Courtesy of Bailey Kelley

Postmodernism is not the elite movement that only the (upper class white) few can "get". It is not so full of itself that it defies explanation and interpretation. Yes, it is rather sarcastic and will "poke fun" at society whenever it gets the chance, but it is because it loves that society and is a part of it. Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David didn't write Seinfeld because they hated sitcoms and wanted to make fun of the utter absurdity of making shows upon shows about nothing. They were intrigued by it, it was part of their life--they commented on sitcoms because they loved sitcoms. Postmodernism relies on its viewers' reactions as part of the artwork. Postmodern artists like Lawrence Weiner put so much emphasis on their viewers that their artwork becomes almost solely public reaction and viewer involvement. But at the same time, postmodernism is not afraid to (blatantly) point out the flaws of current society, shove it in their viewers' faces and force change, or at least recognition of a problem. I would go so far as to say that most postmodern work has some sort of emphasis on change.

The biggest difference between Van Gogh's and Warhol's representation of shoes is the idea of who's shoes they are presenting. Van Gogh paints a peasant's shoes, attempting to beautify the often dreary and obsolete existence of a peasant with his luscious strokes and muted yet beautiful colors. But Warhol is depicting the shoes of the rich, the fashionable, and the all-around elite. While their lives may not be the Utopia many believe, it is common knowledge that the shoes mean completely different things. The peasant's shoes represent hard work, toil, and a life of constant repetitiveness, while Warhol's shoes come and go, represent fashion and money, and Warhol does nothing to change what they mean. Warhol is commenting on society, while Van Gogh is attempting to skew a view of these shoes.