containing multitudes since 2004
This looks like the set-up for the session that produced the infamous Warhol self-portrait now deemed "not authentic" because Andy wasn't there when the prints were pulled.
Is it just me, or is there something funny about anything connected to Warhol being considered "authentic"?
Mike:I'm certain there's more to that story than we've been hearing. Nothing went out under Andy Warhol's name . . . save, perhaps, for 7 or 8 movies Paul Morrissey directed for his company between 1968 and 1974 (and even there you could say that Warhol at least knew about them) . . . that he did not either conceive, create, authorize and/or supervise. Not only do members of the Warhol Authentication Board know this (if they don't, then they should seek other employment), they fully admit that the paintings in question were signed by him . . . yet they still deny their authenticity.This is about money. Nothing more; nothing less.Fred:All due respect, I'd say it's you.I mean, there's a lot of things one can say about Andy Warhol and his many works. 'Inauthentic' really isn't one of them. His sensibility was almost tactile; and you could confuse it with no one else's.
I thought this was a useful source of information on the Warhol authenticity issue: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23153.
Tom, I didn't mean my comment as an insult of Warhol, but rather an observation that in many ways, Warhol was a proto-conseptual artist, whose many works were designed to take the stodgy, pompous ideas of "fine arts" which were in the main heading into the 60s, and stand them on their head.
Post a Comment