Table of content Abstract Summaries (in other languages) Introduction

o o o

02 03 06 07 08 08 12 14 17 17 19 24 26 27 28 33 37 37 41 43 46 49 52 56

Problem Area / Statement Dimensions Methods The Pop Art Movement Personal History Impersonal Art The 60s Through Warhols Eyes The Factory

The Rise of the Sixties

o

The Empty Warhol

o o o o

Theories
o o

Walter Benjamin The Institutional Theory of Art The Portraits The Brillo Boxes Andy Warhol: A Work of Art

Analysis
o o o

Discussion Conclusion Perspectivation List of References

Abstract The overall goal of this project is to illuminate how Pop Art, with special regard to Andy Warhols work, changed the definition of art. In the first few chapters, the decade of the 1960s and the Pop Art movement will be described. Then Andy Warhol himself as well as his art and his view on the 60s will be depicted, taking departure in his own memories from Popism (1980). Following this we give a presentation of the theories, which will serve as conceptual background for us to place our objects of analysis in. After the analysis follows a discussion of the various arguments and perspectives in the paper. Finally a conclusion answers the problem statement using the theoretical tools, our findings from the analysis, and discussion.

Resum Det overordnede ml med dette projekt er at kaste lys over hvordan Pop Kunst, med srligt blik p Andy Warhols vrker, ndrede definitionen p kunst. Efter en introduktion af den motivation, som ligger til grund for projektet, de dimensioner og metoder som er brugt, gr vi videre til at formulere en problemformulering som virker som vejledende sprgsml igennem projektet. I de frste par kapitler vil vi forklare rtiet 1960erne med fokus p hvilke sociale og politiske forandringer kunne have afstedkommet det milj, Pop Kunst bevgelsen voksede i. Derefter vil Andy Warhols person sammen med hans kunst og hans syn p 60erne blive beskrevet med afst i hans egne erindringer fra Popism(1980). Denne frste del sttter i at opn indsigt i Pop Kunsten og Andy Warhol, hvilket baner vejen for en kvalificeret og detaljeret analyse af hans vrker som slutteligt besvarer problemformuleringen. Et indblik i de to teorier vil efterflgende blive givet, nemlig Benjamins teori om reproduktion, stttet af John A. Walker, og George Dickies institutionsteori, som er baseret p Arthur Dantos teori om kunstverdenen. Disse vil fungere som konceptuel ramme hvori vi kan placere vores analyseobjekt. Objekterne er Andy Warhols portrtter, the Brillo Boxes og til slut hans egen persona. Efter analysen flger en diskussion af de forskellige argumenter og perspektiver i opgaven. Til sidst, en konklusion benytter sig af de teoretiske redskaber og vores fund fra analysen og diskussionen til at besvare probemformuleringen.

Zusammenfassung Ziel dieses Projektes ist es die Pop-Art Bewegung zu beleuchten und dabei ein Verstndnis fr Andy Warhol und seine Kunst zu entwickeln.

Nachdem wir die Motivation und Methoden dieses Projektes vorgestellt haben und darauf eingegangen sind, welche Dimensionen es decken soll, stellen wir die Problemformulierung vor. Diese wird uns im Laufe des Projektschreibens leiten. In den ersten Kapiteln gehen wir auf die sozialen und politischen Vernderungen der 60er Jahre ein, in denen die Pop-Art Bewegung heranwuchs. Als nchstes beschftigen wir uns mit Andy Warhol als Person und mit seiner Kunst, wie auch mit seiner Perspketive auf die 60er Jahre. Sein eigens verfasstes Buch Popism schildert Warhol's Sichtweisen auf diese einflussreiche Zeit. Dieser erste Teil hilft uns Pop Art und Andy Warhol zu verstehen, was uns ermglicht eine Analyse seiner Werke anzustellen und eine Antwort auf unsere Problemstellung zu finden. Anschlieend werden zwei Theorien vorgestellt, mit denen wir uns intensiv befasst haben. Die erste Theorie stammt von Walter Benjamin, einem deutschen Literaturkritiker, der sich mit der Reproduktion von Kunstwerken auseinadersetzt. Walker's berlegungen korrespondieren mit denen von Benjamin und sind daher eine hilfreiche Horizonterweiterung. Die Zweite nennt sich Institutionelle Theorie und bezieht sich auf die Kunstwelt. Diese hat ihren Ursprung bei Arthur Danto und wurde von George Dickie ausgefhrt. Die Theorien werden uns im Laufe der Analyse begleiten und uns eine Grundlage fr die Interpretation von Warhol's Brillo Boxes, seiner Portraits und seiner Person liefern. Auf diese Analyse folgt eine Diskussion der verschiedenen Argumente und Perspektiven in Hinblick auf die Problemstellung. Die Konklusion wird die Ergebnisse der Analyse und Diskussion zusammenfassen und eine Lsung der Problemstellung aufzeigen.

Resumen El objetivo principal de este proyecto es manifestar cmo el movimiento artstico conocido como Pop Art, con especial atencin en el trabajo de Andy Warhol, cambi la definicin del arte establecida antes de los aos sesenta. Despus de introducir nuestra motivacin y las dimensiones y mtodos utilizados, aclararemos la formulacin del problema que funcionar como gua para la realizacin del proyecto. En los primeros captulos, se introducir la dcada de los sesenta enfocando los cambios sociales y culturales sucedidos en el momento y que impulsaron el surgir de dicho movimiento artstico. Seguidamente, estudiaremos a Andy Warhol y su trabajo, partiendo de las memorias expresadas en los libros escritos por l mismo, titulado Popism. Esto nos ayudar a adquirir una visin general sobre la vida del artista y nos conducir a la aplicacin correcta de las teoras artsticas que presentaremos seguidamente con el fin de resolver la formulacin del problema. Las teoras presentadas sern las siguientes: primero, la teora sobre la reproduccin artstica presentada por W. Benjamin y apoyada por John A. Walker. Segundo, la teora institucional presentada por George Dickie, basada en la teora del mundo artstico de Artur C. Danto. Estas nos proporcionarn el conocimiento necesario para realizar un anlisis de algunas de las obras ms importantes de Warhol. Despus de la aplicacin de las teoras, seguir una seccin en la que discutiremos los varios argumentos y perspectivas presentadas a lo largo de nuestra investigacin. Finalmente, la conclusin ofrecer la respuesta a la formulacin del problema presentada anteriormente

Introduction In the USA of the 1960s numerous social and cultural differences constantly emerged. It was a society affected by antipodean mindsets and very conservative ideals, with material consumerism as a contrast to the social liberation movement, each affecting the mindset of the population. Andy Warhol thus made his artistic breakthrough in a time in which society was undergoing significant cultural transformations. Taking departure in the 1960s, we will try to understand the world and time in which the Pop Art movement commenced, and how much the culture affected both the individual artists and the institution of art as a whole. We will be looking into a society in which both increasing consumerism and revolutionary thinking were dominating concepts, inflicting, what in German is called, the Zeitgeist of the time. Andy Warhol became a leading figure in this, directly portraying the world by using methods far from the traditional. Another factor that distinguished him from the norm was the way he actively created his imagery, making it a part of his work. Warhol will be a central point of this project, looking at both him as a significant figure of the time and his art, as these can hardly be detached from each other. The decision to study Andy Warhol came along with our increasing awareness of the enormous implications of his practice. After him, many artists have negotiated a place for their own practice in the shade of his art. Andy Warhol challenged the tradition of imposing a distance between the art/artist and a social meaning (McGonagle, 1997: 5). Our main motivation behind working with this subject is, besides from personal passion for art and the study of its many facets, a shared personal desire to

understand art in a modern context, especially Pop Art and Andy Warhol. By further research we came across two influential art philosophers, namely George Dickie and Arthur Danto. Both of them attempt to define art by putting it into context with what they have named the art world. Since Warhol worked a lot with reproduction in his works, we also decided to use Walter Benjamins theory. It will help us to grasp the consequences that mechanization has had in art. By investigating Pop Art and its influence on the later development in the art world, we can reach a better understanding of the current streams in modern art.

Problem Statement All these contemplations and inspirations have led us to the following problem statement : To what extent did Andy Warhol and the Pop Art movement expand the horizon of how art can be defined? When posing this question it should be noted that there is an underlying claim for which we will argue: Andy Warhol and the Pop Art movement have had a significant influence on the change in understanding art and this change was at once a product of, and a comment on, the time.

