Nancy Tousley, a creative artist breaks through the conventional beliefs of what is considered art and emerges with somthing new and unique. Axel, the young man who comes to sketch old farming equipment at Hap’s farm, is focussed on capturing the essence of age and dirt, eventually using an old, burned ball of barbed wire as his major peice in an art exhibit. Andy Warhol is also a young artist going against the common views of what is art by creating exact replicas of common American consumer products. Hap’s response to Axel’s
“art” and his likely reaction to Warhol’s prized pieces illustrate the idea that creating something new and unconventional is risky …show more content…
His home’s walls “host several paintings and prints”(2) but he acknoledges his belief that “it’s not art if he can’t tell what it is” (1). This exposing factor contradicts the intentions of every modern artist and immediately presents a conflict between Hap and the views of many. When Hap goes to a big-city art exhibit, he is deeply perplexed by the appreciation and praise recieved by creators of such pieces as the shoe collection. Axel’s use of Hap’s refuse to create a piece that sold for $15000 is even more thoroughly confusing and concerning to the older man. If Hap were to encounter Andy
Warhol’s art, he would surely feel the same way as he did towards Axel’s. He would not see
Warhol’s “processed cartons and tin cans as sculpture” (6), let alone groundbreaking art pieces. Along with most Canadians in the 1960’s, Hap would share the belief that Warhol’s pieces were nothing more than precise portrayals of things that had already been created, and therefore useless and boring. Although hap cannot understand the complexity of Axel’s final work or the intricacies of Warhol’s deeper meaning, there are some that take the time and are able to comprehend and appreciate such