24/7 Customer support here

“Reflection of American Democracy in Pop Art”

   The aim of this paper is to show that Pop Art was one cultural expression of this American "democratic ethos" (Kroes,p.46). It will further discuss in how far Pop Art as part of American culture had an influence on Europe and if the fears and criticisms by European ntellectuals of being 'Americanized' are justified.

Regarding the former aspect of Pop Art being a 'democratic art', it seems necessary to first single out the basic features that make art democratic and then to analyze the impact of a democratic character on art itself. Just as the political form of democracy is described by Heywood (2002) as 'government of, for and by the people' (p.76), one could describe the cultural dimension of democracy, as aspired by pop art, as 'art of, for and by the people'. Thus, one could claim that in order to fulfill these criteria, Pop Art had to abandon certain features of traditional art and create new ones instead.  First of all, and maybe most important, was the fact that Pop Art no longer required pre-knowledge, a certain standard of education or much thinking. (Kraue, 1995, p.114) The objects and images used by Andy Warhol, Roy Liechtenstein and others were primarily those which occupied a central place in consumer society - which was due to commercial advertisement - and were thus familiar to everyone. Thus, almost from one day to the next, Campell's soup cans became 'famous', thanks to Warhol who built a pyramid out of them and granted them status as pieces of art, one could claim, by the following statement: "An artist is someone who produces things which no-one needs, but which he considers worthy of giving to the people for whatever reason."1 (Ruhrberg et.al., 2000, p.323) These things included not only soup cans, but also portraits of Hollywood stars like Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley or, in the case of Liechtenstein, comic strips, which he took out of their context as part of a story and painted them through a raster in over dimensional size, thereby "monumentalising" them and bringing their simplicity and banality to the fore.(Kraue, 1995, p.115) The barriers between art and everyday life had thus been removed. As Warhol, the great figure of Pop Art, put it: "Everything is beautiful. And Pop is everything." (1981) And, one could claim, as everyday life and its banalities were something that everyone was able to identify with, art did indeed gain a democratic character in so far as no-one who was not an 'insider' or educated in art was excluded from understanding and enjoying it, as had been the case in previous times.2 But not only in such an 'intellectual' way did art become democratic. It was also affordable, in monetary terms. The new production techniques such as the "Siebdruck" 3 (i.e. silk-screen printing), used especially by Andy Warhol, made it possible to produce so-called "multiples" (Krausse, 1995, p.115) i.e. a great number of one and the same work, resembling industrial mass production of ordinary consumption goods. Thus, the prices for such prints remained rather low compared to traditional works of art, as the cost of 'production' was lower, too. (The Fine Art Organization Inc.: tfaoi.com) Consequently, a piece of art was no longer something unique, which needed a lot of time and effort to be created, a feature which had up to then been vital not only for defining the quality of a piece of art, but also its price. Especially these two 'innovations', the removal of intellectual and monetary barriers, which allowed 'free access' to art, seemed to make Pop art appealing to the masses and not just to a tiny fraction of society. Therefore, as had not been the case with other kinds of art 4, Pop Art was readily accepted by most of the population. (Ruhrberg et.al., 2000, p.303)

    Yet, at this point one might consider the impact which this democratic aspect did have on art and also on culture as such. In this context of new production techniques mentioned above, one cannot deny that a certain standardization took place along with democratization of art, an issue that had already been addressed by philosophers like de Toqueville. In several volumes published, he analyzed the impact of "egalitarian democracy" on society and culture, claiming that democracy and its central concern with equality ultimately led to a "levelling of differences between individuals", thus rendering individualism - which democracy actually claims to protect - nothing more than "a form of hidebound conformism". The same, he argued, was also true for "cultural standards" and art. (Kroes,1996, pp.16-17) In this respect, one could claim that his vision of "...surface effects taking the role of 'profondit (depth)" (p.17) was indeed true for Pop Art as not only used the products of mass culture, the way it was created also resembled industrial production of an ordinary consumption good. (Kraue,1995, p.115) Thus, the multiples produced in Andy Warhol's "Art Factory" (p.115) strongly conveyed the impression of being a kind of 'art from the assembly line'. Indeed, one could argue that implied in the combination of the terms 'art' and 'factory' is a kind of tension, which results from the attempt to combine 'art' as a traditionally subjective, unique creation process with the concept of 'factory' which one may generally consider as embodying anonymous, homogenous mass production. That the concept of 'art' as part of culture gets thus a commercial character, which is even more underlined by the fact that Pop Art uncritically incorporated the icons of mass and consumer culture, is consequently not surprising. Besides, this change in conception away from individuality and depth was even intended, as the following comment by Andy Warhol suggests: "I began as a commercial artist and I want to finish as a commercial artist. Doing well in business is the most fascinating facet of art ... and making a good deal is the best art." (Ruhrberg et. al., 2000, p.323) Thus, he made clear, that Pop Art was not meant to be criticism or protest against mass consumption and consumer society, but seemed, on the contrary, fully integrated in this framework5 .(p.322) Needless to say that such an attitude towards art and profit-making clashed with rather traditional notions of art and its function. Especially European intellectuals and artists were alarmed by the spread of American popular culture (p.321), which also included pop music and comics. Just like pictures seen in the media or images taken from songs, the European population

"soaked up a range of images of the America that Pop Art artists published about America and its life style. The picture about America is refined through (artwork) and Europeans arriving in America for the first time have moments of recognition, of deja vu. (Europeans) remember the places in America not only as places in our heads but also as fragments of (art) that have been seen before in Europe."

   Those pictures were drummed into the heads of people and thus belonged to their experiences. They did not remain American property, but "became a part of individual life histories", also those of Europeans. Thus, one can conclude that American "culture has become other people's property" and mass consumption culture began to take root in Europe. (Kroes, 1996, p.176). Hence, the influence of American culture has been heavily criticized by many European philosophers and intellectuals. Hans Richter, for instance, a German Dada artist, conceived of Pop Art as being "... no art of protest like DADA, but only a documentary of the adaption to today's world of consumption" (Ruhrberg, 2000, p.322). Comments like this were the rule rather than the exception among the European cultural elite as they felt threatened by the standardized mass culture due to the fact that it replaced "consciousness with conformity". (Adorno, p.90) Popular culture, according to them, enforced the predominance of a rather passive acceptance of the status quo instead to reinforce the ideal to improve life through active and reflective thinking (pp.88-92). They feared that the great part of the population "wanted to be deceived" (p.89), while further claiming that popular art "lives parasitically from the extra-artistic technique of the material production of goods"(p.88). The art produced by culture industry "is essentially a mixture of streamlining, photographic hardness and precision on the one hand, and individualistic residues, sentimentality and an already rationally disposed and adapted romanticism on the other"(p.88). Thus many intellectuals accused popular culture of conformity preventing people from reflection. Walter Benjamin alludes on this respect and blames popular art for destroying the important uniqueness of art in every sense. The critical view of Walter Benjamin on the modern developments are expressed in his book "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" where he defines the unique existence of a work of art -- its originality and authenticity -- as aura. (Belton, R.: http://www.jahsonic.com ). He criticizes the swindling away of this aura of things, the loss of the latter in an age of mass production and mass consumption. Art, as one example, becomes just like any other commodity an easily reproducable and standardized element of life (Lee,M.J., 2000, p.15).

   However, the intellectual criticism about Pop Art and popular culture in general omitted important features of culture throughout history. Philosophers demarcating popular culture from high culture seemed to ignore that culture was not only reserved for the elite but was an issue for everyone: During the Shakespearean period, "plays were performed and adapted versions to fit particular occasions, people drew on them for commercial messages and for parties." (Kroes,p.46) In that epoch, "Shakespeare belonged to everyone, ..(whereas) the public was critic and director at the same time"(Kroes, p.46). During the course of time this spirit was forgotten as was its importance for the public. Shakespeare mutated to a sacred icon that excluded the influence of the common folk (p.46). Furthermore it is important to keep in mind that there have always been periods of time where certain national cultures dominated the whole of Europe. Eighteenth century France can serve as an example of such cultural domination. French court culture and language spread all over the continent, but in contrast to American influence today, this was not seen as a threat but was highly welcomed. (p.163) Therefore, the post modernist Andrew Ross qualifies the severe dangers of mass consumption expressed by Adorno and Benjamin. According to him, foreign cultural influences do not inevitably lead to homogenisation, but may result in cultural plurality as well. Hence, he wants the intellectuals to play the role of cultural missionaries and to do the political leadership but nevertheless, he wants the public to have the chance to take part in cultural life. Ross is of the opinion that kitsch that is elements of low culture, are part of every human being and can therefore not be eliminated (p.44). Eventually he blames the intellectuals of being the shift of society that is not contributing to any social or cultural progress accusing them of clinging to their "ancestral patrimony" (p.62).

 1 2

BACK TO ART