Andy Warhol’s fabulous joke

// added November 14, 2009 // 55 comments //
Image...
disembedded
200 One Dollar Bills: Andy Warhol’s Fabulous Joke

Unfortunately, Andy Warhol’s not around to enjoy the fabulous joke of his pictures of money grabbing so much money. His 1962 silk-screen painting “200 One Dollar Bills” sold for $43.8 million at Sotheby’s this week, more than four times its estimated selling price. The seven-and-a-half-foot-wide canvas, one of Warhol’s first silk-screen paintings, looks like just what you’d think: 200 one-dollar bills. The current record for a Warhol painting is $71.7 million for “Green Car Crash,” which was sold at Christie’s in 2007. Yes, if you just take a wide look at today’s contemporary art world, that confection of bucks, puff and street smarts, you realize anew that Andy Warhol was the big daddy of it all.

But is this painting, a solid wall of greenbacks, really beautiful? Well, in the art world Warhol completely changed our idea of beauty so, yes, it is. He was also one of the first modern artists to say out loud that money itself is beautiful, is art, which has helped create the reality that, aesthetically speaking, it is as often as not, the price tag, not what it’s attached to, that generates value. So the new owner of “200 One Dollar Bills” got a funny old print on canvas all tarted up with some paint, which he or she succeeded in making super-famous and valuable by paying so much for it. Wow. That’s talent. And as for Warhol, did he already suspect in 1962 that in making his art he would be so good at printing money for many, many years? He was such a cultural clairvoyant, you just know he knew.

This piece includes photographs of Warhol's painting, as well as the short video, “Warhol's 200 One Dollar Bills.”

To view Warhol's painting and the video, please visit my website:

http://disembedded.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/200-one-dollar-bills-andy-warhols-fa...
  1. groups:
    Movies,   Upstream,   News,   Current Tonight,   9 more
  2. tags:
    News Entertainment Culture Art 19 more

55 comments // Andy Warhol’s fabulous joke

  • JollyGoodFelon
    • 0
      JollyGoodFelon  
    • Silk screening is not an art, it's an industrial process. I appreciate Warhol's ability to separate fools from their money most of all. And I also appreciate how he boosts everyone's self confidence by looking so bad. When he was alive, you could be reasonably certain there was somebody uglier than you on the planet.

    • 3 months ago
  • Nephwrack
  • disembedded
  • disembedded
  • crispyfritters
  • connected_dots
    • 0
      connected_dots  
    • Hidden messages. Like reality nothing is what it seems. These paintings have hidden meanings, I could only describe in a way you may understand, like the pictures at the mall, w/ a hidden sailboat or a whale or whatever. Remember what happened during the 60's, Manson, the Beatles, Vietnam, JFK & remember this was a product of the paranoid 50's which was a result of propaganda about Fascists, Jews, & Communists & WW2. Squint your eyes, slow your breathing, sit back from the screen, relax your eyes, & let your mind go, focus on the whole of the work as the work, not each individual piece, let the patterns develop, give it time in your minds eye not reality. You will not believe your eyes, & you will understand why people pay this much money, nothing is what it seems, money has no value, this type of art is priceless.

    • 3 months ago
  • disembedded
  • CalgarC
  • disembedded
  • scarlettcutie_01
  • disembedded
  • loupetho
    • 0
      loupetho  
    • If art aesthetics, then this is crap.
      If art is a comment on your society that touches the collective conscious, a business, a circus, then this is art.

      So, if this is art then it's a comment on what America was in the 60s and this sale says it hasn't changed. In my opinion that means a society that is way too focused on making money, at whatever the cost to others.

      Personally, I think the art we see is a shadow of what the artist experienced at the time of creation, and if that experience has a fundamental resonance to society then it's art. But seriously, I've given up trying to understand what art is. I get more of a kick experiencing a wilderness area in a way that I can't explain it, rather than trying to understand why objects in large buildings are called art.

    • 3 months ago
  • disembedded
    • 0
      disembedded  
    • loupetho:

      Hi loupetho,

      I agree with your comments about Warhol's work being "a comment on what America was in the 60s and this sale says it hasn't changed." America's still living in the fantasy-world of Studio 54!

      Best wishes to you.

    • 3 months ago
  • bailey78
  • Pawper
    • 0
      Pawper  
    • "But is this painting, a solid wall of greenbacks, really beautiful? Well, in the art world Warhol completely changed our idea of beauty so, yes, it is. He was also one of the first modern artists to say out loud that money itself is beautiful, is art, which has helped create the reality that, aesthetically speaking, it is as often as not, the price tag, not what it’s attached to, that generates value."

      Value is not really an aesthetic, nor did Warhol change our idea of beauty; rather, he was probably the most famous pop artist, less concerned with aesthetics (including beauty) and more with making a statement--which could be that money is beautiful or that we often value the pricetag more than the art itself, but certainly not redefining anything but our perception. However, Warhol did indeed know; he was an eye-opener.

    • 3 months ago
  • disembedded
  • disembedded
  • LarzNero
  • Stever_B
    • 0
      Stever_B  
    • Beauty is ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder — it is futile to try to come to a definitive consensus about what constitutes art.

