Modernism vs. Postmodernism

Postmodern art immediately makes me think of Andy Warhol, as the book also said. Reading about the life of Andy Warhol and his factory, it seems as though his art was a sort of inside joke, produced for an elite group of people to share; however, that's obviously not what happened. Take for example his piece with the Campbell's soup can. The general public was able to relate to and mediate the irony and simplicity in the piece because of its universality and the time in which it was presented. In this way, I believe postmodernism is both a reactionary and a progressive phenomenon. What other reason can we use to explain why his famous artwork still translates thirty or more years later? This idea of taking a piece of a culture, specifically Western and American culture, and using it as inspiration has obviously proved marketable.

The most significant difference between Andy Warhol's Diamond Dust Shoes and Vincent Van Gogh's Peasant Shoes is the composition. Both pieces depict the typical life of a person in a different time period. Van Gogh's painting illustrates the hard work of an everyday peasant. The end of their day looks much like the painting, relaxation and relief, perhaps solitary. It's assumed that the wearer of the shoes is male; however, we do not know for sure. Warhol's piece depicts the life of a woman, or as famously associated with Warhol, a drag queen, it's assumable that he or she lives a life of glamour and postmodern fashion. Numerous shoes suggest that the wearer of the shoes is either not alone, or can afford to have more than one pair of shoes. Both pieces illustrate the general lives of people in their respective time periods.