Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Society/Culture andy warhol vs bob dylan

  • Thread starter Thread starter soho
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

S

soho

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
1,532
Reaction score
19
AFL Club
Collingwood
just watched an old movie called factory girl (3.5 soho stars)... the movie is about a girl, edie sedgwick, who was involved with both warhol and dylan... the two are portrayed as something of enemies in the movie... got me thinking...

who is a more important socially historical figure, who changed the world more, who is more famous, who will leave a longer legacy, who inspired more people...

dylan or warhol?

2006_12_arts_dylanwarhol.jpg


edie-sedgwick.jpg
 
few facts...

warhol was born in 28
dylan was born in 41

warhol died in 87, age 57
dylan is still alive, 69

a single warhol painitng sold for $100 million (he produced thousands of paintings, prints and movies in his lifetime) and is the widely regarded as the most influential artist of the 20th century
dylan has sold over 100 million records (not that anyone buys records anymore) and is quoted as being one of the greatest lyricists of all time, and helping civil rights etc
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

soho said:
few facts...

warhol was born in 28
dylan was born in 41

warhol died in 87, age 57
dylan is still alive, 69

a single warhol painitng sold for $100 million (he produced thousands of paintings, prints and movies in his lifetime) and is the widely regarded as the most influential artist of the 20th century
dylan has sold over 100 million records (not that anyone buys records anymore) and is quoted as being one of the greatest lyricists of all time, and helping civil rights etc
Click to expand...

Warhol also lied about his age....:confused::confused::D
The value of art, specifically paintings is largely decided by a tiny minority and is open to the "emperors new clothes syndrome". Music is "voted" for with wallets and cash by millions every day.
Dylan for mine..
 
it doesnt matter what i think, i'd be better off blowing in the wind!
 
omit said:
Warhol was more influential to music than Dylan was.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it it was mainly with The Velvet Underground, who while groundbreaking, did not reach the audience of Dylan. Personally, I cannot stand them, while Dylan is very good.
 
From memory the only things Warhol did re music was
01) "produce" the velvet undergrounds 1st lp - and i use the term "produce" loosely as i think he did sweet fa with their sound.
02) he got them to record some songs with Nico
03) he created a buzz about the band because of his notoriety
04) he projected psychadelic images onto the band while they played.

But thats it really - Lou Reed & John Cale pretty much wrote the songs & music & Warhol was irrelevant really, though i guess he helped them come to the attention of the main stream press.

But as for Warhol's films - Who is going to sit through all 12 hours of his empire state film or watch sleep - a film about someone sleeping!!? All he did was surround himself with drug addled freaks & psychos & he used to revel in their wierdness & penchant for self-destruction .. but it came unsuck when Solanas blew a hole in him. After that he was never the same - just a creepy voyeur with an overrated art portfolio.

Dylan? Don't know much about him - a bit of a tosser wasn't he?
 
The great Mark Rothko gagged in the street upon seeing the insipid Warhol, whose art is so banally conceptual.

Dylan at least had an electric personality which is more than half the battle in performance art.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Pawtucket Patriot said:
Yeah, but it it was mainly with The Velvet Underground, who while groundbreaking, did not reach the audience of Dylan. Personally, I cannot stand them, while Dylan is very good.
Click to expand...

Well said. They bore me to tears, tons of hype and image, very little substance.

Warhol himself to me was an overrated, pretentious w***er. Then again he's an artist so that's axiomatic.

Dylan on the other hand has been a creative musician for 50 years, and there are plenty of albums of his I go back to again and again. To imply that bespectacled midget has had anywhere near the influence Dylan had is insane.
 
Max Rockatansky said:
From memory the only things Warhol did re music was
01) "produce" the velvet undergrounds 1st lp - and i use the term "produce" loosely as i think he did sweet fa with their sound.
02) he got them to record some songs with Nico
03) he created a buzz about the band because of his notoriety
04) he projected psychadelic images onto the band while they played.

But thats it really - Lou Reed & John Cale pretty much wrote the songs & music & Warhol was irrelevant really, though i guess he helped them come to the attention of the main stream press.