    • 3 months ago
  • disembedded
  • TasteHi
    • 0
      TasteHi  
    • Lets say we never knew anything about the united states....that we were all foreigners...Would any of his works hold meaning?....I woud certainly wonder "what the hell am I looking at?", but none of his work is really inspiring.

      He certainly was an artist, however not one I would bother comparing to other artists of the time like maybe ...Trisha Brown (whom imo has a MUCH more advanced understanding of what art IS and has the ability to create something thought provoking) . No I feel like he was more of a con-artist always moching the world of art.

    • 3 months ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • Art is so subjective; I can understand if you are not personally a fan of Warhol's work, but who's to say what's "real" art? People pay hand over fist for small figure sketches by Picasso, Dali and other artists before their names were famous, is it any different?

      To say something like "The value isn't real" doesn't make sense to me; the value of art is determined differently depending on what aspect we are talking about- the artist may find value in their expression or skill, an onlooker may find value in the message they interpret from it, a buyer may assign a number value to the piece - they are all valid.

      Like it or not, Andy Warhol redefined the art movement in his time, capitvated millions of people and continues to inspire artists even after his death. What's not real about that?

    • 3 months ago
  • disembedded
  • bailey78
    • 0
      bailey78  
    • I like this so many that never met the man say they don't like him. How are you going to judge a person you have never met in person? I like some of his work and yet some of it is so strange that one must wonder was this guy tripping on something when he did this? I hope his work makes many people wonder and Think.

    • 3 months ago
  • disembedded
  • Pawper
  • bailey78
  • nursediesel
  • bailey78
    • 0
      bailey78  
    • bailey78:

      Well he did not bother any one did he? I no of no complants about him. He is just another dead hippy that ran his cycle of life and did somethings to get peoples attention. Thats just what he wanted out of life just what he put into it

    • 3 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • disembedded
  • funnicus
    • 0
      funnicus [removed]  
    • It's not a joke. No hint of a joke anywhere. 43.8 million spent on a silkscreen is just stupid. If warhol started today his art would probably be churned out by bubble jet printer. What a pasty faced freak couldn't even comb his hair.

    • 3 months ago
  • ozoneocean
    • 0
      ozoneocean  
    • Beuaty or lack of it has nothing to do with it. "art" of this type is a commodity, like gold, or oil, or diomonds. The value isn't real, it's agreed on, it has nothing what so ever to do with the work itself. The wealthy trade in this stuff like shares or any other item of value. That's all it is, it's been totally subsumed by the marketplace, in an industry far more complex that Warhol's feeble joke.

    • 3 months ago
  • disembedded
  • Glock_Gurl
  • disembedded
  • Minus5scenePoints
    • 0
      Minus5scenePoints  
    • I'm very torn with mr. Warhol. I like and appreciate his work, he had his own style and managed to do some much with it. but, at the same time, he is kinda overrated. he was also a cocky prick too. Case in point. Watch Factory Girl, i think in many ways, that encompasses his true pro-trail.

    • 3 months ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • disembedded
  • reactionforce
  • CalgarC
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • Nephwrack
  • donnyin3d
  • disembedded
  • nursediesel
    • 0
      nursediesel  
    • donnyin3d:

      Yeah, even his family won't admit to being related to him. Yeah, art teachers are sometimes detached from reality, I had one that drooled over Yoko Ono's ice sculpture melting concept. I told my niece, 'if you had a rich benefactor you were famous. No one wanted to dis you whether you had talent or not!" Oh, and an a big ego didn't hurt cause you could take the money for your art work when it wasn't worth the price.

    • 3 months ago
  • gurillamack
  • disembedded
    • 0
      disembedded  
    • gurillamack:

      Hi gurillamack,

      I don't know about his philosophy (even though I did hang around his Silver Factory in New York City in the 1960s for a short while). But here I described the art world he influenced as a confection of bucks, puff and street smarts. So I have to agree with some of your observations. Thanks for your comments!

      Best wishes to you.

    • 3 months ago
  • reactionforce
    • 0
      reactionforce  
    • gurillamack:

      Thank you, I couldn't agree more, with the exception of some of his earlier illustration. The work isn't terrible. It is kind of interesting. But the fact that he got rich off of this bothers me. I'm an art student, I don't like him, some of my teachers orgasm at the mention of his name. Back to swatches.

    • 3 months ago
  • FlexSF
  • funnicus
    • 0
      funnicus [removed]  
    • gurillamack:

      Nice to see somebody who knows what they are talking about in the world of people who see the emperor's clothes, such as people who think silkscreens / photocopies / pictures etc are "art"

      I make little Steven Seagal figurines, but I don't trouble the world with them as "art" I make them in my butt, and flush when complete. I'm working on one right now as I type!

    • 3 months ago
  • BleachCore_912
    • 0
      BleachCore_912  
    • gurillamack:

      Agreed with reactionforce, though his work is interesting, the millions he made? Rediculous. It wasn't THAT interesting.
      I'm a bigger fan of Dail's surrealism.
      But really, the only art worth that kind of money would be from the artist Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci.

    • 3 months ago
  • Hoax_Productions
    • 0
      Hoax_Productions  
    • Andy Warhol was one unconventionally larger than life character - it only makes sense that his image become bigger and bigger after he no longer contributes to the world.

    • 3 months ago
  • disembedded

Add your comment

current videos