinly veiled hostility from those who identify
> with those mythologies.
We've been through this on the list before, and the consensus seems to be that because you can't build a yardstick that works for both George Grosz and Jacques Louis David for example, you have to give up. If the comparison/critique is a bit more selective, reducing some of the free variables, I think you can say some interesting things about works of art.
For Warhol's "pop" iconography, how's he different from Richard Hamilton?
<http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GurOyPITf5s/Te5uQQ79DAI/AAAAAAAAABs/E6r2JZKt6UU/s1600/justwhatisit.jpg>
And his formal innovations, how to differentiate them from Donald Judd?
<http://commonconstructions.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/image-axd.jpeg>