Dimensions

Theorists such as Walter Benjamin, George Dickie and Arthur Danto have, after carrying out some research, caught our attention. As they are all philosophers of art they are useful for us in covering the philosophy dimension. This dimension will assist in answering our problem statement because it provides us with argumentations and definitions needed to understand the abstract nature of art. In the analysis we will apply the arguments from all theorists and later use them to discuss Andy Warhol and the Pop Art movement. It is furthermore fruitful to include the history and culture dimension since one needs to understand both the cultural and historical context in order to successfully investigate an art movement such as Pop Art. Research in art is to a great extent inherent in cultural history and so the very subject, even though having risen from a philosophical ground, indeed has roots in cultural studies. It can therefore be argued that the two dimensions, we aim at covering in this project, will overlap.

Methods In order to treat our problem statement, we need to look at the internal and external environment, which in this case is how the Pop Art movement came forth in the 1960s. We will look at American society at the time and how it was mirrored by the artists of the time, with Andy Warhol as a central point and object of study. We will be guided by six basic questions, which are:

Where?

The geographical area in which our study takes place is the US and more specifically the culturally dense city of dreams, namely New York. And to zoom in even more - Andy Warhols art studio, The Factory.

Who? When? What?

The illustrator and artist, Andy Warhol.

A decade of changes, the 1960s.

As will be stated later, we are focusing on Warhols art and how it contributed to changing the definition of art in the perspective of certain art philosophers. From here we can go on to the more complex questions that cannot be answered right away:

How?

This question will be investigated by looking at Warhols art and how it marked a big change in art philosophy.

Why?

The question of why the Pop Art movement emerged and why it had such a big influence will also be explored in this paper. Our project will be guided by these questions. Their treatment will serve as the main building brick and provide us with background knowledge. We will then be able to introduce new perspectives - namely the ones of the art theorists Arthur Danto and George Dickie as well as the contemplations of Walter Benjamin. Their perspectives and theories will be applied to Pop Art, and to the way it diverges from previous art movements. We will be using books, articles and documentaries all

dealing with the time, space and the context of the Pop Art movement. Our findings will be interpreted through the ideas and the principles of the aforementioned theories. The philosophers we mentioned before represent different views on art. Walter Benjamin argues that reproduction robs the original artwork its value, claiming that in the very action of reproduction the artwork loses its aura, as he calls it. This is connected to the criticism of Andy Warhols work, as Warhol uses reproductions as a basis. On the other hand we have Danto, who argues that, if a painting or object is placed in an art atmosphere or, in his words, in the art world, it becomes art. Some biographical research on Andy Warhol will give us a better understanding of the artists motives and intentions. Interesting to this investigation is the extent to that he was an important figure in art, and how he influenced and was somewhat influenced by the cultural movement of the time. We found a book called Popism, which Warhol wrote himself with Pat Hackett, in that he writes about the Pop movement and his place in it. It also describes how he struggled to be a part of the art world and the influences he had. Andy Warhol was not only the main object of study to this project, but also a scholar who plays an active and reliable role in the analysis and discussion. We have found his role as an art theorist as valid in light of Arthur Dantos words. He states that Andy Warhol is more than just an artist - he is also an art philosopher. Danto actually called him (...) the nearest thing to a philosophical genius the history of art has produced (The Andy Warhol of Philosophy, Paul Mattick). This made us consider looking at Andy Warhol as a philosopher and theorist. All these contemplations and inspirations guided us in defining our problem statement.

10

Course in Methods The methods used in this project are collated to the chosen dimensions. In the Culture and History methods seminar we learned how to apply three methodological practices, such as reading, source criticism and interpretation, which are crucial for historical and cultural research. For this project, it is important to learn how to be critic with the content of a document, since there are many different opinions about how Warhol did expand the definition of art, and there is also a considerable amount of negative criticism about his art. When researching and reading different documents, it is necessary to take into account who the author is, as well as his background and thus the reliability of his writing. Not before having this clarified, can one start using the information provided by the document. During the philosophy and science seminar we were introduced to two methods that can help us decide whether or not to believe in a conclusion, namely conceptual analysis and argument analysis. Conceptual analysis has been used with the attempt to clarify the used words, and to understand the arguments presented in the used material. With the argument analysis we have tried to evaluate the reasons for trusting the conclusion of an argument. This last type of analysis has been useful since we went through different theories that concluded differently. Combining source criticism and conceptual analysis made us be more critical when approaching source and in the end finding an answer to our problem statement. Andy Warhol is an often reflected persona and many people have researched and written about his life and artworks before. As opposed to

11

being deterred by the huge amount of writings that revolve around Warhol, though, one can take all the investigations on him as an advantage. Combining different sources wisely and adding our own point of view - that is what we aim at with this project.

The Rise of the Sixties

The 1960s was a decade in which considerable social and cultural changes took place. Danish art historian ystein Hjort, whose main discipline next to Scandinavian studies is American modernism, states: There has probably never been a period that brought about so many changes in American society as the 1960s (Hjort, 1988: 74). The amount of meaningful events and alterations that took place within American society at that time definitely prove that claim by Hjort right.

John R. McGeehan, who has researched and written about the essentials of American history, mentions Americas opposition to the Vietnam War as the catalyst that made a new countercultural movement escalate (McGeehan N.D). The main power standing behind the opposition was the post-war baby boom generation. It is shown by the fact that the average age of Americans had declined to its lowest point during the 1960s (Hjort, 1988: 79). The oppressed population started to sum up their forces and achieve their liberation. Youth began to question the traditional status quo and decisions made by the previous generations. These two factors - the importance of youth within 60s society and their rebellious way of dealing

12

with its drawbacks - has an utmost importance in explaining why certain alternative movements, like Pop Art, developed.

The 1960s was also a decade of cultural meltdown that gave the youth the green light to invent some new, subversive trends. American teenagers began to challenge previous social taboos through experimenting, among other things, with fashion, music, psychedelic drugs, and their sexuality. McGeehan mentions various liberations that were characteristic for the 1960s America. For example the introduction of new contraceptive methods led to the start of a sexual liberation era (McGeehan N.D). McGeehan also emphasizes the rise of political activism on the part of women, in which they came out of their traditional role, the openness of homosexuality, and Martin L. Kings commitment in stepping toward the emancipation of the Black population (N.D). All these changes affected the social structures of American society. Another aspect of the Sixties lifestyle that has an equal significance to our project is the economical structure. The society had given in to a considerable increase in consumption and hence, brands, such as CocaCola, began to compete for the recognition of the population. As of this economic phenomenon, it was possible to see that people from different social classes gained access to the same products more easily than ever before. The result of all these revolutionary facts spawned a new awareness in the artists of the time (McGeehan N.D). It was already in the 1950s that Beat culture exerted a clear influence on the counterculture of the 1960s. Musicians such as Bob Dylan or Jim Morrison, for example, read

13

Ginsberg and Kerouac when they were quite young, and they could relate to their urge to challenge conformity and consumerism in order to secure personal liberty (Hjort, 1988: 78). This new self-consciousness and the changed consuming habits challenged also the traditional perception of art and led to its liberation from some earlier constraints and norms. America in the 1960s is best remembered for the adoption of a more critical attitude towards the society, which inspired the emergence of the Pop Art movement.

The Pop Art Movement Pop Art is commonly perceived as a movement of revolutionary thinking and change, and as the wellspring of, as an American art historian and critic Thomas Crow said, all contemporary scandals (Crow, 1996: 7). The movement emerged already in the mid-1950s in Britain as a reaction to the significant shift from the wartime austerity to excessive flamboyance that evolved in American society in the 1950s. The core of the uprising Pop Art movement can be sought from the assemblages of the earlier Dadaist artists, Marcel Duchamp in particular. Dadaists were famous for the creation of irrational combinations of random images and everyday items to provoke a reaction from the establishment of their day (MacTaggart, 2013). These two movements shared a similar visual technique, but in addition to the fact that Dadaism emerged 50 years earlier that Pop Art, it is the prevailing theme that differentiates these two movements. Dadaists are mentioned to portray ordinary man-made things, like a porcelain urinal, which Duchamp turned into a work of art and titled it Fountain (MacTaggart, 2013). Pop

14

artists, meanwhile, are famous for capturing products and symbols wellknown for everyone at the time, including as well celebrities, comic strips etc. So it can be said that they replaced Dadaist items with the images familiar from popular culture. The word POP, that defined the new wave in art, was coined in 1954 by a British art critic Lawrence Alloway (MacTaggart, 2013). The art world has often misleadingly ascribed the term to one of his British contemporaries Richard Hamilton, who is the author of the earliest works of Pop Art. Hamilton offered his list of the definition of Pop Art as follows: Popular (designed for a mass audience) / Transient (short-term solution) / Expandable (easily forgotten) / Low cost / Mass produced / Young (aimed at youth) / Witty / Sexy / Gimmicky / Glamorous / Big Business. (Crow, 1996: 45).

