?

Log in

 
 
10 January 2008 @ 02:24 pm
Article: Pop Art and Warhol Bitchery  
So as I was pondering over some things during my Formation of Modern Art class, some thoughts on pop art and an extreme distaste for an amateur view of it came up.

This is like a mini "article" on thoughts concerning it, with an obvious bias opinion. And where else would I voice these opinions than in my art blog? <:D

Anyways, cut for elongated thoughts. Don't mind any grammar mistakes. @_@

When an everyday person, just an Average Joe whose background on art and the history of is very scarce, is asked "What do you think of when you think of 'pop art'?" The answer typically would involve some form of Warhol interpretation, such as the Campball Soup can, or a lot of Marilyn Monroes, or even a silkscreened banana. (The latter which has made a rather large comeback in the "Totebag" world.) Or someone may even answer "Lichtenstein too" if they thought about it really deeply. But the general idea is that Warhol is the leading figurehead of the pop art world.

Although his placement as the pop-art figurehead was pretty much inevitable, as he was the "avant-garde" man utilizing 20th century methods of art rather than the traditional paint+canvas formula, I find it extremely distasteful when I enter a college-level Modern Art class and hear people asking the professor "So, when do we get to Warhol??" Or even worse, when people shift around restlessly ignoring the obviously beautiful Fragonard or David painting displayed on the screen because they are obviously thinking in their head, "When are we getting to the interesting stuff???"

What else would they expect indeed! Not only are they expecting the cliche of a Modern Art class, but I would probably bet my $5 that they are expecting to learn about the more popular and sometimes grossly overrated artists to learn about....my point being Warhol specifically. Now, this obviously doesn't apply to everyone in the classroom, but those entering without any real knowledge of art would probably expect that.

But what a shame indeed! Even when we enter the Warhol era of the "pop artist", he was not the only artist with great ideas nor (in my opinion) the best at all! Maybe it was the way that he carried himself so pretentiously that people find him "fascinating". Or maybe it's because it's the ultimate trend to like Warhol. Or, someone could be decent and tasteful with their sense of art and actually enjoy his style aesthetic in comparison to other artists of the decade and movement.

Personally, I was a much bigger fan of Richard Hamilton as a pop artist. But the biggest gripe I have here is, whenever I say that Warhol was much overrated and that Hamilton is indeed my favourite, I sometimes get blank stares from people that obviously communicate confusion and head-scratching. He was almost like the founder of pop art!!! (That last statement being an obviously biased presumption, but he was a very very early pop artist, emerging in the late 50's.) To claim yourself as a pop art fan when you clearly do not know its roots in Dadaism or even the earlier founders of pop art is such a facade of self-proclaimed superiority and obviously a follower of a mass trend.

(I'm placing my conclusion for those to read if they don't care for the mass bulk bitchery.)

In the end I have to thank those very ignorant handful of people in my Modern Art class for my slight (if not, extreme) bitterness towards the whole pop art movement. Because the people who claim that pop art is such a "bang!" without knowing anything past the cliche Andy Warhol fanaticism are really missing out on everything else there is to experience past colorful silkscreens and repeated images. Because past the smiling face of Marilyn Monroe, there lies fragmented collages containing messages of our media-driven lives or flags with underlying dirt and grime. There lies a whole other world that is hidden, shadowed behind a very large Campbell Soup can.

Sorry if the argument is a little fragmented lols. <:D I tend to get a little ranty and scattered in my thoughts.  
 
 
 
Hwang Mario: baby's on fire;burmecia on January 11th, 2008 04:10 am (UTC)
AMEN! I love Warhol a lot, not because of his pop art, but because he tried to experiment with most mediums of art. I think he himself knew he wasn't that great which led him to do all the other artistic mediums he had tried. However, to go to college to learn about art and then completely ignore everything about it until you get to something you've already know/heard about is possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Not to mention revealing themselves to be robotic philistines only capable of regurgitating the same old things. So much for being artistic. It's like only listening to a bands song you've heard on the radio, but you never listen to their whole album because you already like that song. All art is meant to be fascinating, you could hate it, love it, kinda like it, but it's still fascinating cause you have to think about it and figure out what it ignites in you and what you think it means. That sounded kinda silly xD but that's how I feel about it. Also, can I just say I get a little angry when someone goes to the whole "love your pop art style" when they comment on my things...it sorta irks me >.>

Edited at 2008-01-11 04:16 am (UTC)
kurisuchina: ♥ -- Peekaboo!microcake on January 12th, 2008 09:20 am (UTC)
OMG, seriously. Like, I've totally gotten over the whole "Yeah I'm only taking this class for credits" but like, to go in saying that you're "genuinely interested" then pull off that bullshit? It's so dumb.

LOLS cause, you know, the best phrase to use when you don't know what else to say is "I love your pop art style". <:P