But as for Warhol's films - Who is going to sit through all 12 hours of his empire state film or watch sleep - a film about someone sleeping!!? All he did was surround himself with drug addled freaks & psychos & he used to revel in their wierdness & penchant for self-destruction .. but it came unsuck when Solanas blew a hole in him. After that he was never the same - just a creepy voyeur with an overrated art portfolio.
Click to expand...
Yep, exactly.

Only other thing Warhol did for music was provide inspiration for the lyrics of Like a Rolling Stone - was an attack on Warhol.
 
i've never got the whole andy warhol thing. and i can't even see it in a "you had to there at the time to understand" sort of thing either....

velvet underground and nico is one of my fave albums however, but aside from managing and hooking them up with nico he didn't have anything else to do with their actual music
 
This is not as stupid a comparison as it may appear at first blush. Both artists changed their media, such as to render them unrecognisable. My contention would be that Warhol's influence arguably killed the visual arts and all pursuits which surround it. He made it possible for people with no talent whatsoever to be taken seriously, as long as they surrounded themselves with an aura of profundity, usually by mouthing off.

On the other hand, Dylan expanded popular music by making it acceptable for it to have significant meaning within its lyrics, and a modicum of intelligence.

Warhol's schtick, as far as I can tell, was that representations of artistic expression surround us. The problem was that we didn't realise this. He sought to expose to the masses that, that which surrounded them, unnoticed, was the real stuff of art. Thus the monotonous representations of bloody soup cans. Thus, the banality, beauty and undeniable influence on the art-creating state of the world we live in, as a construct of the manipulative advertising age in which we exist.

His method was to hold up a mirror to society, in an attempt to expose its frailties and shallowness. His sense was that there is only the immediate and that all else is a confection. I defy anyone to provide an understandable account of post-modernism, for which he is almost exclusively responsible. It should be noted that his 'art' is a natural extension of Modernism and post WW2 American painting by people like Pollock, taking in a large slab of Existentialism from Europe.

On the other hand, Dylan was a main-chancer, who started off as a folk singer and became a rock and roll star, because there was more money to be had. The greatest thing to happen to popular music in the past 50 years was the mutual embrace between 'The Beatles' and Dylan. 'The Beatles' went from writing "Moon, spoon, June" lyrics to saying something more meaningful, as a result of meeting Dylan. Dylan, in return, found rock and roll - a glorious marriage, for the greatest poet of the 20th Cent.

Dylan also made possible the recognition of, IMHO, the greatest rock band there ever was - 'The Band'. If that was all he ever did, I'd be proud to have that on my CV. Then again, I'm prejudiced.

Sorry to ramble a bit, but, as it happens, these are two artists of whom I have some knowledge. I know whose music I'd prefer to hear.

P.S. The most underrated aspect of the genius that is Dylan is the music he wrote. No, not the lyrics. There has never been a writer who had a more profound understanding of backbeat - that which was at the heart of all his songs - think 'All Along the Watchtower', 'If Not for You'.
 
skilts said:
This is not as stupid a comparison as it may appear at first blush. Both artists changed their media, such as to render them unrecognisable. My contention would be that Warhol's influence arguably killed the visual arts and all pursuits which surround it. He made it possible for people with no talent whatsoever to be taken seriously, as long as they surrounded themselves with an aura of profundity, usually by mouthing off.

On the other hand, Dylan expanded popular music by making it acceptable for it to have significant meaning within its lyrics, and a modicum of intelligence.

Warhol's schtick, as far as I can tell, was that representations of artistic expression surround us. The problem was that we didn't realise this. He sought to expose to the masses that, that which surrounded them, unnoticed, was the real stuff of art. Thus the monotonous representations of bloody soup cans. Thus, the banality, beauty and undeniable influence on the art-creating state of the world we live in, as a construct of the manipulative advertising age in which we exist.

His method was to hold up a mirror to society, in an attempt to expose its frailties and shallowness. His sense was that there is only the immediate and that all else is a confection. I defy anyone to provide an understandable account of post-modernism, for which he is almost exclusively responsible. It should be noted that his 'art' is a natural extension of Modernism and post WW2 American painting by people like Pollock, taking in a large slab of Existentialism from Europe.

