Andy Warhol, along with Jackson Pollock, are the two marquee visual artists of the American Art Revolution following World War II. There is little denying Warhol’s popularity and influence; his art style is still featured on clothing and posters to date. His unique style was what separated him from other artists at the time, and had an eye for making art out of the ordinary.
A lot of Warhol’s art makes you question the definition of art. Art is typically defined as being worked by a human hand, and Warhol’s art certainly was, but does art necessarily have to be beautiful? Does art have to portray something? Does art that has no meaning deserve to be classified as art? If you asked Warhol he would most likely tell you that art does not have to be complicated, and that is the beauty of art. It is meant for the masses to perform and observe.
While I dislike most of Warhol’s works due to their simplicity and lack of explicit meaning, I can certainly say that his work came at a very important time for art world wide. Europe had been devastated by war, and people were looking for something that distracted them from the reparation of their war torn countries. It was during this period of time that a fair number of art circles migrated to New York and Los Angeles, allowing for American artists to take the stage globally. Warhol’s art was an opiate to the masses. Andy Warhol may not have been universally admired, but he certainly was universally known. Worldwide people were interested in his renditions of popular culture icons, and slices of life. That period of time in Warhol gave the world a bowl of American culture, a dish the world has been eating ever since.