In America during the 1960’s the concept of art and the idea of the artist was continually challenged and changing due to the new and often controversial works of artists such as Andy Warhol, Claus Oldenburg and the Minimalists. The main reason for the redefining concept of art and the change in the meaning of the title artist was due to the increased popularity of removing the artists hand from works of art, an idea that is addressed by Roland Barthes in his essay Death of the Author.
The art movement, after venturing through the works of the Impressionists during the 19th century in which the artists hand, brush strokes and painterly quality of the work was the key and most important aspect of art, became detached and impersonal during the 1960’s. The increased production of brands and products lead to the idea of consumerism becoming a popular process for artists to address in America through the pop art movement. This allowed artists to create works that were often considered to be seen as replicas or ready-mades of well know brands rather than unique art works. As well as this, the process through which these objects were created was often mechanical, further removing the artist from the work itself. The development of Minimalism similarly detached the artists hand from works of art through artists supplying the ideas for the works but allowing others to create and install the sculptures or objects mechanically. The barrier between artist and audience was additionally frequently broken in the 60’s with the increased popularity of Happenings allowing the audience to become part of the work of art themselves. This caused a redefinition of the meaning of art and artist to emerge. All of these areas lead to the redefined meaning of art and the role of the artist in the 1960’s to change despite the ideas they were expressing not necessarily being new and unheard of. The 60’s was a very politically charged decade and a time of questioning due to the assassination of Kennedy, the Vietnam war, Cuban missile crisis and the fight for civil rights. The society of the 60’s felt the need to question everything from religion to text books due to the loss of trust in the government, and it was because of this that these controversial works where often accepted, especially as artists such as Warhol used his work politically to bridge the gap between social classes and Roy Lichtenstein using his work and ironic cliché to draw attention to social problems through addressing popular culture.
Art had always been appreciated and admired as a unique skill and talent held by certain individuals expressing outstanding intellect through the use of their hands. Giorgio Vasari clearly states this in the Lives of the Artists as he refers to Michelangelo as a remarkable genius suggesting ‘that the world should marvel at the singular eminence of his life and works and all his actions, seeming rather divine than earthy’.[1] The idea of the artist being an exceptional genius and possessing a unique gift continued throughout the history of art into the work of the Impressionists who further developed the idea of the artist through their unique painterly style. Monet, Degas, Manet and Renoir all captured scenes from a particular moment or passing of time by expressing their subjects and movement through visible brush strokes. However, during the 1960’s, America opened up for a body of experimental artists to expand on new ideas and create works of art that were to challenge the idea of art that had been developed throughout history. Warhol is the most well known, established individual that redefined the idea of the artist, not only was he an artist but Warhol was a social celebrity of his time. His gallery, also known as ‘the factory’ (fig.1) was not only used to create his mechanical art work but ‘became a place where certain kinds of sixties people could live a certain kind of sixties life’.[2] Warhol set an agenda for lifestyle and built an area in which people could come together to live an often secret and debauched lifestyle. Warhol made the status of the artist no longer a secret and untouchable individual often associated to Van Gogh but a social status. This was further enhanced through the way he produced his work as a group rather than an individual.
One of the main reasons for the change in the concept of art is due to the removal of the artist’s hand from their work. This idea is addressed in Roland Barthes Death of the Author, despite Barthes text tackling the death of the author in literature it is apt to apply the idea to American art in the 1960’s as it was this very idea that led to the change in the role of the artists. Barthes writes about the individual author and how once writing is on a page it is uncertain whose voice is on the page, the author, the character or a universal voice. He states that ‘it will always be impossible to know’ and it is the ‘trap (of the arts) where all identity is lost’.[3] These ideas can be similarly linked to art especially in the 1960s when so much experimentation with identity and individuals was happening. This loss of identity is established by Warhol through his desire to ‘be a machine’.[4] He created his work in his factory, the title the factory rather than studio suggests in itself that the whole process of Warhol’s work was similar to the manufacturing of household products. In Arthur Danto’s text on Warhol’s Brillo Boxes, he states that Warhol’s art was ‘Impersonal, mechanically achieved objects with no aesthetic aura’,[5] and his method ‘a process that in a way parodied mass production’.[6] Despite the works of Warhol often being created by others, he himself established the ideas and fought against the idea of mass production. He believed that through creating something in a mass produced way but still maintaining flaws and imperfections in his work which could have been avoided, he was breaking the conventions of what art was. Danto further brings this aspect of Warhol’s work to light as he quotes Edmund White on all aspects that Warhol strived to challenge in the art industry. White wrote:
‘Art reveals the trace of the artist’s hand: Andy resorted to silk-screening. A work of art is a unique object: Andy came up with multiples. Art is divorced from the commercial and the utilitarian: Andy specialized in Campbell’s soup cans and dollar bills. A work of art is what an artist signs, proof of his creative choice, his intentions: Andy signed any object whatever’.[7]
It is precisely the controversial action of Warhol in the art world that lead to people reconsidering the idea of art, and today it is very hard to argue that Warhol’s Campbell Soup or his Brillo Boxes (fig.2) are not considered art. It is his very use of mechanical production combined with defects in his work that lead to a commercial image becoming a bespoke work of art.
