curious. Waht you think of Andy Warhols work?Follow

I think he brought an original eye to modern art, which could have been great. I don't think he did much with it, though. It degenerated into schtick, in my opinion.

He was one of that whole famous-for-being-famous cult in the 70s and 80s.

So what do you think of Jackson Pollock?





Edited, Wed Feb 23 19:33:51 2005 by trickybeck

I call that kinda stuff "accidental art". Pretty much meaningless, but it happens to look cool. I'd rather stare at the sky.

Since I am the one who was disparaging and equating Thompson and Warhol as being peers, just from different mediums, I suppose you can guess what I think of him.

Are there any cultural touchstones from that period which are of any value? Other than possibly the Rolling Stones, I am having trouble coming up with anybody or thing which has any worth. While I am certain some of you will immediately throw the Beatles in for consideration, I would have to disagree on the basis of the quality of their music. But that's just me.

Totem

One name: Billy Idol. Nobody else matters.

/sneers

Totem

Not bad, just mediocre. Many of the songs have a catchy jingle quality about them, but you'd be hard pressed to find some of their music that had more subtle themes or complicated scores behind them. Much of it was the quintisential "Yeah, yeah, yeah" bubble gum pop musical scores that marks shallow and superficial music. This personifies the '60's-- nothing too deep, nothing too complicated, just simple scores and lyrics.

Totem

I'm guessing you stopped listening to the Beatles after 1964?

The Beatles reinvented their sound every year they were around. They went through more musical styles in their short 7 years of fame than most bands do in 30+ years (Ahem - Rolling Stones). Every album, they came up with something new, and were summarily copied by everyone else (Ahem - Stones again).

And yes, when they were 20 years old and first arrived in America, they did mostly bubble gum pop. But they did bubble gum pop better than anyone else. Pick your favorite comedy movie, and analyze how much plot, depth, and meaning it has. Probably very little, but that doesn't make it any less of a masterful effort.




Edited, Wed Feb 23 21:48:29 2005 by trickybeck

______________________________________________

i don't know about that one... recently.

Yup, instead its becoming another Mexico.

Am I a snob? Yeah, I suppose I am. But unlike many of you, having been raised in the '60's and '70's I may have a better perspective on just how bad those decades were in terms of popular culture. Today the nostalgia that we wallow in on a semi annual basis was an every day thing. I lived through all those campy TV shows, "Yeah, yeah, yeah" Beatle wannabes, and Hunter S. Thompson/Andy Warhol imitators. For every Archie Bunker there were ten Gilligan's Islands or I Dream of Jeanies-- or worse. Far, far worse.

These days That '70's Show mocks over the course of a half hour per week what I would have had to endure for hours a day if I watched television.

For every decent Beatle's song there were hundreds of David Cassidys who inundated the airwaves with utter crap.

The one Jaws quality films were squeezed out of the theaters with thousands of Saturday Night Fevers and those emasculated men singing the theme song, the Bee Gees.

Now do you understand why I despise the mass marketed and mass produced dung that the majority of people worship in this cult of celebrity we call popular culture? For example, on my way back from Hawaii Shall We Dance was shown on the plane. I refused to rent earphones for $10 to watch J-Lo stagger through another multi-million payday film, but noted that scattered throughout the seats were individuals who thought the humor in that movie was so rich they laughed out loud. WTF? Is this what passes for funny in these people's miserable lives? It was at this moment that it became clear to me-- for the 10,000th time --how shows like Mama's Place and Survivor continue on in perpetuity.

It's the McDonaldization of art. And Warhol, Thompson, the Beatles, et al are just another big Mac or McFish on the menu.

Totem

You said, "people attribute this stuff"

I said. "Where?"


I think we both agree that he is not a "punk founder"

I feel much the same way about the popular music of the 80s. It was garbage I had to endure all through my teens, all of it, not some of it, but all of it was utter ****. I can only thank bob for the Rock n'Roll music of the 60s and 70s to get me through. Look, I never said I liked Worhal or Polock. I mearly pointed out the shallow, ignorant disdain some of you smeared across an entire genre only because Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock where not to your liking. Now that I have poked and sneared at you, you have taken the time to clarify yourselves. Bully for you.