When I studied art history in college, fine art was high art. It belonged to an elitist select few, whose world did not touch upon the masses much. They were elevated, viewed from a distance, worshipped. Fine Art was contained and segregated; it did not bleed outside the lines into the world of the Others. Art was revered as talent that was almost other-worldly and godlike.
Warhol tried to impact this and shift things up a bit by transforming what was viewed then as Fine Art into Popular Art. He dragged it to the presses, mass-produced it, and got it out to the public. Yet even his attempt does not equal the effects the internet has had on making contemporary art available and approachable. There are many reasons for this, but the one that stands out for me were what seemed to be Warhol’s agenda: there was still an attempt to glorify himself, to make himself a celebrity and set himself apart from the masses even though it appeared as though he had embarked on an effort to bring the masses to him and closer to Art.
These days, art is every where. It is produced by everyone. From advertising agencies, to the internet, to posters, to the painter in his own little corner of the world putting his art on My Space. There are no more lines, no more boundaries. Art has completely bled out.
i don’t know if you are still around on this, but you are of the same mind as I. It not only applies to *art* in painting, etc., but *art* in music, movies, etc. in my opinion. thanks for the read.
I agree that Andy was a bit egocentric, but next to, say Picasso or Hemingway before him, he was positively humble. I like to think that our understanding of art is evolving. It is the ARTS that develop imagination and problem solving thinking – that encourage inspiration and innovation. It IS for everyone, not just the property of the famous or the elite. The mere act of creating art, even if it never sees a gallery wall, brings positive change…
Keep going!