The Conception of Postmodern Art - Essay Example

Postmodern Art More than forty years ago, the rules that once governed artists and their art were changed. No longer was modern art to be consideredbrave or en vogue, because it was all but replaced by a new ideal; postmodern art was lifted to the forefront of contemporary thought. The goal of postmodernism, if postmodernism can be said to have a goal, seems to be to blur the lines between what is real and what it not. As visual art has always been at the forefront of thought and practice, it follows that visual art may be a bit ahead of the times, and certainly ahead of the common thoughts of the general public. But it is this general public that seems to understand postmodern art best. The art world often pretentiously demands a certain level of sophistication from its viewers, as a means of separating the two worlds, but many of the best artists postmodernism has to offer, accept the viewer's own existence, experiences, and emotional base as a point of departure from which to present their message. This works as an explanation for the overwhelming popularity of American artist Jeff Koons, who is arguably the poster boy for postmodern thought and practice. While modern art seems to remain aloof and separated from its audience, postmodernism seeks too coexist on the same level as its viewers, using images from popular culture with which its audience is already familiar, and inverting, twisting, and ultimately destroying those images to create an entirely new thought, and an entirely new work of art. This paper will discuss the era of postmodern art from its conception with Andy Warhol in the 1960's, to Koons himself and the way that the genre exists today. In The Beginning It is difficult to discuss Jeff Koons and postmodern art without first discussing it's conception and Andy Warhol. Koons is often compared to Warhol, because he has achieved much of what the revolutionary Warhol had, including a sort of notorious controversial presence that is propagated by the media. In understanding Warhols motivation, we will certainly come to a better understanding of the motivating factors behind Koons' work. The parameters with which we define art are under constant organic change. New ways of understanding concepts of art are at best, problematic as new movements force the visual spectator to at times disavow all preconceived notions and interpretations of art The emergence of a new art movement enables critics to redefine their own theories and understandings, in essence, to reconceptualize art theory. This is an interesting phenomenon when it takes place, one that truly exposes the theorization and ideologies of art. The emergence of Pop Art in the 1950's in Britain and its vivacious inception into American society is one such movement that captures this broadening of art. Andy Warhol was one of the movements' most prolific artists, helping to truly affirm the position of Pop Art as a credible, enlightening and in Warhol's conception, groundbreaking art form. Abstract Expressionism had been thoroughly institutionalized within art history since the Second World War and the arrival of Pop Art and its methods ultimately appeared as a reaction against this school of art. Pop Art found its imagery and techniques from the sociological climate of the sixties in which consumerism was fueled by the mass productivity ethos of the time. Certain artists began to aspire to a hard-edged style of art; one that Suzi Gablik believes led to a "moral strategy" facilitated "to avoid tasteful choices and to set the stake higher," (Gablik, 1969). The most profound realization of this strategy was to be the use of found or ready-made objects within pieces of artwork. Warhol was one of the main propagators of this method, a style of painting that would for the first time blemish the distinct qualities between 'high' and 'low' art and find the artist stripped of his autonomy. In Andy Warhol, Crone argues that any attempt to describe or analyze Warhol's work, "must consider the conditions of reality reflected as more important than the work themselves," (Crone, 1970). This is an especially intuitive comment that needs to be taken seriously when judging the impact with which Warhol's work had on the public sphere and throughout art criticism. His subject matter was entirely different from everything that had gone before. Using pictures, newspaper cuttings, celebrities and 'household named' objects in his art, he took his images out of the public body literature. This form of 'found' art that lends itself to the term 'popular', is the basis for a theoretical understanding of Warhol's designs. Furthermore, the mode of production used, the silk-screen method, became his sole catalyst of expression, which also contributes to the meaning of his pictures. The most famous, and most publicized painting by Warhol was the Cambells Tomato Soup Tin, itself an icon of Pop Art movement, and also his portrait of Marilyn Monroe. The process with which Warhol made his painting is of great important when trying to theorize these works. The silk-screen process enabled Warhol to effectively copy images onto canvass, a printing technique that allowed for the inclusion of color and stencil. The silk-screen production method has two significant theoretical purposes. For Warhol, this was a very personal method to his style, allowing him to completely distance himself from his own work. In one interview, the artist explained, "I think it would great if more people took up silk-screen, so that no one would know whether my picture was mine or someone else's," (Warhol quoted in Crone, 1970). This statement exemplifies the inherent lack of interest in the artist's connection to the work. Remembering that this was