Pop Art and Abstract Expressionism

As the Cold War years of the 1950s came to an end and Abstract Expressionism reached its peak, a rapid shift in the world of art. Starting in England, then becoming exceedingly profound in America and the rest of western Europe, the Pop Art movement shed new light on the art realm. Pop Art was not only considered an art style but also, a cultural and social movement, however, its legitimacy was highly doubted, due to the use of popular culture. Pop artists, such as Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, and Claes Oldenburg celebrated the mundane, everyday people and objects, by aiming to elevate popular culture to the level of fine art. First, this essay will explore the origin of Pop Art, outlining how it challenged the traditional ways in which art was viewed and consumed by artists, critics, and the general public, including its conflicts with the high art world. Finally, this essay will explore the significant impact Pop Art had on the historical context of its time and its legacies that still exist today.

While some artists and critiques were outraged by the emergence of Pop Art, it soon became the current, fashionable movement of the vibrant 60s, quickly moving away from the Post-war ‘austerity and constraint’. American essayist, Clement Greenberg wrote on this shift, predicting the various opportunities the future may have install for artists emerging out of Abstract Expressionism. He stated that after the ‘turgidities of Abstract Expressionism’, what the art world needed was a more formalist and restrained art, which acknowledged and focused on the essentials. The new movement of art that Greenberg anticipated in his essay, aligns itself with the ‘ironic, superficial, and camp’ qualities of Pop Art. Another writer who spoke on this shift in art at the time was Claes Oldenburg. Oldenburg sensed a shift looming and in his ‘most famous piece of writing’, ‘I am for an art’, written in 1961, he speaks about characteristics he predicts for the next movement. Oldenburg speaks with irony in his tone, as he humorously repetitively lists his thoughts, for example, “I am for an art that embroils itself with the everyday crap and still comes out on top”. The irony is a key element of the essence of what made Pop Art distinctive from its other contemporaries. Pop contradicted everything Abstract Expressionism stood for and mocked modernist art itself. Roy Lichtenstein’s practice depicts this sarcasm, particularly his ‘Big Painting No. 6’. Through his impersonal and mocking painting, Lichtenstein blatantly makes a ‘visual comment’ on the extreme bias of their obsession with the ‘gestural manipulation of paint as a means of unfettered, spontaneous self-expression’. He has rendered the brush strokes in the painting, as if they were a still life study, only using heavy black outlines and solid color, therefore taking away any means of expression or liveliness. Lichtenstein stated at the Artforum in 1966 that he wanted his artworks to feel ‘programmed and impersonal’, yet he didn’t believe that this concept made the work itself impersonal. Depicted in the name of the artwork, ‘Big Painting No. 6’, Lichtenstein and other Pop artists aimed to be ‘purposefully meaningless’. This intention of being insignificant is juxtaposed by the subject matter, popular culture, which seemingly holds a large amount of significance within society. Therefore, Pop artists challenged the way people perceived art, through their irony and goal to ultimately detach their art from intimacy.

Like Dada and Duchamp, Pop Art was about the ready-made. Another way Pop artists challenged the viewer's outlook on art, was through reproduction and repetition. Quantity becomes more valuable than the quality and artworks became more about the direction and editing, rather than the creation and process of the artwork itself. The method of repeating the same image over and over again meant that art suddenly became more mobile. People were no longer required to go to a particular church, gallery, or museum to see a famous piece of artwork. For example, people were able to see imitations of famous artworks in books or magazines, and today, to a grander scale, with advanced technology, people now view artworks from their phone, computer, or tablet. This new level of mobility has it’s positives and advantages, however, many people argue that the reproductions are missing a sense of ‘authenticity or authority’. They debate that the true essence of the work is simply not there and seeing a copy, does not do the artwork justice. In saying this, the idea that there is no hierarchy of sophistication and that art may borrow from any source has been one of the most influential legacies of Pop Art.

