In the last episode we took a look at colour field painting which many people find frustrating
because they’re seemingly lacking in contextless and narrative. So what about something that
is on the completely opposite side of the spectrum? Something that is full of cultural
reference, explicit ideas and popular imagery? Well apparently on this opposite end of the
extreme, some people find it equally frustrating. So today, we’re going to talk a little bit
about the Pop Art movement.
Let’s think about something for a moment. Historically, why did people find art valuable?
Perhaps it’s because they’re unique and one of a kind. Perhaps it’s because they
were deemed by prestigious academies and wealthy individuals to be important. Perhaps it’s
because they’re deeply contemplative and philosophical. Well that’s great and all,
but some would argue that these ideals could lead to art being highly elitist and inaccessible
to the masses, which in many cases it did. And that’s probably why at some point, some
people came, took a look at these ideals and went - screw all that.
Now let’s think about the 1950s, an era of film, television, advertisements, and mass
produced imagery on magazine covers, comic books and newsstands. Many images were burned
onto people’s collective consciousness through these media and our culture became undoubtedly
shaped by celebrities, consumer products, and big corporate brands. And whether you
think that’s a great thing or a devastating thing, artists saw this thing and they wanted
to reflect this new reality. And that’s why many of them highlighted the mass produced
and sensational nature of the mainstream media, like Andy Warhol making multiple copies of
the same image over and over, or Oldenburg’s overt larger than life depictions of decadence
and food consumption.
And by doing this they called into question many of the established values of art, whether
intentionally or unintentionally. Why does something have to be unique or limited in
quantity in order to be considered valuable? Because clearly many things that are carving
out significant cultural impacts are precisely the opposite of that. Why should it be up
to the elite or academics to determine what is culturally significant or important? Doesn’t
culture belong to the masses and shouldn’t we all get say? And why do art works always
have to be deeply philosophically or contemplative, or ask grand questions about life and the
universe? Why can’t a work of art just be cute, funny or sexy?
It has also been argued that many pop artists also aimed to emphasize the harsh reality
that art itself is a commodity. While there are some people who like to think art is some
sort of special thing that sits beyond capitalism, many other people also think that those people
probably live in some sort of utopian fantasy land not based in reality. So while there
are some people who are busy labelling commercially successful artists as “sell-outs,” some
pop artists are kind of turning around at them and saying “well what exactly did you
expect?”
Pop artists also brought attention to how other artistic practices such as filmmaking,
packaging, brand design, performance, comic book illustration - can be just as artistic,
interesting or sophisticated as “high art” pursuits such as painting and sculpting. Many
pop artists would collaborate with creators across disciplines - such as artist Robert
Rauschenberg collaborating with experimental musician John Cage as well as choreographer
Merce Cunningham. Or Andy Warhol collaborating with the band the Velvet Underground such
as designing an album cover in 1967. This bridged the boundaries between artists, musicians,
performers and creators of all kinds, leading to today - where an artist’s collaboration
with a filmmaker, musician or fashion designer seems pretty normal.
And it’s for some of these aforementioned reasons why some people didn’t, and still
to this day don’t take Pop Art seriously. They think it’s gimmicky, ironic and unserious.
But one could also say - well why can’t an art be gimmicky, ironic or unserious? And
let’s face it - it’s important for us to to challenge the concept of cultural hierarchy,
it’s important to highlight the undoubted impact of mass culture, and it’s important
to democratize both the creation and consumption of art. Pop Artists facilited this discussion
back in the 1950s and 60s, and these are conservations that continues to be had today.
So what do you think? Do you think reproducing pop cultural images is just gimmicky and pointless?
Or do you see value in bringing attention to our culture’s collective consciousness
and shared experiences? As always, let me know in the comments and I’ll see you next
time.