Warhol's only means of pictorial expression, this style of painting has great significance on the actual subject. It displaces the relationship between fine and common art by using already commercially successful objects that have become imprinted images on the minds of the consumer. Warhol takes these images, places them in an art gallery, and asks the art critic to evaluate their necessity as pieces of art. To be sure, "Warhol portrays the condition of society rather than his own aesthetics. His pictures thus become valuable as source material, open to and understandable to everyone, they no longer require unraveling by the expert," (Crone, 1970). Thus, postmodern popular art became something that could be understood by society as a whole, rather than merely the artistic and academic elite. This seems to mirror the motivations of Jeff Koons in his work. In his images of Marilyn Monroe, Warhol takes a face that is known throughout the world, and inverts it to morph it into a completely new idea. Monroe is transfigured from a person to a cultural commodity, consumed when people go to see her movies or viewed from a space in a gallery. In parallel to this, a Campbell's soup tin or Coke Cola bottle becomes the representation of a nations infatuation with the product. The function of Warhol's therefore instills upon the observer a new way of understanding the parameters of art and all that it can encompass. Warhol's art is not bound by composition of color or fluidity of form. It is not an art created for aesthetic pleasure, this is obvious, but asks of the observer to question why they are looking at this piece in a gallery and not a historical textbook. It is only when these images are assimilated into the machinery of art do their political and historical significance become realized. The method and style of Warhol's work was governed by his own unique awareness of himself as a machine. The Factory in which he produced his work mirrored the industrial process with which he created his silk-screen paintings. Disavowing any personality in his work, creativity was reduced to the minimum of only choosing the photo's he was going to silk-screen. He disrupted the boundaries of art by placing common objects or images on artistic pedestals, forcing the observer to reevaluate images that had become intuitively 'comfortable' within society that their meaning had changed. His exploration of the mass consumed and mass neglected images within American opened new realizations within art. Art could now be interpreted without the need of aesthetics and personal expression; it could simply be the expression of feeling through a singular image. This is the legacy of Warhol's work, transforming the ideal of the photo into the expression of a painting and embodying within the essence of art. Art and the Media It is in Warhol's fascination and closely-knit relationship with the media, that he shares the greatest commonality with Koons. To be fair, artists and the media have always been bound together. It often seems that one cannot exist without the other. The media feed from the extremes to which artists sometimes go, so that they can deliver a piece of art. And artists survive completely on the coverage of the media. Artists wish to shock and provoke in order to achieve getting as much publicity as possible. Throughout the history of modern art, there have been many people who know well how to attract the media and take advantage of that to raise their value in the art market. But Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons have been masters at creating interest around their names. Each used the media as their subject matter, twisting and polluting the images of mass media to create their art, and also became a media subject at the same time. Each made it their goal to live in the spotlight of the media because they knew that only this way their words would be heard, and their art would be witnessed. Andy Warhol understood the importance of the mass-media attention would have in his life and took advantage of that very early in his career. He started by creating advertisements that would be published on newspapers and recreated comic images that were published in magazines he was reading when he was a child. His images were instantly recognizable and would make him famous in his field. But it was not until he started printing his " Death and Disaster" series on canvas that the art world started to notice him. He used the photos that were printed on the front pages of newspapers when announcing that something horrible had happened. He reprinted them again and again on canvas, imitating the way all newspapers print the same photograph when covering the same topic. No matter how horrible the topic is, this repetition minimizes the effect it has on people and society becomes effectively numb, immune to the sadness that we would normally feel when we see something horrific. Publicity photos were one of Warhol's favorite subjects. When Marilyn Monroe died, he paid his tribute to her by creating the first of what would later be a big series of prints of big actors and singing stars. He used a publicity photograph that was created for the promotion of a film she was making and he cropped her face. He exaggerated the colors that she would normally on, although the picture was black-and-white and he reproduced this image many times on the same canvas. He did not even correct the smudges around the edges of each picture. He wanted to comment on the effect images that were created by and for the media had on the masses. He underlined the difficulty media-worshiped idols had to always appear immaculate. He always used instantly recognizable faces. The same principle applied for the creation of the Campbell's soup cans