okay okay, it's not new art. but i'm not an artist, so i'm limited to puns, homages and rip-offs.



it's meant to kinda say something about whether a lot of new art is art just cos someone says it is. it's got a reference to duchamp's urinal in there too. so, y'know…

i thought that was worms!



i like it

I think the concept and design are strong, but I would take out the"full" part of "Can Full of Worms). It isn't part of the expression and the phonetic similarity between Campbell's and Can Full 'o, is a stretch. The design is clear and sucessful without it.



It's actually the first one I've seen that I would definitely buy.

I don't think the "but is it art?" is too terribly necessary, but you did a great job with that can.

Neat idea!

I like it a lot

I learned about that last year in photography class so i really like the refrence ^_^

good thoughts!

Are you suggesting both duchamp and warhol didn't make very good art? Cause I highly disagree. What makes art special is the emotion one takes away from it. When duchamp and warhol took these and put them in the public eye as art, people began to look at them as such, and thusly could better feel the emotion one can take from their beauty and their use in our culture; a view point not ordinarily taken when dealing with soup and urinals. Then again, one still may not feel anything, which is why art is subjective. You don't need to have a steady hand for drawing, or Photoshop skills to be considered an artist; you just need the desire/ability to express an emotion in some physical form. If you try to make standards for art, then your putting restrictions on human emotion itself, IMO.

no. It's just a t-shirt.

pisaiahe.. I didn't look at it that way at all. I took it more as like today people try to generalize art saying that you do have to be good at drawing or painting, in the traditional sense.. and that duchamp and warhol were great artists because they were pioneers, but people criticized them for it saying that it wasn't really art.

luna bar!