Why is this art? Andy Warhol, Campbell's Soup Cans | Art History | Khan Academy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ส.ค. 2012
- Courses on Khan Academy are always 100% free. Start practicing-and saving your progress-now: www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Steven Zucker and Sal Khan discuss Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans. Created by Beth Harris, Steven Zucker and Sal Khan.
Watch the next lesson: www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Missed the previous lesson? www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...
Art History on Khan Academy: We understand the history of humanity through art. From prehistoric depictions of bison to contemporary abstraction, artists have addressed their time and place in history and expressed universal truths for tens of thousands of years.
About Khan Academy: Khan Academy is a nonprofit with a mission to provide a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere. We believe learners of all ages should have unlimited access to free educational content they can master at their own pace. We use intelligent software, deep data analytics and intuitive user interfaces to help students and teachers around the world. Our resources cover preschool through early college education, including math, biology, chemistry, physics, economics, finance, history, grammar and more. We offer free personalized SAT test prep in partnership with the test developer, the College Board. Khan Academy has been translated into dozens of languages, and 100 million people use our platform worldwide every year. For more information, visit www.khanacademy.org, join us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter at @khanacademy. And remember, you can learn anything.
For free. For everyone. Forever. #YouCanLearnAnything
Subscribe to Khan Academy’s Art History channel: / channel
Subscribe to Khan Academy: th-cam.com/users/subscription_...
Uncanny, really. Thank you for condensing this. You've really boiled this down; taken all of the ingredients and made them into something greater.
Reason can be given to anything.
"Art it whatever you can get away with" Andy Warhol
I have to admit, it's a well painted can of soup.
bahahahahaah mec ta trop raison XDDDDD
The comments here reveal that the same issues that existed back in the 60s in the popular conception of art (Artistic elitism, extreme conservatism, etc) are still well and alive today. Art as it was understood (as sculpture and painting, namely) reached their breaking point by the time the Dadaists and the abstract expressionists were doing their thing; stuff like pop art, conceptual art, performance art, video art (all things that people don't like because they're "not art"--a silly, lazy and deeply ignorant statement, in my mind) was an attempt to find NEWNESS in different modalities outside the traditional one.
People (or respected artists, at least) don't paint like the masters anymore because it's a dead and mined out process. Sure, you could make something shockingly dramatic like a Carvaggio and it would be impressive on a technical level but impossibly boring on every other level. People like Warhol made different art reflecting not only the current state of art as well as the industrial consumerist culture surrounding it--their intention was both progression and subversion, to make art into something new that wasn't just an endless recycling of the Hellenic style.
James Joyce and TS Eliot and the other famed modernists and post-modernists did the same thing; elevation of the crude and the "non art" to levels of high art. In effect, they were sticking up a middle finger to the late 19th century Victorian snobs who said "ART MUST BE BEAUTIFUL BUT ALSO I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT." It's so strange to me that people will readily accept their methods of subversion but entirely reject people equally as brilliant like Warhol or Lichenstein because they have some strange pent up ideas about what visual art SHOULD be. That's exactly the problem that existed back then; you are exactly the people that every significant artist of the past 100 years is making fun of and trying to push past.
Yeah, soup cans are not as boring as Caravaggios ... ツ
thanks graff :D
Let them spit their vile, they just don't get it and will never get the genius of Warhol, a real irreverent. Neo con suckers.
Then take a used toilet commode ... Apply varnish.. Preserve that shit! Display it in museum n of course ..explain it. Call it art! Bcs that is what this person's work is. And a whole bunch of pretentious fakes acting like they
I don't see the "genius" of Warhol, I think that is a strong idea/attribution and I'm not there, but I take your point on the point of exhaustion in classical art. The fact that he commented very little on his work, though, makes me hesitant to accept these essentially unfounded and subjective readings of his work. I do find the ordinary fascinating which is the value I do see in Warhol's work, but elevating the ordinary, visually, takes the intimacy out of a daily ordinary that everyone experiences. EsPECIALLY in contemporary culture wherein every person with a smartphone and Instagram account is a "visual artist" bc they know how to work an editing app. In my opinion...
I'm not a big fan of "art", but I really like this. "It makes you feel good and empty", as said by Andy Warhol. This strange repetitiveness makes you feel good.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.”
