Talentless hack or misunderstood genius?

Talentless hack or misunderstood genius?

Both, actually.

>misunderstood

how? everyone gets it. the world is now how he wanted it to be. art for all. all surface.

This.

He wasn't a skilled artist, obviously. What he was doing, however, was making an attempt (that was successful) to point out the context of his "art".

In some ways it's the antidote to pretentiousness, isn't it?

>He wasn't a skilled artist, obviously.
Yeah, ((((obviously))))

Whether you like it or not, he really did win in the end didn't he

...

More accurately, if he was skilled, he wasn't utilizing his technical skill in his most influential pieces, you giant faggot.

The point is that he was more of a social commentator than an artist. Or at least in terms of his influence.

>More accurately, if he was skilled, he wasn't utilizing his technical skill in his most influential pieces, you giant faggot.
nice damage control
he was a superb draughtsman and you were obviously dressing up your opinion based on nothing more than basic-bitch meme knowledge of his soup tins, no amount of ipso facto """clarification""" will change that

That looks like shit.

Yeah I don't know that much about him other than what is commonly known. Sort of my point. His most influential works were not his "superb draughtsman" works, it was his pop-art. He is known for his pop-art, which is not technically artistically impressive.

Also one could argue that those drawings are not all that technically impressive.

misunderstood hack

came here to post this

>Sort of my point.
Should have said so rather than saying he was obviously unskilled. His pop art works were reached after a long period of experimentation and a successful career as a commercial artist. He went on to further experiment with media and style, I am personally a fan of his screen-printed photomontage work.

Frankly I would have thought the confidence of his line work in those drawings was pretty obvious, even if the style isn't to taste.

nice damage control

[spoiler]not even the guy you're replying to[/spoiler]

How? Are you reading the same reply chain as I?

Neither.
He was a capitalist.

He made a lot of money by industrialising art.

Obviously is a kike?


MEIN GOTT

Talentless genius, misunderstood hack.

He wasn't "talented" in a traditional sense. But his art is quite important.

Only genius in history to have an IQ of 80

/thread

He was a fucking hack and a shitty person who used bad art to fulfill his insatiable fetish of becoming famous.

How

The only good thing he ever did was make The Velvet Underground famous.

And the only decent thing the Velvet Underground did was that album

>a hyped graphic designer
>genius

Needs more Bridgman. :^)

>not White Light/White Heat

TERRIBLE opinion

All four albums have their charm and merit. The band became less noisy and way less experimental after John Cale left but Lou was a good enough writer to keep it going.

I think their self-titled is objectively a lot better

Objectively? Fuck off senpai

Who misunderstands him?

Rusnak subhuman

Are you just trolling now. That is utter garbage

You're not making a very strong case.

White Light/White Heat is pretty good too.

Came here to say this. /thread

He recognized the potential for incorporating the elements of mass production and consumerism into art. He was also very good at incorporating the lifestyle of the artist into his art.

From this perspective he was a visionary of his time.

He also made a shit ton of money and bohemian hanger oners

Those are in a minimalist style, but clearly show some talent.
Source: I know about art

Again, don't confuse personal taste as some sort of objective barometer of ability. I know this is Veeky Forums but you don't have to shit on something just because you don't like it- clearly he has confidence and skill as a draughtsman regardless of how you personally feel about the output.

A misunderstood hack.

bump