Pop Art was designed for a mass audience and mass-produced just like many other productions in the 60s. For the beginning of the 1960s, the evolution of technology had grown into unprecedented consumerist hegemony where the access to materialist goods became a daily matter. One of the features of consumerists is described as a feeling of unfulfillment due to spending a lot of money yet having nothing of personal importance (Websource 1). The Pop Art movement started to reflect the characteristics of daily consumption and question their influence on consumers. By doing this, art was put into terms of everyday life. It can be said that Pop Art in America developed as a reaction against the ambiguous images of Abstract Expressionism - a movement that emerged

15

just before Pop Art. The forerunners of the Pop Art movement, namely Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg, were the firsts to pull art back from the obscurity of abstraction into the real world. The real world at that time was a commonplace affair, and full of repetitions. Quantity became quality in an era of mass media and mass production, which in turn became the center of interest of Pop Art works (Osterwold, 2007: 176).

An odd paradox between the nature of the American society in the Sixties, the way in which Pop artists chose to depict it and in how we look back at it today comes up. The 1960s culture, once branded as immoral, anarchistic, and revolutionary, is now commonly reduced to a set of easyto-replicate images, phrases, and styles (MacTaggart, 2013). The 60s are often used as a party theme - a phenomenon that already occurred in the 1960s, when Pop artists began to portray current popular icons and make replicas of common everyday items that in some sense brought the art back to Earth if compared for example to earlier Abstract Expressionist paintings. It is interesting to wonder what actually is so shocking about the movement that used ready-made, ordinary objects at that time. Mechanical reproduction and the imitation of already created objects was something particularly characteristic of Andy Warhol - the artist who personified the Pop Art movement. MacTaggart states that Andy Warhol embodied the spirit of American popular culture in the 60s and elevated its imagery to the status of museum art (MacTaggart, 2013). According to Hugh Adams, who has written on the arts and cultural matters over thirty years: 1960s was the period that the gallery as an environment took primacy over what was displayed. Even if the artists uvre was inaccessible, the ballyhoo and personality-cult promotion of the artist

16

obscured the fact (Adams, 1978: 32). Andy Warhol was definitely one of the lead figures in upholding this new status of the galleries.

The Empty Warhol Personal History Andrew Warhola, best known as Andy Warhol, was an American artist and front figure of the Pop Art movement. Warhol was born in 1928 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as the son of an immigrant family that came originally from Slovakia. He grew up under average living conditions until the age of seven, when he was diagnosed a nervous system disease that has had a dramatic impact on his personality, as he became a hypochondriac person full of fears and insecurities. Even though he wanted to become an art teacher, he ended up studying commercial art in Pittsburgh and moved to New York to pursue a career in illustrative advertising. Later in his life he decided to dedicate himself to the production of artworks. Emile de Antonio, Warhols agent and later one of his most trusted friends, inspired him to make the step to become, what he considered, a real artist (Warhol and Hackett, 1980: 4). This step was not easy to take since he had successfully worked as a commercial artist - a background that was furthermore not considered appropriate for a serious artist (12). Also complex for Warhols breakthrough was the leading movement at the time, namely Abstract Expressionism. Being based on surrealistic and subconscious artistic creations, it highly differed from Warhols realistic approach to art. The contrast between his art and

17

the ideals of the time led to difficulties when trying to enter to what seemed to be an elitist art sphere. Leastways, he states so in his book Popism:

In the late post-Abstract Expressionist days, the days right before Pop, there were only few people in the art world who knew who was good, and the people who were good knew who else was good. It was all like private information; the art public hadnt picked up on it yet. (9)

The main aspect in which Abstract Expressionism differs from Pop Art is that Pop breaks the links between painting and emotions, whereas Abstract Expressionism represents societys anxiety through art (Whiting, 1987: 70). Warhols paintings are impersonal and they do not present a visible encounter between the artist and the image (70). Meanwhile, the main characteristic of Abstract Expressionists was their tendency to portray themselves through the depicted images (67-70). Breaking out of the confinements of the previous art movement was not only visible in his art. In his daily life, Warhol denied the typical secretive image of the artists established by the Abstract Expressionists. He became a public star and his image was built around the lacking of a private self (70). This insisting absence of privacy led him to often reject the use of a personal opinion. Warhol rarely used the formulation I think and he used to state that he was so empty that he did not know what to say in

18

interviews, so he seemed to feel more comfortable when someone instructed him to say what everybody wanted to hear. This was seen for instance at the famous interview from 1966 where he first asked the interviewer to just give him the answers and later began repeating the words of the interviewer. At the same time he was reflecting the society and the culture back that surrounded him. It appears he appreciates his emptiness since this allowed him to be filled up with, as Professor in Art History Ccile Whiting puts it, whatever others wanted to see in him (70). To illustrate this, he compared himself with a mirror: Im sure Im going to look in the mirror and see nothing. People are always calling me a mirror and, if a mirror looks into a mirror, what is there to see? (70).

Impersonal Art The Pop Art movement, as mentioned earlier, did not start with Andy Warhol. There were other artists who were growing famous around the same time, such as Robert Rauschenberg, Roy Lichtenstein and Tom Wesselmann, who also had difficulties being accepted as artists amongst both art critics and the public (Warhol and Hackett, 1980: 11). According to John Coplans, a British artist of the time, Warhol distinguished himself from others in the way that he applied Pop into his life and philosophy. It seems he lived Pop and his attitude was Pop. That might be why he stood out and became as famous with help of the press and the public (Coplans, 1996: 93). One of the elements of this Pop attitude was that it was nearly impossible to make a distinction between Warhols private and public self. Whiting states: The absence of the private constituted his public persona

19

(Whiting, 1987: 71). For this reason it can be argued that, while studying his art, one cannot avoid including his personal life - his thoughts, ideas and philosophy - because it is impossible to separate his persona from his work. However, this must not be confused with how impersonal his art was.

When Andy Warhol produced a piece of art, he wanted to ensure that the image was clean of his personal feelings, as confirmed by Whiting (71). This can be seen in the portraits that Warhol made of public figures such as Marilyn Monroe or Liz Taylor. In those portraits Warhol presents the image of the person without involving any private selves. In the series Warhol reproduces the iconic image of celebrities, just changing the colors and thicknesses of the lines, but there is no indication that makes us believe that these changes have something to do with the emotions of either the artist or the icon. Warhol used the portrait as a bridge between the public figure and the spectator, but he did not have the intention of presenting anyones private life. A product (such as a celebrity or a soup can) that had a symbolic value was adopted and he broke down the established iconic implication. This means that he stood behind the depicted images trying to present the products as they were, with nothing behind the label (Whiting, 1987: 66). This trend is visible in his personal life too, since he showed himself simply as the mass-media had depicted him, but at no point in time did he, as argued by Whiting, present any aspects of his private self (58).

20

This impersonality of his art was critiqued by for instance Professor Rainer Crone, who analyzed Warhols work through Walter Benjamins viewpoint. Crone draws that the mechanical reproduction of Warhols paintings and the imitation of an already created object robs the artworks uniqueness (Mattick, 1998: 974). He also claims, with a slight resonance of conspiracy, that Andy Warhol, having a background in the advertisement industry, was in fact producing political imagery promoting consumerism (974). Arguing against this, other critics, such as Thomas Crow, claim that Warhols aim was, instead, to fight against the consumer society. Crow finds social criticism in Warhols work and defines his attitude as critique of the emotional emptiness of consumer culture (976). He supports that Warhols strategy consisted in depersonalizing his work in order to lead the viewer to a critical attitude (975). Both of these theories, however, have a strong political agenda which is not relevant to our analysis and will be discarded for the sake of a clear focus.

British art critic Lawrence Alloway stated that Pop Art was essentially an art about signs. Warhol materialized these signs on daily life objects, maybe with the aim to leave behind the traditional definition of art (970). Wealthy people consuming the same products as the poor was a revolutionary phenomenon in the States that started in the 1950s, which Warhol then embraced and brought into a new arena by making art out of everyday products (Warhol, 1975: 93-99). Warhols art was understandable, or at least recognizable, for an average American person no matter which class that person comes from. To present an example of this, we can name Warhols famous Coca-Cola (1962) set. What is interesting about this set is that it represents that equality Warhol

21

admired in the consumerist tradition where everybody could drink the same Coca-Cola, no matter how much money they had (100-101). It is commonly known that Warhols paintings brought commercial culture into art culture. Anything was worthy of attention for Warhol, and this aestheticization, of what before was considered meaningless, changed the former interpretation of what art was (Gemnden, 1995: 242). This can be seen in his painting TV $199 (1960). In this work, as in many others, we can appreciate Warhols intention to recode something daily as an aesthetic object, implying an alternating flow between a commercial and an artistic activity (Joselit, 2002: 67-68). Focusing on the artwork TV $199 (1960), there is nothing accidental in Warhols representation of a television because Warhol had strong opinions about TV. According to him, the confusion between experiencing life and being a spectator was a condition of life. Warhol fluctuated between reality and TV. In his book, THE Philosophy of Andy Warhol (1975), he stated the following: People sometimes say that the way things happen in the movies is unreal, but actually, its the way things happen to you in life thats unreal. He goes on emphasizing that experiences depicted through media are even more real or emotional than actual lived ones (Joselit, 2002: 69). Professor Paul Bergin presents the possibility that this way of thinking was the one that led Warhol to show himself through a mask - a commercial mask that made him a product. He always offered his image for public consumption and he did not want to exist outside that mask (Bergin, 1967: 359). Bergin elaborates on this by suggesting that Warhols sensation of being hidden within himself is also represented in his art. Not only him as a person but also his work seemed

22

to be covered by a filter that allowed the spectators to not see anything but the obvious.

Warhol looked at reality without reflecting himself in it and reproduced objects from this reality without understanding it. It was a mechanical reproduction of reality, and he resembled a machine in the way he worked, since he depicted repeatedly the same object, only changing a few details (359). This mechanical method can also be seen in the naming of his studio The Factory and in his technique when working, which was almost automated. Machinery is impersonal, as he wanted to show himself and the products represented in his work. For example, when reproducing Elizabeth Taylors portrait, he transformed her identity into public property, as if being hidden behind a mask, as mentioned earlier. This happened since he depicted her as an icon that the public will recognize immediately, almost as a brand. Warhol presented her in the same way as she was presented by media, but never depicted her emotions or private self. As with himself, it is difficult to settle where the public mask ends and where the real person begins (362). Following this behavior, Warhol became his own greatest work.

23

Pop Art Through Andy Warhols Eyes In 1980 Andy Warhol and Pat Hackett wrote a book named Popism. This book recollects the Pop Art movement and the 60s, and depicts how it was for him and other artists and friends to live in those revolutionary days. Warhol looks back on the general atmosphere of that time, when the Pop Art movement and his career as a painter were in its beginnings. The emergence of a new style such as Pop Art actually woke a fierce opposition in not only art critics and buyers, but also the painters. The predominant style of the time was Abstract Expressionism, and its supporters were rather disturbed about this new style that deviated so drastically from their own. What seems to be one crucial difference between the environment surrounding Pop Art and Abstract Expressionism is that the latter was, as Warhol called it, a macho world, dominated by masculinity (Warhol and Hackett 1980: 12-34).

Warhol stated in his book that this was an environment he would not have felt comfortable in, judging, intolerant and square-minded. The Pop Art environment, as opposed to this, aimed at acceptance towards otherness and deviation from the norm, for instance homosexuality. Both Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns were, as well as Warhol himself, homosexual. However, Warhol can be considered a special case as he did not hide his otherness, whereas the other artists did not wish to be as open about it. Their lifestyle and appearance were still very much influenced by the conservative times they had been brought up in, while Warhol had created his own character (12). He behaved, talked and lived in a more swish way, as he calls it in his book, and played that swish way up and

24

did not think he had to change it just because other artists perceived it as improper. Additionally, he collected art himself, which was quite unusual for artists at the time, and he had a background in commercial art, where he actually had created a name in the business and had received prices. Other artists usually only worked as commercial artists for survival, and were not famous for it (12). When Warhol, encouraged by his agent Emile de Antonio, or De, started painting his first canvases, he worked with two styles. One of them showed gestures and comment, it depicted some emotions, and the other style was cold and without comment. Although Warhol actually preferred the impersonal one, he wasnt sure if it was possible to paint without emotions and comments entering the canvas. As stated before, he later became famous for that technique. He started painting comics, but stopped when he found that another artist, Roy Lichtenstein, was using the same object and, according to Warhol, with more success.

Warhol describes and puts his finger on Pop Art, stating that Pop Art made the private public and the public private, as in his own lyrical way of formulating it: Pop Art took the inside and put it outside, took the outside and put it inside (3). While in the 50s it was usual to take things and change them, make them more beautiful or interesting, in the 60s you would actually take something as it is and play it up, trying to change it as little as possible (24).

25

The Factory The Factory was another one of Warhols creations. He turned a loft on the fifth floor at 231 East 47th Street in Midtown Manhattan into his studio. It ended up being one of the spots in New York, people were most interested in, even though, according to Warhol, no one really knew what was happening inside (130). It was a gathering for those, who were interested in Warhol or who, like him, tended to be extravagant outsiders and cultural rebels (130). For centuries people have known of prostitutes, drug-addicts and other outlaws, but nevertheless have always tried to disregard ther existence. Instead, Warhol puts them into the spotlight. So he did not only carry out his philosophy in his art, but in every aspect of his life. This was reflected very much in The Factory. According to Warhol, being in The Factory brought out something in people that they did not know they had - something hidden behind the surface which was ignited in company with like-minded individuals. Nothing that happened in The Factory was ever planned, it was a place of spontaneity and random sparks of creativity (130). His multifaceted character surrounded him with a haze of mystery, which was what made him such a fascinating character. Warhol and his work looked superficial in the sense that everything was easy to see from the surface, but covered in mystery below. As argued along the way, there are many critics and art theorists with opinions and theories about him and his art, all with their own reasons and argumentations. Some thought he was a genius and philosopher of life, while others believed him and the Pop Art movement to be unimportant and inconsequential. What can, however, be said for sure is that there are many aspects that are of interest to study in his case, because of the huge impact he has had since he had his first

26

exhibition. The style in which he behaved and lived was very controversial and new to a lot of people at the time, and raised many questions about what kind of a statement he was trying to convey. Naturally, one question which rises above is: What is art? Now that we have established the social and cultural background in which Warhol lived and worked, we can go on to the conceptual framework in which we will try to analyse his work.

Theories

In the following chapters, a few theories which stem from the field of philosophy of art will be described. The first, namely Walter Benjamins theory on mechanical reproduction, argues how reproducing an image deprives it of something. It is relevant in looking at Warhols artistic methods such as the silk screen print and the many reproductions of e.g. portraits. These methods will later be looked at in comparison to Benjamins theory. The second part describes the institutional theory, which sets a theoretical framework for defining art in the 1960s, with special regard to the new movements in art. The institutional theory can assist in serving as the theoretical ground for how Pop Art changed the understanding of art.

27

Walter Benjamin Walter Benjamin was a German literary critic, philosopher and essayist, who was born in 1892. His essay called The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction first published in 1936, is considered a central piece in the modern theory of media and culture (Websource 2). It describes how the mechanical reproduction of an artwork affects and influences historical, social and aesthetic processes. What changes when art is reproduced? This question doubtlessly deserves treatment when studying Warhols work and its influence since reproduction is one of his most significant techniques. The very first paragraph one reads in Walter Benjamin's aforementioned essay emphasizes the huge transformation the world has undergone by means of modernization, arguing that the work of art cannot escape modern science as a matter of course. Thus the entire technique of arts will be transformed, influencing the invention itself and in the end perhaps even changing the very notion of art, as Valrie phrases it, in a magical way (Benjamin, 1963: 9, quoting Paul Valrie, Pices sur l'Art, 1931). The possibility of mass-producing art is certainly one of the most significant changes new techniques have brought. Even though a piece of art had always been reproducible by others, the technical reproduction of an artwork is a new phenomenon that is of asserting nature (1963: 11). However, Benjamin is of the opinion that a reproduced work of art is lacking in one element, namely the here and now of the work - its unique and exclusive existence at one point in time. Benjamin stresses that exactly this unique being at one place, though, is what determines its originality (13-14). He refers to this realness, authenticity and originality as aura and claims that it is lost when a piece of art is reproduced (16).

28

The term aura was coined by Benjamin in order to describe the unique phenomenon in the distance, however close it may be (18) - a phenomenon that he sees both in the nature and in arts. The loss of the aura appears to be one of the most significant effects of mechanical art reproduction for Benjamin. However, he does not regret this loss, as he believes that such technological inventions are of progressive nature. Artistic production is democratized and is not longer based on ritual but on another practice - politics. (John A. Walker 1983: 70) Furthermore, Benjamin explains that a reproduced object cannot hold onto its frame of tradition: One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition (Benjamin 1963: 16). Where there was one work before, are now many reproductions of this work instead, all of which equally able to engage with the reader in his respective situation. The attitude towards the original thus underwent a considerable transformation. Benjamin states: From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the authentic print makes no sense (21). As a result, tradition experiences a severe disruption (16).

Benjamin states that we as a collective and the mode in which we perceive our environment change within great periods of history. The loss of aura stands in strong connection to the increasing significance of the masses whose wish is to get closer to things, both spatially and humanly. The adjustment of reality to the masses and vice versa, Benjamin explains, is a process of unlimited scope, as much for thinking as for perception (19). A couple of years ago only few exclusive humans had had access to

29

paintings, whereas nowadays the painting is, as Benjamin puts it, against its nature, directly confronted by the masses (38). The relationship between art and the public has drastically shifted since a much greater number of people has access to it. It is notable that especially painters experience a rough time as photography comes up. That is for several reasons as that the eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw (12) or photographic reproduction can capture images that escape natural vision (15). Benjamin makes a comparison to illustrate the differences between photography / film and paintings. The painter is compared to a magician and the cameraman to a surgeon. Whereas the surgeon cuts into the patients body, the magician heals the patient by the laying on of hands. The natural distance between the patient and the magician is maintained although it is slightly reduced by the physical contact. What comes into play here is the virtue of the magicians authority. On the contrary the surgeon diminishes the distance between the patient and himself by cutting into the patients body. He only slightly increases it by the caution with which he uses his hands among the organs. The surgeon thus avoids the human interaction and confrontation with the person, penetrating into him through the operation instead (36).

Benjamin's comparison is interesting to apply to Warhol, whose paintings are considered a halfway-house between the art of painting and the art of photography by John A. Walker, the author of the book Art in The Age of Mass Media that was published in 1983. It approaches Pop Art and the impact of mechanical reproduction and thus strongly corresponds to Walter Benjamins contemplations.

30

Looking back at the comparison that was made by Benjamin, one could argue, that by combining elements of photography into his painting, Warhol tends to act as magician and surgeon simultaneously. Even though he makes use of photographs, that he mechanically reproduces, he bewares a certain ability of recreating each and every version - no two works are identical. This makes him, so to speak, a magician again. The way in which Warhol proceeds when reproducing a work is called silkscreen-method.

One silkscreen can generate hundreds of identical images but variations of tone, colour and design can also be introduced by varying the hues, the quantity of ink, the pressure of the squeegee, the placement of images and registration. (37)

This method enabled Warhol to mechanize the production of his art. Silkscreen was usually used by textile designers and printmakers. It allowed him to make whole series of works and thus increase his rate of production drastically (38). Walker argues that Warhol industrialized the production of art for the mere purpose of producing industrial art for an industrial society (38). By doing that, Warhol challenged the mode in which the machine tended to be perceived by social critics and writers at that time, namely as the very anti-thesis of art and a terrible threat to it. The perception of the machine as non-human, monotone, impersonal and boring stood in strong contrast to the values associated with art, such as originality, handwork and uniqueness (38). Warhol, however, embraced industrialization and the modern era for that matter. He called his studio

31

The Factory- a title that was well describing the studios atmosphere and could be considered its programme - and even articulated that he aimed at being like a machine (38).

By turning his studio into a factory, by professing to admire machines, by selecting the most banal and obvious imagery available, by denying that he had any special talents or skills, by celebrating repetition, monotony and boredom, Warhol effectively inverted and challenged the values conventionally associated with art and artists. (38)

Thus Warhol developed a whole new way of artistically coping with the considerable changes, that dominated society in the course of modernization. This unique way was often critically debated on and not taken seriously but ended up making Warhol one of the most famous artists of all times. Benjamins contemplations on the loss of aura might strongly be questioned in Warhols case. This elaboration on the aura will be seized on in the discussion. Now that we have examined Walter Benjamins theory on art it is interesting to look at another theoretical approach that can put the findings of the analysis into perspective and perhaps shed a different light onto the question of what defines art.

32

The Institutional Theory of Art The history of art has an important impact on the current art scene. New methods of art constantly emerge and necessarily the theories contemplating art have to follow this development, to question and pursue understanding of the new methods and ideas behind the art. It all comes down to answering the question: What is art? While the Pop Art movement in the 1960s began portraying and even reproducing everyday objects, theorists such as George Dickie and Arthur Danto found it relevant to question the definitions of art that had preceded their own. Danto was the first to coin the term the art world, that was crucial to his theory on art. Dickie was quick to criticise on it but only in order to elaborate on it and polish it. They were both contributing in art philosophy during the sixties and were colleagues who assisted one another to gain a better understanding of contemporary art. This was necessary since Pop Art could not be defined by the traditional distinctions (Van Maanen, 2009: 20) and the definition therefore needed revision.

When Andy Warhol exhibited the Brillo Boxes in 1964, Arthur Danto argued in his article The Art World in The Journal of Philosophy (18) that Western art as it had been defined up to that point had now come to an end and he introduced the notion of the art world. In the article, Danto claims that in order for a piece of work to to be art, it needs to fulfill two requirements: firstly, it needs to be not just an object from reality, but, even though resembling a real object, it should also say something about reality. In other words, art is a statement (19). He uses the example of the

33

Brillo Boxes to illustrate this point: What in the end makes the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a Brillo box is a certain theory of art. It is the theory of art that takes it up into the world of art and keeps it from collapsing into the real object it is (19). And secondly, taking into consideration for instance abstract art which does not necessarily express anything, the artwork must have been made with regards to an art historical and theoretical context. This is where Danto claims that art must take up space in an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an art world (19). So now art had been given a new home or a base from which it can grow; the art world. In a critique of this, George Dickie claims that a specified elaboration is necessary. With the institutional theory, Dickie attempts to revise art theory in relation to Dantos concept of an art world and its crucial role in defining art. Dickie criticised Danto for not having formulated a theory that seeks to define what art is, but rather having looked for one or two necessary conditions for works to be art (21). After having gone through various versions of institutional art he ended up with five points that seek to define art step by step, starting with the artist herself:

1: An artist is a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art. 2: A work of art is an artefact of a kind created to be presented to an art world public. 3: A public is a set of persons the members of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object which is presented to them. 4: The art world is the totality of all art world systems.

34

5: An art world system is the framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an art world public. (Dickie, 2001: 41)

With the first point, Dickie agrees, after almost ten years of dispute, with Danto in his claim that without a certain amount of knowledge and understanding of aesthetic, it is impossible to create art (Van Maanen, 2009: 25). After having discussed whether or not the ancient cave paintings of Lascaux could be categorized as pieces of art they finally agreed that they could not be art because the artist would not have any cognitive structures into which he could fit it so as to understand it as art (25). The second point talks firstly about artifactuality which was of great importance to Dickie. By something being artefactual, he means that it is a product of human activity (23). With regards to readymades such as Duchamps Fountain and Warhols aforementioned Brillo Boxes, which resemble exact objects made in respectively the toilet factory and a box factory, both Danto and Dickie has concluded that by being put into an art institutional context by an artist it obtains artifactuality (Dickie, 2001: 75). That is how the Brillo Box differs from a brillo box. This will be further elaborated on later.

In the latest version of Dickies institutional theory one of the most important components is the role of the spectator or public as he calls it. He claims that the audience must be more or less prepared to understand the work of art with which they are presented, but at the same time he

35

notes that, certainly, there is a lot of art which has never been presented to an audience. He goes on to argue that this continues to be art as long as it was created with the intention of being presented to an audience (Van Maanen, 2009: 25). This is a significant difference to the preceding functionalist theory (theorists such as Monroe Beardsley) since a piece of art that has never been shown to an audience cannot be said to have any function (25). So the role of the spectator must be said to have changed from one that experiences the function of an artwork to one that is merely informed or prepared that what is presented to them is art. The fourth point Dickie mentions does not seem to call for much explanation. He merely emphasizes the importance of Dantos concept of an art world and argues that it contains multiple systems. In the fifth point Dickie mentions the art world system as a framework around the presentation of artworks. This framework is a system within any type of art, as he mentions theatre, literature, painting and so on (26) consisting of people fulfilling their respective roles. This system is in the art scene not only dealers, gallerists, critics, managers, but the totality of roles (...) with the roles of the artist and public at its core (26). What Dickie and Danto managed to do in developing the institutional theory of art was removing the focus from defining art according to what it does and instead looking at what it is. The art theories preceding the institutional were very much focused on psychological mechanics behind art, such as the functionalist approach to art, meaning that art must give a certain experience in the artist or the audience. So defining art regarding Pop Art. With the institutional theory, George Dickie argued that for an object to be recognized as art, it only had to be this by the institution

36

within art. Looking at the history of Andy Warhol and his work, the institutional theory gives a possibility to rationalize the new forms of art that Warhol and the Pop Art movement brought.

