Maybe. But I wonder if all the photos how many would be considered legendary? I mean, I suspect if you viewed the vast majority outside of the context of "Taken by A. Warhol". The article of course does acknowledge at least some to be mundane. I know I do sometimes take many more photos than I should - those that at best I find slightly amusing. Surely many of his would hardly rate.
Art without an artist's signature is worth much less than with. What Warhol was able to do once he had a reputation was create the situation to have these "mundane" photos taken. In other words, he was the driver as celebs were drawn to his reputation.
I think that the main appeal of this is that he captured a moment of time. It sounds like lots of street photos and candid photos of people both famous and not.
Groovy. Reminds me of a news piece on fabrication of and the gray area of authenticity when it comes to "Warhol's" works due to collective art production, replicability of techniques used and prolificness.
Andy Warhol was a legend.
Maybe. But I wonder if all the photos how many would be considered legendary? I mean, I suspect if you viewed the vast majority outside of the context of "Taken by A. Warhol". The article of course does acknowledge at least some to be mundane. I know I do sometimes take many more photos than I should - those that at best I find slightly amusing. Surely many of his would hardly rate.
Art without an artist's signature is worth much less than with. What Warhol was able to do once he had a reputation was create the situation to have these "mundane" photos taken. In other words, he was the driver as celebs were drawn to his reputation.
I think that the main appeal of this is that he captured a moment of time. It sounds like lots of street photos and candid photos of people both famous and not.
Groovy. Reminds me of a news piece on fabrication of and the gray area of authenticity when it comes to "Warhol's" works due to collective art production, replicability of techniques used and prolificness.