On the other hand, Dylan was a main-chancer, who started off as a folk singer and became a rock and roll star, because there was more money to be had. The greatest thing to happen to popular music in the past 50 years was the mutual embrace between 'The Beatles' and Dylan. 'The Beatles' went from writing "Moon, spoon, June" lyrics to saying something more meaningful, as a result of meeting Dylan. Dylan, in return, found rock and roll - a glorious marriage, for the greatest poet of the 20th Cent.

Dylan also made possible the recognition of, IMHO, the greatest rock band there ever was - 'The Band'. If that was all he ever did, I'd be proud to have that on my CV. Then again, I'm prejudiced.

Sorry to ramble a bit, but, as it happens, these are two artists of whom I have some knowledge. I know whose music I'd prefer to hear.

P.S. The most underrated aspect of the genius that is Dylan is the music he wrote. No, not the lyrics. There has never been a writer who had a more profound understanding of backbeat - that which was at the heart of all his songs - think 'All Along the Watchtower', 'If Not for You'.
Click to expand...

They're okay, but nothing great. My parents on the other hand are obsessed with them.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Pawtucket Patriot said:
They're okay, but nothing great. My parents on the other hand are obsessed with them.
Click to expand...

Each to his own. Maybe you should get your parents to post on here, if they don't already.

Apropos of nothing other than your reply to my post, I was thinking just the other day that Nantucket Sleighride would be a more appropriate user name for you. It's the name of an album by another band whom you probably detest or of whom know nothing - Mountain. Carry on.
 
Black Thunder said:
first thing i thought of with this was that chick a couple of months back who had some pieces in art exhibition which were made from her crap

http://moorabbin-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/moorabbin-poo-art-pieces-approved-for-show/
Click to expand...

Hmm, having seen the picture of the artist, I think it will be necessary for me to make an in-depth study of the site from which she sources her materials, and its immediate environs. In the interests of establishing her probity you understand. She's mistaken if she thinks she has to do this sort of stuff to attract attention.
 
skilts said:
Each to his own. Maybe you should get your parents to post on here, if they don't already.

Apropos of nothing other than your reply to my post, I was thinking just the other day that Nantucket Sleighride would be a more appropriate user name for you. It's the name of an album by another band whom you probably detest or of whom know nothing - Mountain. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I am actually changing my username soon to Pinball Lez, which is the title of the song created by my favourite band. I don't detest The Band, I just don't like them. However, I do like this song.

[YOUTUBE]FLeLHBi1-sU[/YOUTUBE]

Much prefer Dylan on his own or The Travelling Wilburys.
 
Chalk and cheese. Both had a profound influence on modern western society, whether you liked them or not.

Herne Hill Hammer said:
Or alternatively, in the video footage that I saw, if the female officer present had helped out instead of hiding behind her colleagues and yelling out stop, maybe he wouldn't have drawn the taser.
Click to expand...

Warhol did sort of promote this little band known as The Velvet Underground, that went on to have some influence on music.

Warhol definitely helped Western society to push the boundaries.
 
skilts said:
On the other hand, Dylan expanded popular music by making it acceptable for it to have significant meaning within its lyrics, and a modicum of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Interesting, considering the man himself stated that his lyrics had no meaning. Of course, I understand that to mean that he appreciates the listeners role in the artistic process.

skilts said:
Warhol's schtick, as far as I can tell, was that representations of artistic expression surround us. The problem was that we didn't realise this. He sought to expose to the masses that, that which surrounded them, unnoticed, was the real stuff of art. Thus the monotonous representations of bloody soup cans. Thus, the banality, beauty and undeniable influence on the art-creating state of the world we live in, as a construct of the manipulative advertising age in which we exist.
Click to expand...

It can also be argued that Warhol liberated art from the institutions and gave it back to the people.

Anyone with a camera, paintbrush or 8mm camera took on more legitimacy after Warhol broke down the barriers.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom