Andy Warhol’s Dracula Painting Essay

Understanding the artwork of Andy Warhol is more or lessthing same to figuring discover a Zen riddle. That is, and people will go out for something extraordinary when all they need to do is understand the simplicity of what they argon viewing. Andy Warhols concept of pop music art involved taking the in truth(prenominal) common images in presenting them in such a way that the common was elevated. But can you really elevate something that is common? App arently so Warhol did this quite effectively in his earlier works. However, in later years, Warhols work started to bearing a little tired. peradventure the novelty of pop art was wearing off and Warhols creativity had stretched thin. There were, however, some interesting pieces of art produced by Warhol in the run short decade of his life. This spend to inspired creativity is discernable in 1981s painting genus genus genus Dracula, one of his most underrated works. What was the inspiration for the Draculapainting? Was it Br am Stokers novel? Was it the classic Bela Lougosi interpretation? Was it the popular play passion ofDraculathat proved very successful at the time?To a degree, they whitethorn have all had their influences in prompting Warhol to use Dracula as subject matter. But, do not let be fooled Warhol was probably very influenced by a film he produced entitled blood forDracula. blood for Draculawas an odd dark, tragic satire that saw the develop Count travel to the Catholic country of Italy to find virgin blood. Unless he can find such a victim, he will (finally) lead of old age. Of course, his search for a virgin proves fruitless and his days are numbered.While the obvious satire of morality is evident, not so evident is the notion that Dracula represents the old world of the aristocracy. Dracula remains the last of the aristocrats having seen the world he previously knew disappearing to the expansion of Marxism. It is this same discerning theme that is also present in the Draculapainting and that is what makes it so striking. With fangs bared, cape cowl turned upwards, and eyes wide untied it would appear that this is a frightening picture of Dracula.Upon close examination, it really isnt. Yes, in a previous generation the image of Dracula recreated by Warhol would be considered terrifying. However, by 1981, said to image really is for lack of a better news show corny. Economic woes, foreign policy strife, and social upheaval had driven shame movies to become more violent and more graphic. The classic monsters only when became a casualty of the era. They were no longer frightening. And, as the painting infers, Dracula knows this.If you look closely into the eyes of Dracula (in the painting) you will notice decidedly out of place emotions. The eyes simply do not appear endanger or frightening. Actually, they appear more confused than anything else. They are wide open and glassey and come alongingly have a dual expression of shock and boredom. Perhaps Dracul a is shocked that he is no longer frightening. Or, perhaps, he is simply bored of his role as King of the Vampires. Either way, this would indicate a percentage that understands time has passed him by.This is clearly not the Count Dracula of gone(p) eras. This is a crucial point because it is this past him prime appearance that Warhol apparently wanted to capture. This is interesting since he opts not to elevate a character from pop culture but, instead, decides to deconstruct one. In a way, there is a melancholy sadness found in Warhols Draculapainting. This would seem to make sense, however, since the true role of pop art is to depict things as we really see them. In 1981, we were no longer looking at Dracula as a character as much as a tired caricature.