Fwd: Misc.

[Keith Davis]

Agreed. Warhol? Give me a break.
On Nov 4, 2012 11:04 AM, "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, I think Pop Art, undeniably still very much influential, has led to a
> degradation of art.  It celebrates crass, and is based in cynicism. It is
> also essentially meta-art: the value of the object is conceptual, not the
> object's own qualities.
>
> I know I sound a retro conservative, but I think I'm looking forward to
> something better than what now is.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *David Morris*
>
> P makes fun of Pop Art in V.  Pop Art may be a precursor of Post
> Modernism, but their aesthetics are very dissimilar.
>
> Also, Rauschenberg is not generally thought a Pop figure. He's more a
> modernist collage master.
>
> On Sunday, November 4, 2012, Markekohut wrote:
>
>> I caught up with a recent Friday NYT, reading luxuriously all the new
>> movie reviews, all the long art show pieces, etc.
>>
>> Lotsa good words on the Rauschenberg exhibit and other pop art from the
>> time.Rauschenberg
>> Drawing cartoon panels as his breakthrough around 1962ff. Warhol, others.
>>
>> And I asked myself to ask the plisters why P appearing around then,
>> faulted by many for his cartoon characters isn't ' talked about much as
>> part of the same Zeitgeist.
>>
>> Those artists gave us ourselves back as cartoons---and we think they were
>> right
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20121104/9a0061b8/attachment.html>