Application of the theories to Andy Warhol In this chapter we attempt to, with a basis in the conceptual framework we have established so far, gain a concrete understanding of how Andy Warhols work can be considered art. We will analyse two of Warhols main works: namely celebrity portraits and Brillo Box sculptures, both applying respectively the institutional theory and Walter Benjamins theory of the aura. Finally, the persona of Andy Warhol will be examined through the theoretical perspectives..

The Portraits Warhol portrayed public figures such as Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley and Elizabeth Taylor. In these portraits, he imitated the images presented in the contemporary newspapers - images that were lacking in quality and in which lines were less defined. This is seen, for example, in his painting Marilyn Monroe (1962), in which Monroes cheeks and neck are weakly delineated. She appears with her eminent red lips and voluptuous hair, which were seen as her trademarks within the audience. Therefore, Art History Professor Ccile Whiting argues that Warhols portraits could be perceived as a reproduction of famous people as the popular press presents

37

them and not as real, living individuals (58). The sources of Warhols portraits lay in some of the most renowned images promulgated through popular magazines and that enabled the spectators to recognize the portrayed figure without reading the title of the painting. Warhol avoided the details and dramatized the silhouettes in his work, focusing on the surface characteristics of the figures face and leaving behind its personality (58).

As it is usual in Warhols work, he produced the portraits by the silk printing method. This mechanical method challenges the idea that Walter Benjamin presented about mechanic artistic reproduction being antihuman (Walker, 1983: 38). Benjamin argued that the consecutive reproduction of the same image was causing the loss of aura in an art work. For him, the aura is like an attribute that only exists outside of a technological reproduction. Mechanical reproducibility leads to the loss of uniqueness and authenticity, hence to the fading of the aura. As opposed to this Warhol believes that, if an object or person already has an aura - and according to him everything has one - then it exceeds the spectators consciousness of the objects material properties (Websource 3). He sees the aura as something different from the product. Whereas the latter is a concrete piece of work, e.g. a painting, the aura has been attached to objects and people before being transformed into art. Warhol gives an account of the aura as something that cannot be separated from the carriers and that differs according to the viewers cognition.

38

In relation to Benjamins thoughts on originality, art critic John A. Walker confirms Benjamin to a certain extent by stating that mechanization threatens the dispel of art (Walker, 1983: 69), but also encourages the reader to question Benjamins controversial aura theory with the advantage of hindsight. Walker argues that the aura, that surrounded original pieces of art, has not completely faded away by mechanical reproduction. The cult-value may have been replaced by the exhibitionvalue but after all, museums have the function to preserve and even to eternalize the aura of artworks (70). Walker even goes one step further:

Not only is aura still a function of originals, it has been extended even to those products which, it was predicted, would destroy aura altogether - namely photographs. There is now a genre known as art photography; some photographic prints, claimed to be unique, are being bought and sold at auction rooms for high prices in just the same way as handmade articles. (70)

Walkers evaluation, that the relationship to the original kept existing, is not easy to dismiss. How else would one explain the huge amount of money, that is still being spent on original artworks despite it having been reproduced. One could even argue, that the reproduction of a work, makes it even more famous and thus increases the value of the original.

39

Furthermore, Warhols style of picturing public figures by exaggerating the sitters most recognized features, agrees with Danto and Dickies second point that says that an artwork must be created to be presented to a public. There is no doubt that Warhol created the portraits in order to present them to the public and wanted them to recognize the piece.

The fact that Warhol emphasized the celebrities most famous traits coincides with the third point that the public has to be, to a certain extent, prepared to understand the artists work. Warhol made sure that an immediate identification by the public existed through depicting the figures the same way as popular mass media did. But what separates the portrait from one seen in a magazine or a newspaper is, according to the third point of Dickies institutional theory, that the audience has a certain frame of references that enables them to put the work into the category of art. Another interesting aspect of the portraits are the stories underlying this cultivating idolization. One example is the added significance it gets when knowing that e.g. Marilyn Monroes portraits were created on the day she died. This shows a more contemplative side of Warhols work and how he portrays more than just the obvious, but illustrates the time and feeling around the object in the portrait.

40

The Brillo Boxes

Claes Oldenburg seems to me to have had a more plausible understanding of Warhols boxes in 1964. In the midst of a discussion of the impersonality of the Pop Art style he pointed out that there is a degree of removal from actual boxes and they become an object that is not really a box. In a sense they are an illusion of a box and that places them in the realm of art. (Mattick, 1998: 967)

Oldenburg is here talking about the very paradox with which this paper deals. What makes something art? How can an artefact be an almost identical copy of a factory made consumer product and still be identified as art? The wooden basic structures of the Brillo Boxes were a series produced by carpenters in the spirit of the assembly line in a factory - notice they were made in The Factory - as well as other boxes for products found in supermarkets such as Kelloggs Corn Flakes and Heinz Ketchup (Websource 4). In this chapter we have decided to focus on the Brillo Boxes over the others. For one, because they are the most well-known of his sculptures, but also because of the fascinating increase in value during their lifetime. Even though they were controversial and the art dealer from the Stable Gallery, Eleanor Ward, who exhibited them in 1964 had difficulty selling them, the best selling piece was sold in 2008 for US $ 4.7 million (Lovern, L. and Yee, J. 2013).

41

With the Brillo Boxes Warhol is challenging the dichotomy that Walker and Benjamin are speaking of between machine and art. As Walker mentions: In short, the machine equals non-human or antihuman, while art equals the quintessence of humanity (Walker, 1983: 38). When using the silk screening method he is combining the machine with the art, he is using the new mechanical inventions to create a sculpture. These methods simulate those used in a factory, but aim to create art. As mentioned earlier, according to Walker, many social theorists of the time saw the machine as a threat to art, but it seems that Warhol did not agree with that opinion and was actually introducing the machine in the very creation of art. Henceforth, in The Factory, he was taking advantage of new mechanical methods of reproducing the original Brillo Box, and the artwork was then, following Benjamins theory, at risk of losing its aura. However, as Mattick states: Everything resembles everything else to some degree of exactitude (Mattick, 1998: 967). And in the end, the Brillo Boxes do differ in small ways from the factory made brillo boxes. For instance, they were wood, not cardboard, and they were hand painted by Warhol and his assistant and then silk-screened with little imperfections on the surface. In this way, each box remained original and unique. Dickie and Danto remarked that anything could be regarded as art as long as it fulfilled the requirements they had agreed on. As Dickie mentions in point one of his theory, for something to be a work of art it has to be carried out by an artist: a person who has the artistic background to understand what it takes to create art and what purpose should lie in the creation. One can assume that because of Warhols education and background in art, he fulfills the first requirement. In addition to this,

42

Warhol manufactured the Brillo Boxes with the intention of presenting them to a public. They were exhibited at the Stable Gallery in 1964, and we can assume that, if they were presented in a gallery, they were made in order to make them accessible for the public and, if possible, to be sold. So this also agrees with the second point Danto and Dickie are presenting: A work of art is an artefact of a kind created to be presented to an art world public (Dickie, 2001: 41). This art world public should also be, following the third point, prepared to understand that what they are looking at is in fact art, not a product from a shelf in the supermarket. So even though the object that it resembles is an everyday consumer product, Warhols audience had to be aware that there is a difference that takes the artwork into a different realm. Danto commented on this in 1964 (...) imagining someone displaying real soap pad cartons in an art gallery, we cannot readily separate the Brillo cartons from the gallery they are in (Mattick, 1998: 967). With the help of the institutional theory, the Brillo Boxes can theoretically be defined as art, even though the methods, the name of the art studio and the object itself are all taken out of an industrial discourse. It was made by an artist with the intention of being shown to an art world public in an art world system.

Andy Warhol: A Work of Art Warhol made himself a piece of art, and his personality became a polemical tool for setting up his own artistic and public identity (Gemnden, 1995: 237). Today he is considered to be the most wellknown Pop artist, not only through his work, but also concerning the

43

persona he created. As a result he became famous for being famous (236), intending the public to have a frozen image of him, as in his portraits of celebrities, in which the one being portrayed is rather a brand than the individual itself (242). When Warhol in 1963 set up The Factory, it was evident that not only the individual pieces of art that he created were a part of his work. Warhol managed to use his surroundings to create a myth around himself, making everything he did a trademark of this myth.