Andy said, "if you 'get' my art you don't get it and if you don't you do."
As an artist I think these guys are over thinking it. Sometimes it's fun just to put together a bunch of sit and watch everybody gawk at it like it's a masterpiece and try to put so much meaning into it when it really means nothing at all.
Preach, I love u so much
Then there’s the meaning in your art: that art can be meaningless. And thus you have made something that is not meaningless. It’s a catch-22. Art that someone made cannot be be meaningless.
"art says nothing about the artist, only the beholder" - Oscar Wilde
Who decides it means nothing?
I think his whole point of making it was something as meaningless as a soup can, can still be something people marvel at or inspired by. Even though it is mundane, I would not be watching this video if this collection wasn’t part of my research for a current project. Hence, inspired 😊
This is such a fantastic and enlightening discussion on the motives and intentions of Warhol. You've really helped me gain a more concise understanding and foundation to build upon when further viewing his works, thank you!
I see a lot of people hating this series. Like... why? Because it's not Da Vinci or Michaelangelo? Because it's not a pretty field with bright happy colours? Because it's not art? Why? Why is it not art? Wasn't art suppost to be a thing that bringa forth emotions? Well, if it is, then this is art. It doesn't necessarily bring forth the positive ones, but Andy knew it. That's why he made this. Same with Duchamp's urinal.
Now you're an artist, because your art made me feel humorous joy. Humorous joy is a type of emotion right?
Not all opinions are equally valuable. Pretentious, while being an overused word, is exactly the word needed to describe people who find this "art" worthy of this much attention.
I like Khan Acdmy.. But this is the most exaggerated, pretentious discussion. Interpreting anything that Warhol did as greatness. This painting is 100% about the artist and not about the art at all. Changing how you look at something isn't art. This happens everyday. If that was the reasoning, then lets put any everyday photo or object in a gallery(& this happens). When nothing can't be art, then nothing can really be art. What is and isn't art is completely meaningless. Let's just stop using the word.
It is pretension, but Warhol never talked this way, though. He never pretended to be great, he knew as a painter he wasn't as good as many others. It is true, it was all about him, because artists of all sorts need to get initial attention to get their pass into the industry. Then they can be more free. Like the Beatles starting out covering American r&b music and boy band pop to get in the door. After this project he was mainly painting pictures with some graphic screening over it, what he liked to do. He did know how to sustain business by regularly interspersing these kind of well thought out "jokes" which brought him "up to date" with the art industry. Him and his team were also super productive, because he knew (like baseball averages) that you will only hit 2 to 4 out of every 10, so he did make a lot of crap, but was more honest about this part. Kind of rambling, thanks if you're reading wink ,< < :)
Good point. Warhol's true work of "art" was his own legend, publicity, and media manipulation. (The screen prints was just a way to buy a piece of the glamour. )
I think that both voices complete encapsulates the work of andy, but not in a….🤔 that makes me roll my eyes. Well done.
people sitting around intellectualizing stills of soup cans.
022171 Art is wild my dude.
Pop Art is about simple consumerist icons that we live amongst in our daily lives but pay no attention to the importance behind the objects. I suppose none of you like the work of Lichtenstein either?
It would be a sad world if the only "good" art in the world was a landscape painting of the countryside.
Andy Warhol's work was satirizing popular art. You have artists who are literally selling their artwork; marketing it to galleries and rich snobs who will buy it for lots of money. He was mocking that. Art isn't about marketing your work and making money, its about creation and the ideas that spring forth from them. This idea seemed to be lost by many people.
This video is bad, it tries too hard. Yes there are multiple interpretations, but that doesnt mean some dont make more sense than others.
Zyphet lost on quite a few who unfortunately run museums and galleries.
"You have artists who are literally selling their artwork... and rich snobs who will buy it for lots of money." Ah if you took an art history class you would realize that this has been going on since the Renaissance era.
I'm pretty sure it's art cause he painted what he loved. It's as simple as that. There is no deeper meaning.
underrated comment
If you think he was trying to make a critical statement by painting those cans, consider this: Andy Warhol got one of his filmmakers to film him eating a cheeseburger while taking pauses to smirk and dab his face with his napkin... for nearly five minutes.
Q^
lincoln
Jou
^&e31"p
exactly
Links please. I need that in my life.
