Interesting OBEY Viewpoint
Out of context: Reply #10
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- ukit0
Harlequino makes a good point. I also feel that when you look back on Warhol and Lichtenstein and people from the pop art movement who appropriated stuff, they were almost always taking something lowbrow whether it was Mickey Mouse or Campbells soup cans and making it into conceptual art by adding an extra layer of meaning, for instance by subverting or critiquing the original piece.
Whereas with SF's work, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of thought put into it. For instance, taking the Industrial Workers of the World artwork and adding a lightening bolt to it, is about as far as a lot of these go. Or the piece with the dollar bill (on his site) that he says represents the "two sides of capitalism, good and bad." I'd be happier about him using stuff from the past if there was some kind of point to it I guess.
- Maybe our "Pop" society has dumbed down quite a bit. =P
But agreed,univers - warhol could not have been more literal. Conceptual? no brother.********
- Maybe our "Pop" society has dumbed down quite a bit. =P