Unpolished raw talent rarely succeeds on it’s own, it requires effort and development, and I see very little indication of that here.
Warhol was a massive LARP that took on a life of it’s own. He did have a certain vision and skill. His knowledge of and use of color was startling for the time but on solid ground. He defined an era with his imagery, plastic and throwaway though it may well have been, or was intended to be at the time.
He was an artist and what he produced was art, despite the fact that it was all artifice. It was street theatre.
Mr. McNaughton exhibits no such ability, his work is murky, his efforts with the human figure are juvenile, his understanding of perspective is one step above Egyptian.
Many here respond to the political message contained in his efforts, I do understand that. And, it’s a good message. Pity it’s overshadowed by crap execution, though. He can do better than this.
No. "Defining an era" does not make one an artist. If someone can produce something that anybody, with effort, can produce. then that is not art.
A true artist produces something that is rare and not commonly arrived at.
You or I could do what Warhol did, if we cared to put in the effort and got enough people to call it art. We could not do what Monet did, or to overuse an example, Michelangelo.
That is my definition of art.