series. He wanted to use something that everybody would recognize and identify with. He did the same when he created the different dollar bills on canvas time and time again. He always wanted to be instantly recognized like his subject matter. After he was shot, the editor of Life magazine accused Warhol of "having breathed a hint of madness into American society," (Bourdon, 1989). He responded by printing a canvas of a similar gun to the one that was used to shoot him. He parodied the press often, and then he bought Interview magazine and became a part of the very thing that he mocked. He appeared to have a love-hate relationship with the mass media, caring what the media thought about his work because they could promote or destroy any of his exhibitions, but hating that dependency. He used the media as a source for his art, and the media used him, because whatever was written about him and his strange life was selling papers. As the media was mass-produced, his art pieces were reproduced images taken from the media. One could not exist without the other. Likewise, the very same media that criticized and publicized Warhol has don't the same for Koons, all the while comparing the two artists, and referring to Koons as Warhol's successor. Like Warhol, Koons claims to be heavily influenced by Marcel Duchamp, often referred to as the father of Dada, and made famous by his display of a urinal at a modern art gallery, andtitling it "Fountain". This is not where the similarities between Koons and Warhol end, however. The similarities between their work are many. Amongst them is the way they both used the media as a source for their art. Koons quickly became famous for creating kitsch art. He also recreated images produced for the media, like the Jim Beam souvenir train that he had his craftsmen make for him from stainless steal and he had the original whisky bottles put into the miniature trains. His exhibitions were of ready-mades used as art, a notion that Duchamp pioneered and Warhol perfected. Because Koons lives in the real world of mass production, this is where his inspiration is derived. His work has been described as forcing the world to look around to insignificant objects that can gain artistic value, because his artifacts were polished and they gleamed. As the media represent today's world and they way we do things, Koons' art will reflect in the future what the needs were of today's society. Furthermore, Koons does not hesitate to use his private life when it comes to getting some public attention. He married Cicciolina, a former porn star who managed to get into the Italian parliament with her party. Her image is a familiar one in Europe, and the marriage increased Koons' own notoriety. In 1990, the two had a series of pictures taken of them having sexual intercourse and then he transferred them onto canvas and had an exhibition made exclusively with their naked pictures. The exhibition drew a lot of media attention, and sparked further controversy. One television show even had family defense counsel trying to explain what the impact of this exhibition would be upon society. Meanwhile, Koons claimed that he wanted to share the couple's love for each other, and that he was trying to expel the guilt that follows sex. Certainly, the two were made for each other. She was a media woman and he was a media man (Koons, 1992, p.140). Of course his exhibition was covered by the media and gave it the push needed to become a success. Society has a sick fascination for learning the details of the lives of others, and the media succeeded in making it look forbidden and over the top. After the couple divorced, and the news of their child custody battle hit the headlines, it was made apparent that they were exploiting each other into establishing themselves and their own place in the media. Koons recently sold a statue made from porcelain, and entitled "Michael Jackson and Bubbles", inspired by a publicity picture of Michael Jackson and his pet monkey. When he created it, the media could not help to notice the similarity of the concept with Warhol's work. But this was Koons' goal, as he knew it would be easy to sell any piece that even slightly resembled Warhol's work. The connection was also made between the public image of the performer and the fact that Koons chose to use this particular singer as his subject. Michael Jackson has lived all his life under the public eye and made his career based on media coverage. Everybody admired the fact that Koons drew the attention on the hollowness and fragility of his celebrity status. The statue was sold for 2 million. In the same action three of Warhol's Cambell's soup cans were sold. The attention was again drawn to the fact that two of the most distinct representatives of the 20th century were sold in the same auction. The more we analyze the life and work of Warhol and Koons, the more we see similarities beyond any kind of coincidence. The versatility of their work made them to be loved and, at the same time, hated by the mass media. Some were saying that they are worth of being mentioned as two of the leaders of 20th century modern art, while others were arguing that their motive is only to gain money and power, and they do not care about the cultural enrichment of today's people. They both lived to provoke with their ideas and lack of morality. They were both very interested in the way we see and live today, something that the media are dedicated into doing everyday through criticism and subliminal suggestion. Warhol argued that he was only a commercial artist and there was nothing deeper in him than what one can see on his paintings. On the other hand, Jeff Koons gained the stardom based on his attractiveness, that Warhol could never get because of his awkward