It was for a foreign film called Scenes of America or something like that.
Ten years ago, I took a page out of Andy Warhol's series of Campbell's Soup Can paintings and did paintings of soda cans in my painting class at an art studio that used to be in the town I currently live in (I live in Medina, NY - I used to live in Albion, NY). There was Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Sun Drop (a soda that's not too common in WNY), A&W Root Beer, Dr. Pepper, and, for you fans of Futurama, a Slurm can (it's highly addictive!). I guess you guys could call it "Soda pop art".
art is what ever you perceive as art...
The reason it is iconic and important and it is considered Art is, Andy used a medium for Mass Production, Silk Screen Printing, to produce prints of mass produced consumer products, and No one had ever done that.
my art teacher making me sit around and watch a can of soup, and write 5 facts about it. Imma write it on a napkin...
Sal, you ask all the right questions man. Love it.
Its art because it brought modern art back into the scene after abstract art. Abstract art was the rage..... then BAM !!! ANdy says welcome to POP
abstract art is modern art.
It tells us a lot about society
Art is interesting, because you can peek into how others view the world. Art is more interesting if you're interested in others.
If you scratch a little deeper, Warhol is also making a very witty comment about the genre of Still Life for a modern industrial world.
I am writing about Andy Warhol in one of my chapters of my Fine Art dissertation, After dismissing him for years as POP, I am absolutely blown away by his work. You just wouldn't realise that most of his work is about death , especially relating to the mass consumerism, celebrity and media control. Totally mind blowing and clever beyond clever.
bet campbell's didn't complain. prob paid him too
Sorry, Im from the group that thinks Warhol is shit,
1 name for that Robert Hughes
From my point of view, this is art in the sense that it makes me laugh. It's like visual comedy and sarcasm. What makes it most interesting is that one does not know what to think of it: is it a serious work or is the author just trying to make fun of how seriously artists take themselves?
andy warhol was one massive troll who tricked the whole world into talking about cans of soup for probably hundreds of years to come and to be taught at schools and lecture halls because he was an artist and art is profoundly indecisive and compulsive, it doesn't know what it wants, but it knows it wants it now
A genius troll whom wasted his talent, on very subjective artistic expression. Minus making Uber- consumeristic values seem overtly repetitive\mechanical\pointless philosophically. Wether he intended to , or not, it is only good he accomplished. He glamorized triviality, Too obviously (Esp in a non\pre-yuppie era). The question is, what were his true intentions or cultural goals?
"The invariable mark of wisdom is to see the miraculous in the common."
- - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Not by adoring stupid idiotic things.
I like how there is only 301 views (so far) and yet there are 71 comments. That says something.
The same reason why pie, mustaches, and nutella are so popular even though they're not that great.
half the people on these comments didn't even listen to the discussion in the video
i love you for being honest. yay!
How can i look for more videos like this from kahn academy !???
I like soup. Thank you Andy Warhol.
Whyyy is this art?
That is a good question! Lol. :p
As an artist myself, I can tell you this: Artists create things that they want to create and only when asked of them what is the meaning behind their piece do they answer with a deeper meaning that is normally bullshit.
speak for yourself!
Holy crap, did not notice that xD
He sure was dedicated to his craft and making moola. Thumbs up to him
Lunch-tray on Saturday XD
U M A M I has, through his own art, created an expanded view on the concept of the value presented by soup. Warhol chose to focus on the commercial nature of mass production and the concept that even the most mundane can be celebrated as art, but he missed an opportunity to truly define the existential meaning of soup (or any lasting legacy for humanity for that matter.) U M A M I ‘s videos “the end of an era” and “the cycle of life,” showcase U M A M I ‘s view of the existential meaning of soup quite nicely, albeit in a dark comedic way. Both videos can be found here on TH-cam.
That was a fascinating discussion. Khan would make a great host on a show that would be his version of Charlie Rose.
Many people take art too seriously, they think that the subject of any given piece of art has to be something inspired. They also worry about how technically challenging a piece of art was to create. Enjoy a piece of art for what it is, not what you expect it to be.
Everything is a test. While I may rely on art critics to give me historic significance for whatever swirls of paint I'm looking at on a wall, I'm my own judge as to what constitutes art. As they say, "I know it when I see it." Just because critics lent some con-artist credibility 40 years ago doesn't mean I have to make the same mistake. Warhol's real art was pulling the wool over the eyes of his contemporaries. In that *was* an artist. Back-story is a commodity. Warhol saw that and sold it.