Analyzing Warhols persona, with the theories used before, as a work of art, we also get some interesting perspectives. Warhol did everything he did for the sake of becoming famous. In his book Popism he writes: Everyone always reminds me about the way Id go around moaning, Oh, when will I be famous, when will it all happen? etc., so I must have done it a lot (Warhol, Hackett, 1980: 82). Thus, he wished to be known and recognized by the general public. There was a tendency in this public to either attempt to understand him as an artist or to degrade him to be inconsequential for the art world. Nevertheless, he gained the massive attention and reached the stardom he craved for. Hence, we have an object which is created or molded in order to be shown to an interested and prepared public. In this way, it does resemble Danto and Dickies first three points.

What is also interesting is that, like his paintings, he always tried to look the same. His silver hair and his dark clothes were his trademarks, which were often copied by the people surrounding him, such as Edie Sedgwick.

44

This could also be seen as an impersonation of the way he produced paintings. The same way other things in life were reproducible, he was, too. Therefore, it is possible that Warhol projected his persona as a superficial and reproducible individual, just as he did with his artworks. All these things make the resemblance of his person to a work of art visible. If we consider Benjamins notion of the aura, what comes into play here is another form of aura, namely the one of a person, instead of the one of the work. In his book THE Philosophy of Andy Warhol, Warhol explains:

Some company recently was interested in buying my aura. They didn't want my product. They kept saying, "We want your aura." I never figured out what they wanted. But they were willing to pay a lot for it. (Warhol, 1975: 77)

Indeed, Warhol contemplated on the matter himself. The aura, he believed, is something that one can only see on others, and only to the extent to which one wants to see it. Furthermore Warhol stressed, that the aura can only be seen on people one either does not know well or at all (77). Either way it is obvious that Warhol talks of the aura in a different context than Benjamin - one, though, that may have gained importance in the course of modernization. In former times, the public had much less insight into the background of an artwork - the aura was reserved to the piece alone. With the upcoming of television and film however, the artist himself came to the fore and naturally influenced the audiences

45

perception of his works. The aura was no longer only a matter of the work itself and Warhol acted on that, making himself part of his art.

Discussion

In the chapter above we investigated, through multiple theoretical perspectives, the question of what makes Warhols work art. These theoretical perspectives could only be grasped by looking firstly into cultural and historical background that surrounded the concerned artist. This is necessary, since the significant changes that emerged in the sixties influenced Warhols artistic trajectory and, at the same time, his work prompted a change in the perception of art. When looking at the Andy Warhols persona, we found it evident that this too was a tool for him to push the definition of art. In the application of the theories some key aspects of how Warhol stood out and changed art were brought to attention - e.g. the silkscreen method and the everyday objects as motifs. A few points call for a discussion, which will now follow.

This paper aims at exploring to what extent Andy Warhol has widened the definition of art of his time. The claim underlying this statement, namely that he in fact did change the definition of art, was affirmed by Arthur Danto and George Dickie, who were recognized and reliable theorists of the time. The fact that they investigated and created a theory inspired by

46

Andy Warhol, shows the necessity of a broader concept of what art can be. They regarded him as an ingenious painter and philosopher, and felt that he had discovered, in a way, new land for the art world.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that he was not the only participant of the Pop Art movement. Other artists had similar impacts, and one could argue that Andy Warhol was not the main catalyst, and therefore did not single-handedly change the definition of art. He too was influenced by other Pop artists that had their breakthrough, within the artworld, before him. However, the fact that Danto and Dickie used Warhol, as a main point of departure for their theory, leads us to be aware of the great impact of his work. Ultimately, the importance of other artists does not undermine his role in the art world, being the best selling artist of all time.

When it comes to the discussion of how he helped to develop new boundaries for what could be considered art, it is fruitful not just to discuss his motives and methods, but rather the statements they make. For example, the fact that he used everyday objects and press photos in his paintings could be said to state that everything could be regarded as beautiful or interesting enough to be depicted. Warhol became a painter after having been famous as a commercial artist, which for some people meant that he could not be considered a serious painter and his depictions of simple, everyday objects could have fed into this criticism. However, he went against conventions about what can be depicted in art and this must be said to have changed the way in which we consider art.

47

As outlined in the theory part, Benjamin stresses that an artwork loses its aura once it is reproduced. If one takes this statement as a point of departure when looking at Warhols work, there is a lack of originality and the inevitable result would be that Warhols artworks are without an aura. This again questions the impact Andy Warhol had on the perception of art. However, since the time when Benjamin wrote his essay, the possibilities within art have changed considerably. Therefore one necessarily has to look at the context in which the work of art is presented. When Benjamin wrote his essay, photography was not commonly considered art, and therefore his theory of aura might be invalid when art and photography later merged. It is furthermore important to note, that the investigation which lead throughout this project was only concerning a certain section of his work. Had other pieces of his work, for instance his films or his drawings, been taken under scrutiny it would definitely have influenced the result. Since the notion of aura is of such great importance to Benjamin and Walker, these would have had no relevance to his drawings and maybe even more to say about film. The decision to stick to his portraits, the Brillo Boxes and his own image had two reasons: Firstly, the portraits have gained a status of a symbol of not only Warhol, but the time and atmosphere in which he lived. And that is despite having come to life via methods rarely seen before in the art world and under great criticism. Secondly, the way in which Warhol shaped his identity and made a piece of art of his persona was groundbreaking and has not been seen to such measures since. But it is interesting to consider how the results of this paper would have been different if Warhols persona was not there to build an argument around. For instance, using some of his own works as theoretical base would

48

maybe not have been possible if he had not, in the end, been such a significant culturally respected person.

Conclusion

After having investigated some works of Warhols in relation to Benjamin, Dickie and Danto, we can confirm that he did indeed change the definition of art. The questions which will be concluded on in this chapter is: How did Warhol expand the horizon of what can be considered art? And why? Warhol used new methods of production which blurred the line between industry and art and therefore redefined art. This redefinition was put into an academic and conceptual frame by Danto and Dickie. Warhol had brought reality and art together and according to Danto this was the first step into a new ground breaking understanding of art and on that base, they developed the institutional theory, which must be said to be much of a recognition of him as an artist. So by taking advantage of new methods of producing art, as well as using everyday commercial objects, he prompted the redefinition of art as something that can be mechanically reproduced and is not necessarily defined by art theories which dominated the art world prior to Pop Art. However, as we have stated, Warhols work was much discussed, especially in relation to originality,, and whether it can be called art when it has been reproduced. Here we have drawn on Benjamin. Nevertheless,

49

what we have found is that, even though being reproduced, Warhols artworks have not lost their aura for multiple reasons: Firstly, the works are still all unique, and secondly, the aura can be said to have expanded and is now not only on the artwork but also on the artist, so it is still present, but now in Warhol himself. Therefore, the aura is not lost, but transformed, and that contributes to our claim that Warhol played a significant role in redefining art since he used himself as a central character in the artwork of his life.

Professor in Humanities Gerd Gemnden seems to agree with this conclusion: (...) Pop Art led to radical changes not only as to what we consider to be art, but also as to how we think about arts role in society and the institutionalization of art (Gemnden, 1995: 237). He even believed that the change in the definition of art was challenging the elite of modernism and hereby making a political statement which is interesting for further study: Warhol questioned the relation between art and society by challenging what he perceived the elitism of modernism. It is in this context of redefining the function of art that the political implications of the aesthetics of the surface emerged (235).

Warhols very direct methods in his work, made for a new way of understanding art. Until the Pop Art Movement and Warhol especially, there had been a general tendency of ambiguity in the artworks and with Warhol the statements in his work seemed apparent. Still, Warhol had a multi faceted subtlety that, when looking further into his work and persona, reveals an incorporated double meaning and ambiguity. This

50

ability to make the obvious complicated, or infact the opposite, is what makes Warhol fascinating. The direct approach to the complexity of art world has also been a role model to artists today. This has made possible the emergence of new forms of art, such as cyber art. He showed to the world that there is nothing inflexible about art and that valuing a piece of art can be an ambiguous task. We are aware now of how social changes can inspire young artists to make a change in the definition of art. These led us to realize the many sides to his art. Just like the societal mindset, Andy Warhol and his art was full of contradictions, leaving the spectators and even those working by his side, to wonder. Maybe Andy Warhol was just an outsider, seeking attention and acceptance in a world of consumerism and popular culture. Or maybe he played the game of the art world to an extent not seen before. Through his works, life style and persona, not only did he portray the society of the time with all its contradictions. He was at once reflecting, mirroring so to speak, this shallow and superficial pop culture which he seemed to love being a part of, but at the same time putting it under a magnifying glass, exaggerating, taking it out of context and thereby commenting and criticising it subtly. This multi faceted subtlety he seemed to radiate, with all its ambiguity and double meaning, he incorporated in his work and this what made him the legend he is.

Patti Smith on 9/11 and Andy Warhol: He would have known, what to do as an artist. Not to transform, but to document.(websource 5).

51

Perspectivation In the following section we are going to name some other facts that we found interesting while writing this project, that would be interesting to look into, should the project be taken further.

All group members share a great interest in Andy Warhols persona and one of the themes that emerged several times during our discussions is the way in which he himself became a brand. It is hard to think of a Campbell soup or a portrait of Marilyn Monroe without Warhol popping into our minds as one of the greatest representatives of these images. All of us have experienced our first encounter with Pop Art from Andy Warhol's hand, although he was not the only artist of the time. His impact in the sixties is hard to ignore. During that time, he used to dress up in a specific way that made him easily recognizable. He created a product of himself characterized by tight, dark and leather clothes. Just as the products he portrayed, his image was promoted and people started to 'consume' him, by imitating both his look and behaviour. People around copied the way he dressed and acted. Even though comparing Warhol to a product such as a Coke can sound slightly abstract, it is somehow possible to see some common facts. For example, the marketing behind both products are inevitable recognition of the majority of the population. As Warhol is perceived as the representative of the burst of consumerism in art, CocaCola is a brand that emerged with consumerism and was a product that quickly became available to everybody. It is interesting to see how both products, Warhol and a Coke, are strongly linked to other commodities. As mentioned before, celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe or a Campbell

52

soup can implies Warhols name at some point. This could be interesting to relate to the presentation that coke did with the red Santa Claus. Coke portrayed an image of Santa Claus that is difficult to dismantle as Warhol did with celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe, Liz Taylor or Elvis Presley.

Another interesting aspect we have stumbled upon is that, when Andy Warhol died, one of the few things that surfaced about him and which no one expected was his piousness. It turned out to be that there was one thing Andy Warhol did believe in, and which he tried to keep as private as possible. It seems he was going to church on a regular basis, and practicing Christianity consistently. This is grounded in his childhood with a religious family loyal to conservative traditions. It is then interesting to contemplate on how he became the controversial artist he turned out to be. This would have been an interesting perspective we could have developed further, investigating how his religious side influenced his philosophy and his art. Warhol didnt tire of stating that behind his paintings and his behaviour there was nothing, no greater goal or meaning that could characterize his personality. This might be the motive for his silence, as he didnt want to be seen as human and as sentimental as other people. However, knowing this side to his character, we found it interesting, as it definitely states that Warhol believed there was something behind everything, something we could call soul. One of his last works of art was a religious-themed series of The Last Supper. When he created them, he went back to the basics, using the traditional method of brush and paint. An interesting question here could be: what did this mean? What did this say about Andy Warhol, moving from paintings of everyday objects to motives of such consequence?

53

He was one of the first public figures who were openly homosexual, all before the homosexual liberation movement, which is somewhat a contradiction if we regard the conservative environment the church is surrounded by. Nevertheless, these contradictions and ruptures with the tradition have always been one of the trademarks that preceded his person. As concluded in this project report, Andy Warhol had a vast impact on what today can be considered art. Through research at the first stages of the project, we found also interesting to look into art today, and to what could be considered the aftermath of the Pop Art movement. One new tendency we have found noteworthy is the Cyber Arts. Using cyberspace to display their work, some artist have embraced this modern technology as part of their method. It is still a new term and the definitions are beginning to shape, but one noteworthy factor is that having made the artwork through software programs, it allows the artist, for one, to reproduce an infinite number of times and, at the same time, be able to reach billions of cyberspace consumers. Here it would be interesting to study whether Walter Benjamins theory on the aura is still valid, or if with the new trends in contemporary art it is obsolete. Placing Cyber Arts up against Pop Art and Andy Warhol, there are various similarities. Cyberspace has become a definite part of our everyday lives, and seems to make a depiction of society today. As Andy Warhol used and portrayed objects that were known to the general public and giving them a new arena, Cyber Arts is making the work accessible by using a medium known and used by most. Using websites though, and not always galleries to showcase their work, it differs from Warhols approach. Here it would also be interesting to see the possibility of applying Arthur Danto, George Dickie and the institutional theory or to

54

see if in fact it would be necessary to once again revise the theory alongside the many changes of contemporary art.

55

List of references Adams, Hugh. (1978). Art of the Sixties. Great Britain: Phaidon Press Ltd.

Benjamin, Walter. (1932). Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit - Drei Studien zur Kunstsoziologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag. Edition 28. Bergin, Paul. (1967). Andy Warhol: The Artist as Machine. In: Art Journal, Vol. 26, N4, (Summer 1967). pp. 359-363. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/775065. Last accessed 18th March 2013. Crow, Thomas. (2005). The Rise of the Sixties. Great Britain: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. Danto, Arthur C. (1998). After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Danto, Arthur C. (2001). The Madonna of the Future - Essays in a Pluralistic Art World. New York: University of California. Danto, Arthur C. (2009). Andy Warhol - Icons of America. London: Yale University Press. Dickie, George. (2001). Kunst og Vrdi. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Limited. Du Duve, Thierry (1993) The Definitively Unfinished Marcel Duchamp. Cambridge, Great Britain: MIT Press. Gemnden, Gerd. (1995). The Depth of the Surface, or, What Rolf Dieter Brinkmann Learned from Andy Warhol. In: The German

56

Quaterly, Vol. 68, N 3, (Summer 1995). pp. 235-250. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/408241 Last accessed 21st March 2013.

Harrison, C. and Wood, P. (2002). Art in Theory - 1900-2000 - An Anthology of Changing Ideas. USA: Blackwell Publishing. Joselit, David. (2002). Yippie Pop: Abbie Hoffman, Andy Warhol and Sixties Media Politics. In: Grey Room, N8, (Summer 2002). pp. 62-79. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1262608. Last accessed 18th March 2013. Lovern, L. and Yee, J. (2013). Andy Warhols Brillo Boxes: A Series Index. Available: http://www.artnet.com/insights/art-markettrends/andy-warhol-brillo-box-sculptures.asp#.UZZd8JWy02l Last accessed 15th May 2013. McGeehan, John R. The Counterculture of the 1960s. Available: http://www.netplaces.com/american-history/the-turbulentsixties/the-counterculture-of-the-1960s.htm. Last accessed 12 May 2013. MacTaggart, John. (2013). Pop Art - the art of popular culture. Available: http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/art_movements/pop_a rt.htm. Last accessed 11th May 2013. Mattick, Paul. (1998). The Andy Warhol Philosophy and The Philosophy of Andy Warhol. In: Critical Inquiry, Vol. 24, N 4, (Summer 1998). pp. 965-987. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344114. Last accessed 18th March 2013. Nettleton, Taro. (2003). White-on-White: The Overbearing Whiteness of Warhol Being. In: Art Journal, Vol. 62, N 1, (Spring

57

2003). pp. 14-23. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558466. Last accessed 18th March 2013.

Osterwold, Tilman. (2007). Pop Art. TASCHEN GmbH. Van Maanen, Hans. (2010). How To Study Art Worlds - On The Societal Functioning Of Aesthetic Values. Amsterdam University. Walker, John A. (1983). Art in the Age of Mass Media. London: Pluto Press Limited. Warhol, Andy. (1975). THE Philosophy of Andy Warhol. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Warhol, A. and Hackett, P. (1980). Popism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Whiting, Cline. (1987). Andy Warhol, The Public Star and The Private Self. In: Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 10, N 2, The 60s (1987). pp. 58-75. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360447. Last accessed 18th March 2013.

Web Sources

Websource 1: (N.D). American Consumers. Available: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~waldr20m/classweb/worldpolitics/con sumerism.html. Last accessed 15th March 2013. Websource 2: (N.D) Walter Benjamin: Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit (1935/36). Universitt Duisburg. Available: http://www.unidue.de/einladung/Vorlesungen/ausblick/benjkunstwerk.htm. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

58

Websource 3: (2005). Benjamin, Warhol, and the Aura. Available: http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=453 Last accessed 17th March 2013. Websource 4: (N.D). But Is It Art? Taste and Bias Activity. Available: http://edu.warhol.org/aract_brillo.html. Last accessed 15th May 2013. Websource 5: (N.D) Patti Smith: I really appreciate Andy Warhol. http://channel.louisiana.dk/video/patti-smith-i-really-appreciate-

andy-warhol. Last accessed 18th May 2013.

59