Despite Warhol appearing as through he was the pivotal point of change, it could be argued that it was not Warhol who broke away and rebelled from the conventions of art by producing replicas of objects and selling them as art, but Marcel Duchamp and his piece fountain in 1912 (fig.3). Duchamp fought art in a time when artwork had to be beautiful to be classified as art as he tried to liberate the eye from beauty. The work fountain was criticized and rejected from exhibitions due to the object not being considered art but a readymade (a mass produced article selected by an artist and displayed as artwork).[8] Warhol managed to achieve status for his works, which are often argued to be ready-mades by making them out of different materials, keeping mistakes and irregularities that would usually be thrown out in manufacturing and maintaining a political message in his artwork during a hugely political decade. He celebrated American life and believed that popular culture such as Campbell’s Soup and Coke started the ‘tradition where the riches consumers buy essentially the same thing as the poorest’.[9] It is fair then to argue that Warhol’s work was accepted because he created artistic replicas of everyday American objects in a way that closed the gap between social classes unlike Duchamp fighting the meaning of art as a whole and striving to remove beauty in art.
In addressing politics in American art in the 1960’s it is important to also consider Roy Lichtenstein. It is evident that his work also possessed an aspect of political thought, again perhaps why these types of works were accepted during the 60’s as the fight for civil rights, war in Vietnam and Cuban missile crisis were all at the forefront of the society. Many of his works hold an ironic attitude towards the mass medias representation of important issues. His painting Whaam 1963 showing a plane attacking an enemy was a reality for Lichtenstein and many others in America at the time, due to his period serving in the US army. Despite this personal and emotional response to war, the image shows a lack of violence and makes war appear as a heroic video game that everyone should aspire to achieve. Lichtenstein is questioning here why the mass media portrays war and other issues in a certain way, giving the public a false sense of what is actually happening on the war front. This comical irony is also drawn upon in his work Drowning Girl 1963 (fig.4) the work highlights the power of representation and cliché images that would usually just pass by in a magazine or advertisement. The reason for Lichtenstein’s popularity in pop art and his success is due to his work on clichés and archetypes. For example, in Drowning Girl he plays on the image of the typical American women but also on the masculine and feminine attitudes in the 60’s. The girl in the image is saying ‘I’d rather sink than call Brad for help’, showing how it was thought that women could not save themselves or look after themselves as well as men could. Lichtenstein is addressing men’s authority and power over women and making a comical satire for viewers to reconsider their thoughts on gender equality. In addressing the political turmoil of the decade Warhol and Lichtenstein are proving that not all art can happen at all times. It was because of the issues that were happening in in America that the pop artists were so popular and thought provoking. They managed to shape the definition of art into something that not only shows popular culture and well known images but also addresses the social problems in an appealing way. In being accepted due to their political outlook and presentation of popular images it was the works of Warhol and pop artists such as Roy Lichtenstein that caused people to reconsider widespread everyday images as art.
Another prevalent, defining art movement in the 1960’s was the Minimalism movement that similarly followed the ideas addressed by Barthes in removing the creative hand from the art work. Artists had become individuals who establish an idea and it was the work of artisans to mechanically create and install the works, resembling the relationship between architects and builders. This aspect of Minimalism led to the movement becoming another defining moment in the change of art in 1960’s America. Minimalism allowed artwork to symbolize nothing but lines and shapes rather than recognizable images from real life. The work of the Minimalist was often simple, abstract, void of colour and usually assembled in the viewer’s space rather than crafted. In doing this, these works allowed the audience to flow through and around the objects, almost drawing attention to, and allowing the spaces in which the works sat to become more important than the works themselves. Through looking at the works of Robert Morris, such as his exhibition in the Green Gallery in New York in 1964 (fig.5) and Untitled Three L’s 1964 it is evident that Morris wanted his audience to become part of the work he had made, leaving space between objects and creating objects on a mass scale causing the viewers to engage with the work whether they wanted to or not. In Michael Fried’s essay Art and Objecthood from 1967, Fried looks at Morris’s opinion on his work and states that he considers his literalist work as resuming the lapsed tradition of constructive sculpture such as the works of Tatlin and Rodchenko (fig.6).[10] It is then apt to consider why this form of constructive sculpture was not carried on from the earlier 20th century but abandoned, rediscovered and reinvented in the 1960’s. This rediscovery of such a vast and viewer inclusive form of art on a mass scale caused a further rethinking of what art should be. Unlike the constructive sculptures of Tatlin, the Minimalist created simple works with less detail. It was no longer necessary to make aesthetically pleasing sculpture, paint realistic images or even images of pop culture but to create art that draws attention to the space, sounds and atmosphere surrounding the work rather than the subject image of the work itself.