You don't have to like ALL art, but art is essential in a civilised & beautiful society.
Art is music too, but you don't have to like every genre.
So pick & choose, but please don't despise ALL art.
i think the love for the detail, that warhol put in it, stands against the perfectionism of industrial manufacturing.
You just made another piece of art.
I like your point of view, though I believe there could be many interpretations of those images, and also we cannot tell what Warhol was thinking . We can only think by ourselfes.
Andy Warhol is both a wise man, and a wise guy
This video is not necessarily referring to Andy Warhol and his style but more so about the statement he was making in defiance of mass production which society and industries were evolving into in the late 1800s by early 1900s.
Art is always literally something else. A painting is a dried oil or water based paste smeared on a wooden board or stretched out cotton cloth on a frame. "This is not a pipe" has just as much truth as "This is piss in a bottle". The question is, are those statements true or false?
Art is easy to define anything that evokes emotion from the individual. If you hate it, its art if you love it its art. If you have no feeling toward it then its nothing... The medium dose not matter the emotion dose.
Are you joking or do you legitimately believe that? Irving Blum, an art dealer and gallery owner, visited Warhol at his studio after he was featured for something else in a Time article. While at the studio he saw all of the Cambell's paintings and was amazed that he had not had his own exhibit yet. He then offered to set him up with his own show, after which he bought all 32 of the paintings. It wasn't just some silly mistake.
I LOVE CAMPBELL'S SOUP!
LOVE
If Warhol was trying to sincerely express the ideas discussed in this video, you write an essay about it not have the message lost in this "art" that fails in communicating such ideas.
It may not be art, but it is some damn good fine design
Ana Luiza Brown It’s both
amen
Because before andy they didn't have a world of advertising color and americana. Warhol captures the Americana experience and changed america
Agreed.
Why do people unnecessarily make everything so complicated. These guys sound like my Literature teachers.
Art? woaw! :)
Art is what artists make. Let’s make it simple. You can discuss it until you’re blue in the face. It won’t change a thing. You can give your opinion about whether YOU THINK the project was worth doing. Whether Warhol’s aesthetic holds up. Whether you like it or not. But this doesn’t change the fact that Andy chose to paint these pictures. Would I pay skate-eight zillion dollars for one? No way. I’d paint one myself.
Warhol introduced the possibility for cheap art for everyone. No need to pay 5.2 million for a picture on your wall. You can have have something every bit as good for pennies. The silkscreens are hand made. Each one is unique due to variations in the inking process etc. Each one slightly different. I digitally printed “Marilyns” on canvas to original dimensions, and my friends has “Warhols” over their bed for free.
If you really take a look at culture, pop or otherwise, how people decorate their lives with aesthetic objects and images, -today-look at the kind of art that gets made, how it gets made, certainly anyone can see that Andy Warhol was a turning point. His work keeps looking better and better, especially if you see the real thing in person.
I am really grateful that my parents are paying for my higher education in order for me to sit around listening to two goobers talking about a can of soup.
this is sweet
You're right, I apologise. I don't hate all art, I think I was just being provocative.
I think art perception it's subjective and it's up to the one who looks at a painting/listens to music/etc. to decide if something is art or not.
Andy should have sued Campbell's for selling Imitation Warhol's
Not particularly. Some unusual things are downright disturbing. Its not that uniqueness is beautiful, but that hard work and inspiration leads to beautiful things that happen to be unique. I can see none of these things in Warhol's work here. What is it that you see?
Reminds me of idiocracy where everybody thought the main character was a douchebag because of the way he was talking and he was just talking normally. If you don't follow, I really hope you are being sarcastic and the people who thumbed you up get the joke.
Campbell's soup was available in the 1800s. So he was not portraying the now as much as he was saying "what is art?" You should have the explored that context more. Jackson Pollacks "drip" paintings. Roy Lichtenstein "comics" paintings. Jasper Johns "American flag" paintings. All these artists were saying that art is not just a painting of a naked woman on a canvas. You mentioned the Sistine chapel which portrays art as super expensive only to be viewed by the pope. Art was elitist. Andy and pop art brought art to the masses. Art could be a can of soup. A bottle of coke. An experience that could be shared universally - by the pope and by a 6th grade student in the usa and by a woman wearing a sari in india.
