Tuesday, May 18, 2010

May Flowers

A while back, I wrote about how photography is the new painting. It was probably something you should read about here. Anyway, today, I was again reminded of how much our digital (and analog) devices warp the world around us while at my trusty gallery day job. I was looking for information about the work above to the right, the hot pink Warhol flowers. After doing a little research on the piece, I discovered it actually looked like the picture on the left, more of an orangey-coral than a fuchsia. When a work relies on one single specific color to differentiate itself from hundreds of other, it seems like good, true to life artwork photography would be a priority for those dealing with the piece. But good artwork photography is hard to get and digital images degrade over time (just like paintings) so distortion continues to be a problem.

I'm still backed up here at F***ART, and have yet to post about the May auctions or my recent viewing of the short film 16 Minutes with Ultra Violet, but stay tuned for more posts soon, I promise!

Also, a side note: what species are Warhol's "flowers"? He obviously chose the image as quintessentially floral, but no amount of googling seems to yeild me with an answer as to what this most-floral of flowers is. (The fact that it's a pretty blown-out image doesn't help my search either)


  1. great article here, thx for sharing"

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. i believe these are different warhol prints

  4. they are actually the exact same piece according to the catalogue raisonne numbers that the warhol foundation assigns indivually to each specific work. i saw the work in person then looked it up in the catalogue and thought "my god, that looks nothing like what i've just seen!"