This idea of space and drawing attention to surrounding life rather than the subject in a painting is also looked at by Robert Rauschenberg. Although a few years prior to the period of discussion, Rauschenberg’s White Painting (fig.7) reflects and shares many of the ideas addressed by Morris. The painting lacks colour, shape, form and even image but it is because of this that the attention is focused more on the life surrounding the work. The aim of this work was to reintroduce life into art, an aspect that had been somewhat lost over the years due to art displaying a particular moment in time, still and detached from the current moment in which it is viewed. This idea was proven popular in the art world as a year later in 1952 John Cage created his composition 4 minutes and 33 seconds, a work void from music in which the orchestra sits in silence for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, and then again into works such as Morris in the Minimalist movement. In Leo Steinberg’s The flatbed picture plane, Steinberg addresses this changing issue in the history of painting, he states that the pictures of the 1950’s ‘no longer simulate vertical fields, but opaque flatbed horizontals’, and similar harks back to the idea that paintings no longer had to ‘depend on a head-to-toe correspondence with human posture’.[11] Although these ideas are expressed by Steinberg and developed by Rauschenberg in the 50’s the ideas continued on into the Minimalist works and furthermore into sculpture rather than just painting. It was the absence of traditional art in modern art that allowed a new definition of artwork in the 60’s to become so popular.
Lastly, the increased popularity of Happenings, a form of performance art that often have a non-linear narrative or timeframe and involve audience interaction in the 1960’s caused a breakdown between audience and artist to emerge. Allan Kaprow coined this term in the 1950’s in his essay Assemblages, Environments and Happenings. He states that in order to create a happening you must follow six rules, all these eluded to the idea of the elimination of the audience ‘(allowing) all elements (material, people, space) to be integrated’[12] , location ‘(should be) widely spread and sometimes moving’,[13] and the idea of time as ‘variable and discontinuous’.[14] One of the main artists of America in the 60’s who not only followed the idea of consumerism and mass production through his wire and plaster items was Claus Oldenburg. His piece The Store 1961 (fig.8) consisted of an assortment of everyday objects such as food and clothes made from plaster over wire and painted. He opened the work in a rented shop and priced the works making them available to buy. He created cheap, available, consumerable art but simultaneously his work became part of the environment. He not only bought art into an everyday place, a store in New York, but also managed to bring ordinary objects into a gallery. In doing this Oldenburg was encouraging participation from his audience to make the shop work, he needed customers to buy objects rather than in a gallery situation where the audience would not be able to touch or interact with the objects. Happenings allowed the audience to become part of the experience of art and make the art themselves and so this new popularity of Happenings caused yet another change in the role of the artists.
Another key example of this audience inclusion can be seen in Kaprow’s 18 happenings in 6 parts 1959, in this work the audience were given a strictly planned and detailed programme of instructions. All 18 performances began and ended on a bell and so in comparison to Oldenburg, Kaprow was not allowing his audience to roam but rather using his audience as props. Despite this huge difference in approach to their audience, Oldenburg and Kaprow both share the aspect of audience inclusion, bringing a different unique view into the definition of art. Art was no longer a separation between artist and viewer but a combination of the two relying on one another causing the definition of art to become much more inclusive of the viewer as well as the product. In Kaprow’s work this is emphasised even more so, as without his audience there would be no art due to the viewers playing the role of props. In both these instances, the artist role is similar to a conductor putting together an idea or piece of music but allowing other musicians to complete the finished product and so once again redefining the concept of what it means for a work to be considered art.
The work of artists in America during the 1960’s if often considered a time of new ideas and experimentation yet through looking at the works of the pop artists, Minimalists and Happenings it is clear that these ground breaking developments in the definition of the art and the artist were not new ideas. This is seen though Warhol’s world renowned art in which Danto expresses ‘brought Modernism to an end’,[15] drawing influence from Duchamp’s Fountain in 1914 and Minimalism as Morris refers to it as constructive sculpture drawing back on the ideas of Tatlin in 1920. Despite many of these ideas having already been established by artist earlier in the 20th century, art can only be changed and certain ideas can only be accepted during certain times, as Danto states, ‘the great art historian Heinrich Wolffin said that not everything is possible at all times’.[16] In applying this statement to the works that were developed before the 60’s, it is perhaps clear then as to why Duchamp’s fountain or Tatlin’s constructive sculptures where not as successful at the time of there development as the works of the Minimalist or pop artists in the 1960’s. The reason for this could be due to the political situation of America causing the people of the 60’s to accept the changes happening in art and the defining role of the artist more readily than the 20’s. The increased popularity of these possibly overlooked works in the 60’s allowed the ideas of Minimalism or constructive sculpture as well as ready-mades or objects similar to ready-mades to grow and expand, allowing ideas which had previously been discounted as not art to be considered.