You could go this in depth about a haystack or a recycle bin, drawing all sorts of pithy conclusions. But why is this GOOD if no one looks at it and thinks, "Hey, this is good?" If even the people who like it have to be taught why, it probably isn't very good.
Art is like agreeing or disagreeing with people's worldviews, which are varied and multi-dimensional.
HE LITERALLY PAINTED SOUP CANS TO SEE IF HE COULD GET ADVERTS IN AN ART MUSEUM. And look at him now... He used to be an Artist in the 1950s but as soon as the 60s hit. He got bored of the strict rules in art so he made the soup cans.
Lol some artists have gotten away with some pretty mundane /weird/or just down right stupid things in the name of art.
inconceivabledark And what, pray tell, is the name of art?
It is interesting they brought up the industrial transformance of society, but his point concerning mass production is (imo) wrong. Warhol didn't view it as an absence of individual features in this era, he saw the small often overlooked flaws and unique features of even massproduced things, wich made them unique. Imo he wanted to show this, not just turn bleak stuff into art
The thing with anime is that a lot of true artists hate it because you get so many teenagers that think they're artists because they can draw anime characters, when technically it's an incredibly easy style. Personally I prefer to see anime as a medium of expression and story-telling for those with less artistic ability, time or resources, which is an art just like hip-hop is a genre of music.
stop looking at art in a visually technical manner. The artist in animes are not so much the drawers but the story writers. Not all art is painting/drawing and not all paintings have to be technically hard to be considered art.
wow...I'm amazed how how much fantasies going through the brain of art! Well..I guess that's why its call an art
This is post modern art as a counter reaction to *modern* art. It was almost a protest to the disconnection masters like Picasso and Dali created between the artist to the audience. Basically, post modernism is a reaction to snobbery.
It accidentally showed up in some art show ... the people of art were too stubborn to realize their mistake, so they called it art.
Scotty Catman That’s not true at all
I read that Warhol painted Campbell soup cans because he hated them. His family was poor and he drank Campbell soups repeatedly
Warhol was an art *commentator* showing the rest of the world how gullible and frivolous the world of art critique had become. He enjoyed toying with the mystique of art criticism and the borrowed credibility he found bestowed upon him by so-called 'experts'. His real art was pulling the wool over the eyes of 'the art world'. The masses smirk, remaining unconvinced that he produced real art. Art critics continue the myth because it would be inconvenient to devalue his junk today. Brilliant.
I always thought it was symbolic of lazy. This is art as Campbell Soup is to homemade cooking.
You can't spell fart without art.
I personally think he was exploiting the fact that a lot of people will buy into anything as art, it's like showing your nan a really bad picture and her telling you it's great even though you know it's terrible.
I suppose my standard would be the amount of effort and creativity (and perhaps skill) it takes to create something. The message of these cans was not a difficult one to articulate, and the cans themselves are as impressive as unmolded clay. Today, anyone can slap a philosophic message onto a doodle and people like you will call it the Sistine Chapel. I want art museums to be filled with things that only a few people throughout history where capable of creating.
Techncially his response was factual.
(cont'd) most of the modern art serves no purpose other than to say "I laugh in the face of all classical techniques and show you that I can make art out of anything, look at me."
Art should have a purpose.
Shakaama Incorrect and ignorant
So you can say, "I like this, it's very repetitive". But you can also say, "I don't like this, it's too repetitive". It all depends on your view.
Wow, its really nice to see how no one in the comments is fooled by warhol's ruse.
Modern art = more about ideas and conveying concepts as opposed to showing off great technique
...got it.
Now I know math AND artsy!
7 years have passed, did you manage to sell anything?
Ha ho, look at all this soup! I'll be taking all your soup!
Guys! Do you know why Warhol painted this? He just liked Campell's soup. Quite reading so much into it.
"art" is entirely what the artist intended. I get it.
Eggzachly
At Tate Modern there was a piece where it was a square of plain canvas with a cut in the middle... And that's modern art? Tate Modern had to be one of the most boring places that I've ever been... There was only one exhibit (of a model bridge) which was interesting. I just see a picture of flavours of soup. I worry when people say they see more.