>> ^schmawy:
I get a little pissed at Warhol for dismantling art sometimes. Not that he's wholly responsible, but that whole thing you're experiencing- the "why am I watching this" and "this is stupid" or "how brilliant" or "look, Burger King"- is both cool and annoying. He really killed craft for the sake of experience.

Roger that loud and clear, dude. You know, I have as much respect for the skill of Warhol as the next dude, but when he did shit like this it really cheapened the meaning of art. I mean let's face it: Any dickhead could have done what he did, but since he did it all of sudden it became "art". You know ALL the true artistic masters were spinning in their graves when this shit was released.

Yet I upvoted it. Why? Because I believe that within every human being there lies an artist of some sort or another, and maybe that was Warhol's point.

But still, he was ugly.

I actually admire the man.

See this video http://www.videosift.com/video/andy-warhol-interview

Warhol is a cunt.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Hamburger, Andy Warhol, Burger King, Ketchup, Pop Art' to 'Hamburger, Andy Warhol, Burger King, Ketchup, Pop Art, MG is the reigning king' - edited by MarineGunrock

I get a little pissed at Warhol for dismantling art sometimes. Not that he's wholly responsible, but that whole thing you're experiencing- the "why am I watching this" and "this is stupid" or "how brilliant" or "look, Burger King"- is both cool and annoying. He really killed craft for the sake of experience.

It's not especially creative to copy John Cage; but to be John Cage is something else! The piece you refer to, 4'33", was basically his hit single and in 1952 it was revolutionary.

But you are in good company in dismissing him as the "emperor's new clothes". Cage is probably second only to Andy Warhol as the target of that accusation.

maatc, Warhol had his groupies doing a bunch of the work for him at "The Factory."

This guy is a one dick operation.

Next project: Peecasso?

Wait, Warhol already did that...

From Six Questions for Greg Grandin on Che’s Legacy:

Forty years ago this month, Che Guevara was captured and executed as he tried to lead a guerilla insurrection deep in the Bolivian jungle. Despite questions about his sometimes violent tactics and effectiveness as a revolutionary leader, Che remains an iconic symbol—even though he’s now been dead longer than he was alive. Che’s popularity in this country might stem more from how he looks on album covers and T-shirts than from his ideas or actions, but in Latin America, Che is remembered for his willingness to stand up to the United States. Greg Grandin, a history professor at New York University, is the author of several books on American influence in Latin America, most recently last year’s Empire’s Workshop.

1. How is Che currently viewed in Latin America and how different is his image there than it is here?
There are those in the U.S. who see Che as a generic symbol of rebellion against power and some who even think seriously about his political legacy, but he is more readily available as a pop and commercial icon. His image has been co-opted, following in the tradition of Warhol’s silk-screened Mao. In Latin America, some of this banalization exists, but the popularity and understanding of Che goes well beyond that. I was living in Guatemala a decade ago when peace accords ended that country’s 36-year civil war, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died. Suddenly Che’s image was everywhere. One street vendor told me that during the first three months after the war ended she sold more images of Che than she did of pop stars or the Virgin Mary. So Che–who was no fan of free speech–became a symbol of exactly that in a country long repressed. Throughout the region, Che remains a multifaceted symbol of reform, embodying anything from anti-imperialist resistance to revolutionary purity. And of course it doesn’t hurt that he is so good looking—I.F. Stone said that he was the first man he had ever met who he thought not just handsome but beautiful. In recent years, a number of admirers have been elected leaders of a number of countries: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, and Argentina’s Nestor Kirchner all have embraced Che. Even more cautious reformers like Brazil’s Lula feel compelled to pay homage to his legacy.

2. How has his image evolved over the last four decades in Latin America?
His popularity has increased since his death. When he was alive, the Cuban Revolution, of which he was one of the most visible spokesmen, represented a divide between Latin America’s old, reformist, Communist Party Left, and a new, insurgent left. Today, those debates are largely the stuff of history and his appeal is practically universal save among the most hidebound. Look at Bolivia to get a sense of just how much his reputation has evolved–it was there, in the remote village called La Higuera, that Bolivian forces, aided by CIA agents, executed Che. His Bolivian expedition was a complete failure and his capture had much to do with the fact that he didn’t receive much support from either the Bolivian Communist Party nor from peasants. But today Che’s image is everywhere in Bolivia and he is particularly esteemed by that country’s powerful peasant and indigenous movement. President Morales is reported to keep a picture of him in his wallet and just last year, upon winning the presidency, he participated in an unofficial inauguration, where he claimed Che as a patron saint of indigenous rights, saying, “The struggle that Che Guevara left uncompleted, we shall complete.”

3. What do you say to those who object to this canonization of Che, claiming that he’s nothing more than a totalitarian murderer?
I’d say tell it to the millions of Latin Americans, many of them at the margins of society, fighting for a just, truly democratic world, who still find inspiration in his struggle and image. To them, there is no confusion. Do our political commissars, always on the hunt for any whiff of residual sympathy for the militant New Left, really want to dismiss those people out of hand as irrelevant or misguided? Over the last two decades, social movements inspired by Che have fought against free-market orthodoxy. Those movements are bearers of the social-democratic tradition and are seeking to advance democracy.