Pop artist, Andy Warhol believed in the idea that art had no hierarchy and once said, ‘I think every painting should be the same size and the same color so they are all interchangeable and nobody thinks they have a better painting or worse painting and there’d be masterpieces because they’d all be the same painting’. The concept of Duchamp’s urinal being placed on the same level as the Mona Lisa confronted the conservative art world. People seemed to think that the reproduction of renowned artworks meant high art had become defaced and disrespected. Still, Warhol explored this concept in his practice, for example, in his work, ‘Mona Lisa’, he merged a renaissance painting with the methodologies of Pop Art. In doing so, Warhol brought the world-famous painting, Mona Lisa, into a brand-new setting that viewers had not seen thus far. Warhol claimed to only be interested in the surface of things and explicitly said that he wanted to be a machine he thought everyone should be a machine. He stated that ‘Pop art is about liking things and liking things is like being a machine because you do the same thing every time, you do it over and over again’. Warhol’s extreme rebel of the guidelines of art inspired other emerging Pop artists to explore the boundaries of appropriation, such as Elaine Sturtevant. In the 1990s Sturtevant appropriated Warhol when she simply asked for his flower stencils then made her own prints, turned them upside down, and called them her own. Today, her interrogation of originality is seen as extremely important, as Sturtevant demonstrates the unrestricted art of what people would usually call stealing. Ultimately, both Warhol and Sturtevant pushed the boundaries of appropriation by taking advantage of repetition and reproduction, demanding the downfall of the hierarchy between artists and artworks.

The tool that Pop uses against modernism, is modernity itself, including the symbols of modern living; packaging, logos, movie stars, comics, and worthless items of popular culture. Unlike the timelessness of Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art was now, no better or different to fashion or advertising. Richard Hamilton’s collage, just what is it makes today’s homes so different, so appealing? is thought to be the first example of true pop art. It makes reference to several examples of popular culture at the time of 1956, including both ‘male and female pin-ups, TV, pulp romance, consumer durables, packaging, and movies’. This subject matter was misunderstood by the public when first exhibited in London. It was accused of attacking art itself or consumer society. However, Hamilton explained that the artwork was not intended to be an attack at all, he was rather aiming towards a new art which he wanted to be “popular, transient, expendable, low cost, mass-produced, young, witty, sexy, gimmicky, glamorous and big business”. “Gimmicky” and “big business” was exactly what Pop Art became, as many emerging Pop artists, such as Claes Oldenburg, began presenting their artworks in window displays, or even created their own stores to exhibit their works. For Pop artists, making artworks for sale, was specifically the point, whereas Abstract Expressionist artists, preferred to distance themselves from the transaction of money altogether. In Oldenburg’s store, he displayed irregular and ‘crudely’ painted soft and plaster sculptures, which resembled things like lingerie, cigarettes, and slices of cake. Oldenburg’s storefront was successful, resulting in him selling several works, including a sandwich, which went for $149.98. With artists now marketing themselves, businesses also started to realize that art was one way they could stand out from the crowd. Advertising became a new strategy for corporations to try and keep up with consumerism by throwing money at making their products more attractive by developing logos, uniforms, and slogans. As Pop Art emerged the corporate world, it also became a part of the political world, therefore,

The period in which Pop Art was born into, was a very significant time for political movements. The 1960s were the beginnings of feminism and legalization of the contraceptive pill and gay activism and the civil rights moment for African American equality. The legalization of LSD also happened in the late 1960s, known as the “revolution of consciousness”, which meant the movement of psychedelic art was introduced. Psychedelic art consisted of vibrant visuals inspired by people’s experiences with psychedelics and hallucinations. These graphics can include intense optical illusions and color variations inspired by the Pop Art movement. The legalization of the contraceptive pill in 1960 was known as the ‘sexual revolution’. Although still controversial, in 1963, the pill was ‘an instant hit’, with 2.3 million American women using it. As a result of having the freedom to avoid unwanted pregnancies and plan their reproductive future, more women were able to enter the workforce. This drastic change in the patriarchy meant that women were able to see art as a profession, rather than a pastime and in the late 1960s, early 1970s, the uprise of feminist art began. In Elaine Sturtevant’s ‘Study for Muybridge Plate #97: Woman Walking’ she made a reference to the ‘low commotion’ photographs of Edward Muybridge (1880s). Sturtevant modernized the images by including a backdrop of Pop Art paintings. This series of black and white photographs is one of the first examples of the nude woman artist as her own model, which was a popular trope in feminist art which became well-known in the 1970s. The fusion of feminist art and Pop Art is still extremely prominent in today’s society. Thus, Pop Art continues to contribute greatly to the feminist art movement to this day, with artworks such as J. Howard Miller’s “We can do it!” poster, Andy Warhol’s “Marilyn Diptych” and Roy Lichtenstein’s “Drowning Girl”, still being appropriated to include feminist icons and/or captions.

After 60 years, the Pop Art movement is still celebrated universally, as it has left its mark on modern art and the design, fashion, and advertising industry. Pop Art is constantly reappearing and reinventing itself, as popular culture evolves and changes over generations. Despite Pop Art’s original purpose to mock commercial art, Pop Art continues to be used for marketing to this day. It embraces technological development and comments on the impact of these things on our daily lives, for example, tv, magazines, and internet culture.