I have always read that great art, besides requiring great skill, incorporates universal themes into the particulars it represents.
You may not agree with that definition.
I don’t care much for Warhol, but I can see why you would mention him. The artwork pictured above, and Warhol’s work share a sense of cleverness. I doubt either will stand the test of time.
The problem with time is that we never know what’s going to make it way out there in the future. Could those Lascoux Cave prehistorics had the faintest idea how magnificent we’d see their painted horses today?
There’s a story that French Impressionism came to be because an artist was walking close to the wall to examine the paintings. He came across one and stopped, lost in the colors and the passion of movement. Then suddenly realized he hadn’t the faintest idea what the painting was of, and couldn’t have cared less. Thus the movement into non-geometric pure colors that led into the post-impressionist and modern periods. There are some that don’t have the depth to last. You look at them and you quickly see it all. Boredom sets in. But there are others... You can hardly turn away. When I find that anywhere, I call it art.