4. The vision Che had for Cuba and the Third World in general did not develop. How does that effect his legacy?
You could argue that the failure of the Cuban model has actually benefited Che’s legacy, which has evolved from the specific political project he was associated with. Forty years ago. Che died trying to export the armed tactics of the Cuban Revolution elsewhere. There were many reasons why the Left by that time had embraced violent insurrection as a strategy, not the least of which was the refusal of the region’s elites, fortified with support from Washington, to give up even the slightest of its privileges. Since then, the Latin American Left has evolved. Today it is profoundly peaceful and democratic, despite having adopted an icon of insurrection as its talisman.

5. What are some of the common misperceptions about Che in the United States?
My guess is that the American public knows very little about Che. If they saw the movie Motorcycle Diaries, they may have learned that he was Argentine, not Cuban. But few know that just after that tour around Latin America, where he first began to develop a pan-American consciousness, he wound up in Guatemala, a country that at the time was undergoing a profound democratic revolution. Che practiced social medicine in the country’s rural highlands, ministering to the country’s most marginal. He was in Guatemala during the CIA’s 1954 coup that ended that country’s democracy, and he saw firsthand the U.S. role in restoring a regime that would go on to kill hundreds of thousands of its citizens. He always cited his experience in Guatemala as a turning point. Prior to the coup, the Latin American left, including Communist groups, still believed it was possible to work with a country’s national bourgeois to achieve social democratic reform. Afterwards, it was increasingly difficult to do so. Che himself would go on to taunt the United States, saying “Cuba will not be another Guatemala” to justify the restrictions of civil liberties in Cuba, since it was through the subversion of the press, the Church, and independent political parties that the CIA did its work in Guatemala, and subsequently elsewhere.

6. How have American policies in Latin America following Che’s death impacted his image in the region?
Che was executed in 1967, and some of the worst interventions by Washington in Latin America were still to come. Most people are aware of the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 and Reagan’s wars in Central America in the 1980s. Less known is U.S. involvement in, or at least sanctioning of, coups in Uruguay in 1973 and Argentina in 1976. Following the demise of the Soviet Union, Washington moved away from its reliance on repressive Latin American proxies, banking instead on its ability to project its power through elections and economic pressure. This worked throughout the 1990s, as heavily indebted countries governed by centrists submitted to the command of the IMF. Over the past few years, roughly since Chávez’s landslide victory in 1998, the system has started to break down. The “Washington consensus,” as this set of policies came to be called, proved an absolute disaster. Between 1980 and 2000, in per capita terms, the region grew cumulatively by only 9 per cent. Compare that with the 82 per cent expansion of the previous two decades, and add to it the financial crises that have rolled across Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Argentina over the past 15 years, sweeping away accumulated savings, destroying the middle class, and wrecking the agricultural sector, and you will get a sense of why Evo Morales is calling for the completion of Che’s struggle.

Here's a list of some of the artists and their paintings:

Leonardo gives Vinci: The Gioconda
Marcel Duchamp: Naked lowering stairs, L.H.O.O.Q.
Van Gogh: Picture of Patience Escalier, the Starred Night, Self-portrait
PAUL Gauguin: Self-portrait, Spirit of the death
Henri Matisse: Self-portrait
Edvard Munch: Grito
Oskar Kokoschka: The fiancèe of the wind
Picasso: Self-portrait, the great swimmer, Arlequin, Picture of Gertrude Stein
Gray Joan:
Joan Watched:
Frida Kahlo: Self-portrait
Diego Rivera: Self-portrait
Diego Vela'zquez: Picture of the Pope Innocent X
Salvador Dalí: Self-portrait
René Magritte: The collective invention, The Rape, False Mirror.
Paul Klee: Self-portrait
Francis Bacon: Self-portrait, Study after the Picture of the Pope Innocent X of Vela'zquez, Three for Studies Figures AT the Base of to Crucifixion
Andy Warhol: Marilyn Monroe Diptych, Shot Orange Marilyn
Wassily Kandinsky:
Willem de Kooning:
Marc Chagall: I and the Village
Gustav Klimt:
Max Ernst: Ubu Imperator
Roy Lichtenstein: To turn around

The little purple guy seems kinda Warhol-esque to me. Anyone else?

I don't try fix most of my dead links, if the video is gone it's usually the only source online.

I still don't fucking get their whole thing about media, I mean honestly Billy Holliday got removed by Viacom. As far as I know its goddamn public domain with that. Same with the rare Andy Warhol clips.

Fuck VIACOM

Edith Minturn "Edie" Sedgwick (April 20, 1943 – November 15, 1971) was an American actress, socialite, debutante and heiress who starred in many of Andy Warhol's short films in the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edie_Sedgwick

I think some pens and markers coming out of the Warhol can would make the art sifter more instantly recognizeable. Can I get some more feedback on my animation sifter please?

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2895/siftanimlogo0ea.jpg

I hate the world we live in where intelligent people are now afraid of DMCA and copyright. First of all it can only be trademark violation, (did you copy a song, words, video, music, photo, etc)

Secondly, clearly this is derivative work (an image wrapped 3-d around a photoshop graphic). Thirdly, it is based on Warhol work. Fourthly, are you selling soup? Then how can this infringe on any campbells rights? Fifthly, it is representing art and referring to art.

At any rate, I do think a split can with two images is better to convey the concept, cause it looks too much like a can. Or at least a picture frame around it or in background helps convey "art" much better.