1967: Andy Warhol and Nico as Batman and Robin

Photoshoot for Esquire Magazine.   Images c. Globe Photos.

Sources: Rhian Bowley; Morgansea; Veinsthud

23 Responses

  1. Robert

    I still have not seen anything that causes me to believe Andy Warhol had any talent, skill or creativity, whatsoever.

    Reply
    • Meh

      I’m with you, Robert. I don’t get what’s so spectacular about this.

      Reply
    • J P McMahon

      Robert, Literally everything Andy did in his life was art. The sheer volume of material he created in every medium was staggering. A poor coal miner’s son from Pittsburgh had the glitterati of New York eating out of the palm of his hand. Painting and sculpture got about as good as it could get during the Renaissance, and then with the Impressionists. He figured out how to make an entirely different thing into to art; the common stuff of the modern world. Like this.

      Reply
      • Bruce Bethany

        The family were not rich, but surely not poor. Andy’s father was not
        a miner, but a working man who provided for the family. In New York Warhol had a knack for illustrations of shoes, clothing and such. He tapped into that commercial illustration world, finally promoting it as serious art. Savvy gallery folk like Ivan Karp and Leo Castelli, both eager to find art to compete with abstract expressionism, so along came POP.

  2. Hollowsquare

    @Robert – We have not yet seen signs of intelligent life from you.

    Reply
    • Robert

      So explain to me why it is that someone would see these photos as “amazing” so I can “get it.” Please, attempt to enlighten me and tell me why I should be impressed with these photographs.

      Reply
  3. Aaron Martin-Colby

    I hate Andy Warhol. A man of supreme arrogance who did little more than mess around with stuff.

    And I have no problem with that! Messing around with stuff has produced many a great thing. But Warhol was self-obsessed and self-important to the extreme. Groundless arrogance I cannot tolerate.

    Reply
    • Robert

      When a talentless group of people is struggling for relevance in the artistic community, you’re going to get an Andy Warhol. He was only a celebrity. Made for, and by, sycophants. Much like a Kardashian.

      Reply
      • Marc

        Andy Wahol was a Pop Artist artist and film maker of some importance of his period. It was not his celebrity status alone that made him an Icon and Legend … as he actually had to produce works of art that said something and films that had meaning. Maybe, with greater understanding, it is possible that opinions will change.

  4. gladeye

    Not MY wirds, but…Andy Warhol was one of the most influential artists of the second half of the 20th century, creating some of the most recognizable images ever produced. Challenging the idealist visions and personal emotions conveyed by abstraction, Warhol embraced popular culture and commercial processes to produce work that appealed to the general public. He was one of the founding fathers of the Pop art movement, expanding the ideas of Duchamp by challenging the very definition of art. His artistic risks and constant experimentation with subjects and media made him a pioneer in almost all forms of visual art.

    Reply
  5. al

    Warhol said and lived this motto: “Art is what you can get away with.”

    Reply
  6. Cherie

    If you don’t “get it” don’t worry..there are enough of us that do.

    Reply
    • Rusty

      Pretentious people who appreciates a pretentious artist.
      No shortage of them, if that’s your point.

      Reply
  7. Nicholas

    Andy is overrated these days. He was amazing in his time and people are still familiar with his work. We would have had to grow up in that time period to really understand it. We have no right to judge it really, so all you hipster bandwagoners shut up. Let’s not forget Andy Warhol got musicians to form The Velvet Underground & Nico!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.