God I HATE the header of this blog but am contrary & keep making nice ones in picmonkey (my new friend) and then change the website template constantly (as I'm sure you've noticed with your eagle eyes of sharpness) and messing stuff up.
Here's the photo:
![]() |
| whatsherface and me |
Anyways, so the article seems to be only half an article in that I think I might be missing something because beyond the photograph and the headline, there's no mention of Warhol. Which, understandably, was disappointing.
But it made me think - in the end, who's more important, the muse or the artist?
Because like, if the muse didn't exist or if their hair was messed up that day or if they said the wrong thing at the wrong time....the 'a-ha' moment would never have happened, the artist would never have had a sudden visionary strike or whatever, and the work of art wouldn't have been created.
HOWEVER, obviously, the muse is usually just some randomer and the artist is, well, the artist. David wouldn't exist without his sculptor (there's so many statues of David by so many different sculptors through the ages that I'm in no way linking to any of them). Atlas Shrugged wouldn't exist without Ayn Rand (I'm not saying it's a work of art, it's just the first and only book that's popped into my head).
So, thoughts?
EDIT:
I just did this:





