Overall, the reasons for the changing definition of art and the artist in America during the 1960’s was due to a combination of changing ideas. Primarily, the increased removal of the artist from works of art caused artist to no longer have to paint in a painterly quality to become successful, and similarly allowed a new perspective to develop of viewers looking at the absence of painting and focusing more on emotion, space, time, sound and what is around them. Other aspects of the 1960’s that have been identified to have changed the role of the artist and the definition of art were the political issues that were happening and the way in which artists responded to them as seen through the pop artists Lichtenstein and Warhol and the increased interest in popular culture allowing everyday objects into art and art into everyday surroundings. This broke down the barrier between art and the ordinary world but also allowed art to become more accessible to the public changing the boundaries and relationship between artist and audience. Lastly, the idea of space in the 1960’s becoming if not more important than the works themselves was a pivotal moment. The lack of colour, representative images, and clearly understandable motifs in works such as Rauschenberg’s White Painting or Morris’s structures all cause the viewer to focus on life around them rather than life depicted in a painting. Art had become about self reflection and questioning rather than realistic portrayal and the artist although still a creative individual, possessing a closer relationship with his audience and a distant relationship with his work.
Fig.1, Andy Warhol, The Factory, the national arts and life, February 4 2016, Claire Dight
Fig 2, Andy Warhol, Brillo Box, 1964, Synthetic polymer paint and silkscreen ink on wood, 43.3 x 43.2 x 36.5 cm, (MoMA)
Fig 3, Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, 1917-Replica 1964, Porcelain, Unconfirmed: 360 x 480 x 610 mm, (Tate)
Fig 4, Roy Lichtenstein, Drowning girl, 1963, Oil and synthetic polymer paint on canvas, 171.6 x 169.5 cm, (MOMA)
Fig 6, Vladimir Tatlin, Corner counter relief, 1914, Iron copper wood and cables, 71 x 118 cm, St Petersburg (Reddit)
Fig 5, Robert Morris, Installation Green Gallery New York, 1964, seven plywood structures painted grey.
Fig 7, Robert Rauschenberg, White painting three panel, 1951, latex paint on canvas, 182.88 cm x 274.32 cm, (Rauschenberg foundation)
Fig 8, Claus Oldenburg, The Store, 1964, Wire and plaster painted, (MOMA)
Bibliography
Barthes Roland, Death of the Author, (online, assessed 1 April)
Danto Arthur, The Brilllo Box, (New haven, 2009)
Fried Micheal, Art and Objecthood, (Blackwell, 2002)
Kamholz, Roger, Sotheby’s, 21 days of Andy Warhol, Andy Warhol and his process, (online, accessed 1 April)
Kaprow Allan, Assemblages, Environments and Happenings, (Blackwell, 2002)
Nochlin Linda, Realism now, (New York,1968)
Steinberg Leo, The flatbed picture plane, (Blackwell, 2002)
Vasari Giorgio, Lives of the artists, (England, 1965)
[1] Giorgio Vasari, The lives of the artists volume I, (penguin group, 1965), 438 [2] Linda Nochlin, Realism now, (New York,1968), 48 [3] Roland Barthes, Death of the Author, www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf, accessed 1 April 2017 [4] Roger Kamholz, Sotheby’s, 21 days of Andy Warhol, Andy Warhol and his process, www.sothebys.com/en/news-video/blogs/all-blogs/21-days-of-andy-warhol/2013/11/andy-warhol-and-his-process.html, accessed 1 April 2017 [5] Arthur Danto, The Brilllo Box, (New haven,2009),49 [6] Danto, The Brilllo Box, 50 [7] Danto, The Brillo Box, p.64-65 [8] OED [9] Danto, The Brillo Box, 56-57 [10] Michael Fried, 'Art and Objecthood', Art in theory, 1900-2000; an anthology of changing ideas, (Blackwell, 2002), 837 [11] Leo Steinberg, ‘The flatbed picture plane’, Art in theory, 1900-2000; an anthology of changing ideas, (Blackwell, 2002), 973 [12] Allan Kaprow, ‘Assemblages, Environments and Happenings’, Art in theory, 1900-2000; an anthology of changing ideas (Blackwell, 2002), 722 [13] Kaprow, ‘Assemblages, Environments and Happenings’, 720 [14] Kaprow, ‘Assemblages, Environments and Happenings’, 720 [15] Danto, The Brillo Box, 52 [16] Danto, The Brillo Box, 61
Commentaires