I <3 Andy Warhol

Art can take many different directions, in the primary intentions of the artist, the critics or the audience’s perception of a piece of work. Art is not necessarily always about breathtaking scenery and the qualities of that same scenery captured in the painting by the artist, but also the intention behind what is depicted before the viewer. Irony perhaps or the intention to work against typical artistic rules and theories creating underground art and the ‘anti-art’ and ‘alogic’ conventions of art.

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick S. Smith, 1986.

Artists such as Tracey Emin and Andy Warhol have used these approaches in expressing their art, for example Tracey Emin used an unmade bed, believed to be her own, with underwear and contraception packets surrounding the area. The realism within this piece can be related to by a wide range of its viewers therefore makes it more appealing to analyse its purpose and question its state of art, due to its simple form of creation, suggesting there may be more to read into.

Andy Warhol also took this approach before Emin, and also very different to her work used products of Mass Culture. The use of everyday objects that may be considered boring in the context of art or even artless but according to UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986, these paintings gained attention due to peoples speculation about what is in front of them, contradicting the traditional concepts of art, Warhol’s use of the object and what else lies within his interpretation of this ‘readymade art’ have created indifference causing the viewer to analyse further as to how it makes sense.

The viewer can possibly relate to Warhol’s work, pieces such as Dick Tracy, from the comic strip, read to him be his mother as a child and the Campbell’s Tomato Soup apparently his favourite soup, creating a form of nostalgia in his pieces but also something for the viewer to grasp and possibly identify with and or understand.

The viewer therefore will naturally incorporate their own relation/interpretation with the piece in order to understand what is in front of them, without any certainty.

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986,

Fine examples of this are the urinal by Marcel Duchamp and the picture of Warhol’s Campbell’s Tomato Soup that was thought to have lacked uniqueness yet gained the

interest of the speculating public due to its indifference as it ‘lacked both good and bad taste’.

A commonly known version of this is Duchamp’s reworking of the Mona Lisa but with facial hair titled, “L.H.O.O.Q” however the meaning behind this is there to be interpreted as with his urinal piece named Fountain. Thought from both of these pieces can be provoked due to the functions brought forward; Fountain- due to the flush functions and what is associated with how it is used and what that can represent to an open mind, and the L.H.O.O.Q.; Duchamp has used the letters for when said sounds like the “Elle a chaud au cul” pun which translates as “she is hot in the ass”

http://www.studiolo.net/Mona/MONASV12.htm

Duchamp’s L.H.O.O.Q. and Fountain have been a clear inspiration to Warhol; this ‘readymade art’ has provoked thought due to its apparent simplicity but it is the intention behind or possibly the alternative meaning to what lies in the picture, for example like with L.H.O.O.Q. there is more to interpret than what is placed in the aesthetic; Mona Lisa with a drawn on moustache and what the initials represent as a whole. In Duchamp’s Fountain, at first glance there may be a urinal, but with the title it is what the functions of this device may alternatively represent. It is also the subtle approach to creating alternative meaning within something well known that symbolises something else.

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986,

Due to Duchamp’s inspiration Warhol attempted imitating or recreating some of Duchamp’s work, such as Duchamp’s “Large Glass” Warhol then created “Glass-Handle with Care”.

Warhol’s pop art provokes thought at a glance with its use of objects from the media, for example in 1960 he used the coca cola logo in one of his pieces with abstract expressionist patterns in the background and also in his portrait of Superman, a take on the comic version shows superman blowing out a forest fire with the sound effects written as “Puff” to emphasise his powerful blowing, subtly  emasculating the original perception of the character, possibly in reference to Warhol’s own sexuality.

Along with Warhol’s Campbell’s Tomato Soup he created many other logos for consumer products with similar styles.

Warhol’s ‘readymade’ art containing well known objects and figures was believed by Warhol himself to be like an archive due to the abstract images that manipulated the original creating a new take on something iconic therefore caught peoples attention and disputed the work he did as art.

