3 ms·

Someone saw "artistic value" in a bunch of soup cans[0], so I'm not sure that the phrase, "artistic value" has an actual meaning. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/w

• femto 15y ago
  That's an interesting case to raise in a copyright context. How would have Warhol been treated in today's trademark and copyright law environment? It seems there wasn't a problem in 1964. [1] http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-soup.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-...
  • lbotos 15y ago
    We ran an Campbells/Warhol exhibit at my school and all the information that was provided to us was that they had worked well together as he had no "negative impact" for Campbells. I would assume the same would be true today.
• lbotos 15y ago
  Warhol’s view is encapsulated in the quote ". . . a group of painters have come to the common conclusion that the most banal and even vulgar trappings of modern civilization can, when transposed to canvas, become Art." - A quote from your link I agree that "artistic value" may be a hard defense in court, but the paintings are not about soup. They are about us. The things that we create and our ideas on culture and society. See Duchamp: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp] "The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act." - Marcel Duchamp