There's a lot of interesting stuff in Pop Art: A Critical History, edited by Steven Henry Madoff. It collects a lot of varied writings starting in the 1950s (when the original British edition of Pop started) and continuing through retrospective analyses in the 1990s.
What really stands out is how quick and vast a change in the public perception of art and artists happened in a very short amount of time.
Abstract Expressionism was the dominant style for about the first fifteen years after World War II ended. Painting had, for decades, been moving away from objective representation of the real world. Abstract Expressionism brought the trend to its logical conclusion. Paintings became pure expressions of form, color, pattern. It was now considered gauche to ask "What's it supposed to be?" The layman's criticism of "My kid could paint that" really took off here, but among the initiated, this was what art should be.
Pop Art, especially in its American phase, changed all this overnight. Now you could very much tell what you were looking at. It tended to be very familiar things: comic strips, movie stars, advertising montages, products you trust. All delivered with the precision of a Madison Avenue print ad campaign. If you looked closely enough and asked the right questions you might see some continuity with the previous regime. But again, as far as public perception went, this was the biggest change since Impressionism had hit in the latter 19th century.
One good bit is a public symposium with Claes Oldenburg, Roy Lichtenstein, and Andy Warhol. The moderator asks each of them when and why they started doing what they do. When he gets to Warhol, Andy says, "I'm too high right now. Ask somebody else something else." Probably got a laugh in the hall, but it's obvious that the real issue is that Warhol doesn't like being put on the spot. He's ready to join in the conversation when it's a conversation. I found this quite relatable.
2 comments:
It does sound like an interesting book but since I don't have access to it what I'll do is comment on some of the points you've made here.
I've thought about the idea that public perception of art changed after WWII and I believe a lot of the appreciation for art, particularly new art, can be attributed to the fact that previously people didn't spend much time going to museums or galleries. That was for the upper classes and normal people had neither the time nor the inclination for intellectual pursuits like looking at Art. Instead the new prosperity allowed them to buy tv sets, cars, and washing machines.
I wonder if you've ever heard the theory that Abstract Expessionism was promoted by the CIA in order to influence political outcomes in the Soviet Union after WWII. There was an explosion in all the creative arts after the War. I have no idea whether the principal holds water or not but it's interesting to consider and there are a number of people who believe it to be true. At the same time it would have been a better use of the agency's resources than assasinations were.
As far as 'pure expressions of form, color, pattern' I happened across a thought provoking website that makes some intriguing points:
https://eclecticgallery.co.uk/news/29-the-psychological-impact-of-abstract-art-stimulating-the-exploring-the-abstract-realm-unraveling-the-profound-emotions/
There's a lot of fun involved in Pop Art. The 60s saw the birth of modern, spectacle-driven consumer capitalism. Thanks to post-war affluence, apart from having spending money for all sorts of new products,(even those once considered illicit), people felt increasingly optimistic about the future and saw less need to abide by older conventions, thus it was ample ground for cultural turnover.
I don't think any of us like being put on the spot. Warhol by that time was both rich and famous so he did get to call the shots in situations like that.
Museums and galleries gather art in a central location. Almost by default, they tend to crop up in big cities more than any other kind of location. The period after World War II saw a big move toward the suburbs, away from the big cities. In that sense, yes, TV sets and washing machines would be a more impactful purchase. In light of that the real question might be why there was a temporary reversal in the marginalization of art in the 1950s/1960s.m
I've heard the theories about the CIA funding Abstract Expressionism, or at least working to promote it. It would be an unusual move. Of the major Abstractionists, Clyfford Still strikes me as the only one who was on the right politically, and he seems to ornery to have been a propagandist. On the other hand, intelligence services are notorious for playing both ends against the middle, funding two or more rival factions in the same place. The Abstract Expressionist thing might have been an opportunity for them to do the same thing on the cultural stage.
The article from the Eclectic Gallery makes a certain amount of sense. A lot of our minds are taken up by preverbal impulses. There's room for us to be moved by art that doesn't neatly map onto the world we've tamed through language.
That's an interesting connection you make between optimism about the future and cultural turnover. It's looking a lot like those things do coincide a lot of the time. It may be that at a certain point in a society's development, they're expanding enough that a new kind of cultural product is needed.
Yeah, being put on the spot is something most of us try to avoid. Warhol was able to avoid it by creating a space--the Factory--where he was the one in charge. But he was able to do something similar during this symposium, it seems.
Post a Comment