However this fuelled Andy more with his work and success. Andy Warhol was completely aware of the novelty of fame and the media and the effect it had on the public and how the public were like a machine as consumers these images were used in a way to cause individuality and quite possibly contradict that as at the time

“… everybody is always talking about that (being creative) and individuality. Everyone is talking about being creative”

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986,

In a response to his analysis Warhol wanted to prove that everyone was the same despite people trying to be individual as everyone is exposed to the same media content (Marilyn Monroe, Superman, and Mickey Mouse) and products (Brillo, Del Monte, Coca Cola and the Campbells Tomato Soup) which Warhol’s work proves, despite any mixed opinions or confusion, that everyone can relate to the main body, or what appears to be the main body of the picture, may it be the alternative message; the reading between the lines or the well known character that is used.

Warhol used something simple and so well known such as Superman and Coca Cola, adapting his piece with images that caused the viewer to subconsciously analyse as there is something everyone can recognise and interpret their way, whether the response positive or negative, his work still gained attention which proved his theory of the world being like a machine

“Someone said that Brecht wanted everyone to think alike. I want everyone to think alike…Everyone looks alike and acts alike, and we’re getting more and more that way. I think everyone should be a machine. I think everybody should like everybody”

Andy Warhol in an interview with Gene Swanson

UMI Research Press, Andy Warhol’s Art and Films, Patrick. S. Smith, 1986,

Rihanna & Britney Spears - S&M

After turning your claim to fame around from being a singer to certified mess it only makes sense that when you go full circle, in this case, back to the music, that you leech on to something or, more so, someone that is actually raking in the cash.
I will admit, I like Britney, not her music now but I can accept her still trying. I did prefer her music during her crazy period but she milked that to death and now has to move on.
Her music since her 'meltdown' has been somewhat awful. Womanizer shown some promise but even that was tiring to listen to.
S&M has a very good musical backdrop and due to studio wizardry even Rihanna voice sounds less whiny making it tolerable background noise. However I was shocked when I heard the duet with Britney Spears, I had anticipated that it would be a good little pop tune. Both having awful voices and autotuned within an inch of their lives, I had assumed that they would blend perfectly, clearly Rihanna's part has not been touched since the original recording was finished but Britney has been cut and pasted in with not a lot left to desire.
The opening is just Rihanna for the

 "I like it, Like it" 

for the fairly decent introduction of Britney singing

"Nah, nah, nah nah, nah, C'mon"

when hearing this it's as though the song could have been Britney's, she could have owned it, it's almost nostalgic of a better, sexier Britney.

After Rihanna's first verse, which is that of the original record, Britney comes in to attempt a re-written second verse. The verse has been written in keeping with the song and also with the two stars on the duet just as much but after hearing Rihanna's original vocals (that of the original recording) Britney's part, in comparison, appears rushed, leaving it sounding seperate from the rest of the song, it seems a bit too forced, like she still needs to prove that she has still got it. Her vocals sound tired and aged, by comparison, and possibly due to writers block, or just plain laziness, Britney's verse features some silly pointless noises, which somehow makes rihanna look like the talented one as oppose to being on balance...Poor Britney.

The particular pairing is just as bad as that Madonna and Justin Timberlake duet 4 Minutes, although the age gap is not the same (poor Britney) the younger one still manages to make the older one look like they have had their day, despite how famous they may be.

The finished product leaves Britney sounding like she has passed it, unlike Rihanna's vocals, Britney fails to glide along effortlessly with the music and sometimes sounds like it was a mission for her to keep up.  Although the two blend perfectly on the later chrous and the ad libs such as "Nah, nah, nah", and almost sound like one mediocre singer that has been double tracked for a thicker sound as oppose to two of the most famous singers in the world collaborating, they clearly were not in the studio together.

Had they been two seperate songs then maybe Britney could have saved face with her own version or possibly featured Rihanna on that instead as oppose to Rihanna providing the safety net.