appearance. But the media treat them exactly the same: as two artists who are only trying to self-promote themselves and they have nothing to say through their work. This seems to be a jealous torrent on the side of the media, who have the most power in today's society; because it was the media that the artists mock, the media lashes out against the artists. Because of this symbiotic relationship, the two factions are able to succeed in what they do. The truth is however, that the meaning in art is not in its intent, but in its effect. Therefore, whether Koons and Warhol wanted nothing more than fame and money is beside the point. It is the meaning that the general public construes from their work that matters. Twisted Images If there is a point to this postmodern art however, it is certainly not to change the lives of its audience or to communicate any great injustices as other modern art might do. Rather, it seems that the primary focus of postmodern art is to blur the lines of reality so that the audience is confused or uncertain about whether or not what they are viewing really is art with a purpose. By creating art that is on equal intellectual footing with the general public, these artists are able to garner wider appeal, and thus attribute the facets of mass media and mass production in their work. They are able to keep their work accessible to these larger audiences by utilizing familiar images, such as Warhol's use of the Campbell's Soup can, Koons' use of Disney characters, or Jasper Johns' use of the American flag. They then twist and invert these images to their liking. For Warhol, this meant utilizing the media to his advantage. The Campbell's Soup cans blur the lines between art and mere advertisement, drawing the audience's attention to the relative lack of a difference between the two. We see the same thing in his portrayal of Marilyn Monroe in the infamous publicity photos. What was once an advertisement for a commodity, whether it be sex or soup, is now art, for Warhol, for us, and for society as a whole. Koons uses this same basic principle in his warped images of the Disney characters, but this is a bit of a twist beyond what Warhol did before him. Where Warhol was mocking advertisements, common household objects, and publicity photos, Koons is actually mocking art itself. The artist an animator Walt Disney created the Disney characters himself; they are art. Granted, these images have grown so integrated into society and consumer culture that Mickey Mouse himself is more icon than artwork now, but nevertheless, the image did begin as a work of art, borne of Walt Disney's imagination. Thus, Koons' work is not merely art imitating life, but art imitating art. By taking images that we already know, and feel that we are familiar with, postmodern artists draw their audience in. Then, by altering that once-familiar and comfortable image, they are able to throw us off, causing us to question the nature of our own realities. Through its use of consumer durables, postmodern art spans the boundaries between avant garde art and kitsch, thereby transgressing one of the fundamental tenets of modernism-that is, the clear distinction between 'high art' and 'mass culture'. Koons' work, however, fits with Burgin's view of art as "a set of operations in a field of signifying practices". His use of consumer durables as art relates to Baudrillard's ideas about living in "a world of representations, of consumption, of media images, of shifting surfaces and styles," (Harrison et al, 1993). By appropriating objects and displaying them as art, Koons critiques the Modernist idea of art as essentially original. His use of commodities as art is also interesting in relation to the commodification of Abstract Expressionist paintings, which were advocated as a sound financial investment in the early 1950s. The variety of work produced by Koons also explores the eclecticism often associated with postmodernism. This, and its occasionally ephemeral nature, as we see in Puppy, made of flowers seems to invoke a certain superficiality, which may or may not be the actual case, though Warhol seemed to agree that it was. Whether they mean to or not, these artists do seem to be able to make a lasting impact upon the society from which they emerge. Koons has been enjoying a lucrative career in the limelight of the media for several years now, and Warhol's work continues to be exhibited decades after his death, not only in galleries, but private collections, museums, and even postage stamps, turning Warhol himself into a commodity much like those that he mocked and imitated in his work. It is not only in their sheer notoriety and controversy that these artists find a voice, however, but in their ability to cause their audience to question those ever-gray lines between reality and art, between the signifier and the signified, between the modern and the postmodern. For years, they will continue to shock and awe with their ideas of how the world exists, twisting and inverting those popular images that we know and love, in order to hold a mirror to our faces that we might see our own shortcomings. Works Cited Baker, D.S. 'Jeff Koons and the paradox of a superstar's phenomenon', Available: http://eserver.org/bs/04/Baker.html, 24/05/2001, 17:18 Bell, Bowyer 'A good deed undone', Available: http://www.reviewny.com/current/ 99_00/dec_1/artfeatures1.html, 24/05/2001, 17:27 Bourdon, David (1989), Warhol, Abradale Press, New York. Crone, Rainer (1970), Andy Warhol, Thames and Hudson, London. Gablik, Suzi and Russel, John (1969), Pop Art Redefined. Thames and Hudson, London. Harrison, Jonathan et al (1993), Modernism in Dispute. Yale University Press, Cambridge. Koons, Jeff (1992), The Jeff Koons Handbook. Rizzoli, New York. Read More