After Warhol, it's tough to ask 'What is Art?'

The question of 'what is art' as has been addressed in the discussion is quite unrewarding. We know that we should really be asking 'Where' and 'When' instead. We also know that where art happens has a lot to do with the art itself (As it is institutional at the end of the day). For Warhol, New York City was the node that affected how his art 'happened'.

It is interesting to see how the revolution Warhol started in the Art world continues to be relevant today. Although it's only been twenty some odd years since his death, his popularity only seems to increase with time, and it is fascinating to me how that type of staying power is achieved.

In Danto's article on the Artworld, he discussed how for Socrates, art was simply a mirror image of nature (because contextually that was what was available, sort of the institution of the time). No offense to Socrates of course, but Danto explains that as we evolve, "an imitation" is not a sufficient condition for "is art".

Warhol did a similar thing in the 60s by re-appropriating art in a way, and challenging the institution of his time. He decided that he would define 'What is art' to be whatever he wanted. Not only was he going to make mass produced commercial items into art, but he was going to mass produce that art.He sort of turned capitalist America on its head in a weird socialist kind of framework. ""What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca Cola, and just think, you can drink Coca Cola, too. A coke is a coke and no amount of money can get you a better coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the cokes are the same and all the cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.""

Suze mentioned in her post how Bourdieu might appropriate this, especially due to his upbringing, and maybe his angle of thinking in this way falls into that same sort of category on symbolic and cultural capital because of his Slovak background and his upbringing in Pittsburgh.

It is interesting to note his influence on artists today. I would assume that he would be flattered by comments made by Lady Gaga, a recording artist who sets out to sort of blend as many elements of art as she enjoys. She says, "The Fame [her album] is about how anyone can feel famous. Pop culture is art. It doesn’t make you cool to hate pop culture, so I embraced it and you hear it all over The Fame. But, it’s a sharable fame. I want to invite you all to the party. I want people to feel a part of this lifestyle.""

In a way it seems she is setting out to mass produce the idea of fame and celebrity in the same ways Warhol wanted to capitalize on the commerical. Interestingly, I was reading that Warhol coined the concept of "15 minutes of fame", which refers to the fleeting condition of fame in the modern world, mainly attributed to mass media and transience in human beings.

Lady Gaga adds that ""In this industry, you get a lot of stylists and producers thrown at you, but this is my own creative team, modeled on Warhol’s Factory. Everyone is under 26 and we do everything together.""

His scope of influence on her art and lifestyle is very apparent here. Fascinating to see the continued redefinition and re-appropriation of art, despite the presence of institution.