That is, big-household-name celebrity painter/sculptor, known to all even outside the New York art scene – even for those proverbial fifteen minutes? Artists other than writers, musicians, actors and filmmakers rarely seem to get that kind of media attention any more, outside specialized sections of the magazine or newspaper. (And the writers can’t be poets. Unless they’re writing song lyrics.) Even performance artists have faded from view – is anyone even doing that any more?
The closest I can think of is Peter Max, but he’s hardly a household name. His stuff seems really, really derivative of Warhol’s work to my untrained eye.
I can’t think of any artist who’s had the kind of notoriety Warhol had in the 1960s. I mean, the guy was everywhere: talk shoiws, magazine covers, joke punchlines, etc.
LeRoy Neiman had a momentary buzz, at least long enough to had his worked mocked as well as celebrated. There may be a couple of (non-performing) composers like Phillip Glass who register at least faintly on the celebrity meter, but no one as flashy as Warhol.
Banksy?
Thomas Kinkade might qualify. The styles couldn’t be more different, but the art=fame=money thing is there.
I think it’s hard for a purely still artist to become all that famous in this nearly-pure video society. When was the last time you saw a painter on a late-night talk show?
Lada Gaga is probably the closest thing to a performance artist, but now every artist has to perform.
I’d guess Damien Hirst, but how household a name he is, I don’t know. In the US, at least, he’s not Warhol in terms of name recognition.
Dale Chihuly. I really hate to say it, because I love blown glass, and really like most of his work. But he’s go the whole factory thing going on, with an endless supply of sycophantic young adults falling over themselves to be abused by him while working ridiculous hours through unbelievable heat to hump his heavy creations about the place.
He also has the whole marketing thing down pat. In one documentary I felt like I could see him calculating the most financially advantageous direction to go in before he answered every question.
Love the work, but just an icky guy.
Christo.
Yeah I’d agree, in the UK and Ireland I would say Hirst has the closest to a Warholian position in the pop culture.
Don Ed Hardy?
A thing that exists to be laughed at, and that momentarily; but, I agree, at least people have heard of him.
[raises hand]
Ooh, can it be me?
[looks around, puts hand down…]
Well, I don’t have Andy’s pallor, but I can wax philosophical. And paint …
Lady Gaga. She might not be an artist, but in terms of the social limelight, she’s taken over the spot.
Part of what could make Christo like Warhol is that to a lot of people, they are more about the spectacle than the art.
Max hasn’t been a household name since the late 60s-early 70s (and his work is not at all derivative of Warhol’s).
I don’t think any of today’s artists are comparable to Warhol.
I’ll second Banksy.
I came in to say either Banksy or Damien Hirst. Both are well known in Australia and New Zealand as well as the UK. Would have previously said Jeff Koons, but he’s not done so much recently, or Tracey Emin.
I’ll third Christo. And I’ve liked some of his installations.
Wharhol was his era’s Dali: initially interesting as an artist, but who soon turned that into a wildly successful business model. Art becomes product, not anything by which humanity increases its understanding of itself.
Within that framework, I’d say the baton has been passed to Damien Hirst.
I thought of these guys, too, along with Jeff Koons. Of them all, I would say Jeff Koons - the pop symbolism of his balloon rabbits, hedgerow puppies and porcelin chimps feel more aligned with Warhol vs. Hirst’s animals and pill paintings or Banksy more subsersive use of pop memes…