I Have GOT to Stop Confusing These

There are only two qualities both of these pieces share. The first is that they are both artwork with a level of social commentary. The second is that they are both pictures of shoes.
The Van Gogh picture carries commentary about the working man, which may seem obvious, but, well, there it is. The shoes are worn, but still solid, and are a crucial part of the peasant's life. Those shoes are clearly weathering a fare amount from day to day, much as the peasant does. On the other hand, Warhol's picture carries some strong commentary about the New York City scene at the time, when parties were happening all the time, and hard work was the least of most concerns. In many ways, the shoes of both images are directly representational of their owners. If Van Gogh didn't paint a portrait of the peasant to whom these shows belong, but I can already get a fair idea of what he or she, probably he, would look like. On the other hand, I look at Warhol's picture, and I can get just as graphic a picture of the owners of those various heels. They all look a lot like Edie Sedgwick.
As a bit of a tangent, I have noticed an interesting pattern. Van Gogh was a painter in the traditional sense, making fine art for, one would assume, fine audiences. Warhol made a very good living out of making art for the masses, pieces that were meant to be reproduced with ease and with frequency. Yet, in their times, Van Gogh was ignored by the elite, and Warhol was taken up to be the very highest of high art, in exact contrast to both artists' original intents. Well, what can be assumed to be their original intents. I just thought that was interesting.