The artist who has made the most significant contribution to contemporary culture: Andy Warhol

Historical context before contemporary culture

The world as we know it today is the direct consequence of political, economic and social changes which first ignited after the Second World War. This catastrophic event was in itself the consequence of a massive social disorder that spread throughout the developed countries mainly due to the lack of economic empowerment of the middle class. After the War, the world’s political and economic power shifted from Europe to the United Stated establishing a new world order. Having seen the devastation created, and knowing the origin of it, the United States –as well as Europe– determined to focus their power on the enrichment and growth of the middle class. Under this framework, the United States could provide liberty, wealth and opportunities unrivalled by any other country in the world at that time.

The pre-war immigration in the US contributed significantly to the growth, mix and assimilation of cultures, known as “the melting pot”. However, the post-war scenario contributed furthermore in the growth of this population, whose main entry was New York. At the same time, New York slowly started to become the economic and financial epicenter of the world, which added to the new circumstances gave this city all the necessary factors to become the world’s art and cultural capital.

New York was the scene, the actors were the artists and the audience was this new empowered middle-class which was growing at an exponential rate. The removal of economic, political and social barriers, added to the increasing evolution of technology, was leading to a phenomenon known as Globalization. Worldwide communications were shortening the scale of time and space in which we lived, merging ourselves into one global entity, which provided the perfect conditions for the extension of a new cultural movement in all its forms: pop culture. However, at that point nobody predicted how far it would go. In all this chaos of change, someone visualized the future and our present, understanding like no other what we were becoming, and it was Andy Warhol.

Culturally speaking, Pop Art was the first post-modern movement to have raised the question about what was society becoming and its subsequent culture, after all the turbulence of the 30’s and 40’s. Pop Art was initially intended to create an image, a reality or perhaps a perception, of something that was already present in society, like most artistic and intellectual movements enhance. As a matter of fact, it empowered the middle class through imagery of its own collective subconscious, at least in the beginning. By no means was this the first time in the history of art where social and popular representations took place, however it was certainly the first time this would extend to an unparalleled limit in time and space.

But how could all this happened? Could it be that Pop Art created an unprecedented influence on our society, to the point of full absorption, which has dominated our cultural collective behavior ever since? Can an artistic movement, or simply an artist, change the entire way in which humans perceive art and/or any object with an aesthetic connotation? Surprisingly enough, yes. All this indeed happened and is currently happening thanks to a visionary individual, who went from commercial illustrator, to artist, to icon, and who could even be considered a contemporary philosopher: Andy Warhol.

Pop Art & Andy Warhol

“Pop” was first visually introduced by Richard Hamilton’s work entitled Just What Is It That Makes Today’s Homes So Different, So Appealing? which was exhibited in London in 1956. At the same time, British critic and curator, Lawrence Alloway organized an exhibition entitled This is Tomorrow to which he referred in a 1958 article as “mass popular art”, introducing the concept of Pop Art. Richard Hamilton’s use of US magazine images as collage, plus the American iconography and Alloway’s introduction of the concept of mass popular art, was clearly the spark of one of the most important post-modern cultural movement representing the contemporary reality of mass consumerism and mass media.

At that time in the US, Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg, although not part of the Pop Art movement, did ignite the US art scene by introducing iconography and symbolism of mass consumerism. In a complete opposite artistic and intellectual panorama were Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko leading American Abstract Expressionism, perceived as a rebellious, anarchic, volatile and a highly idiosyncratic representation. All of these attributes could not be further away from anything related to collectivity.

During the 50’s, Andy Warhol was still busy developing his professional career in commercial illustration, until he finally stepped in the fine art scene in 1962 with his first exhibition. 1962 proved to be crucial and controversial for Pop Art in the US and the rest of the world, with artists such Roy Lichtenstein, Tom Wesselman and specially Andy Warhol. Warhol revolutionized his and our contemporary culture by using all the means at his disposal –like no other artist had ever done it before– to change the established norms that ruled how art and society interacted until then, by transforming art from being intellectual and elitist to a mass consumer product, at least from an aesthetic point of view. Warhol not only knew what was happening then, but he also knew what the world was going to become.

In May 1962, Warhol had his first one-mans how where he exhibited the famous Campbell soup cans. His first Marilyn Monroe works were shown in November of that same year. It was clear from the beginning that he had adopted serigraphy into his technique as a means to mechanically reproduce the same image as many times as he wanted. This tool and the collaboration of several studio assistants were the key features of art production at his studio: The Factory, whose main purpose was to increase productivity.

The Factory became a reality in 1963, very shortly after having entered in the art world, where he literally stamped Coke bottles, Campbell Soup cans, One Dollar Bills, Marilyn Monroe’s, etc. All of which had one thing in common, they were common and popular products of society. During the 70’s and the 80’s as an established entrepreneur and public character, he spent his time with stars of the moment, offering to do their portraits. This period was characterized by Warhol’s abundant production of celebrity and friend portraits. Moreover, he also immortalized any person willing to pay enormous sums, thus emphasizing his role of a businessman rather than of an artist.

Campbell tomato soup (1962) by Andy Warhol

Controversy and Contradiction of Contra Culture

The MOMA organized a symposium on Pop Art in 1962, where some artists, including Warhol, were attacked for rendering themselves to consumerism. For the social elites who dictated art criticism, the enthusiasm Warhol had for the market culture, was embarrassing and unacceptable. Yoko Ono said it clearly just before the Pop Art revolution: “We (the cultural elite) rejected consciously and strongly Elvis and Rock’n’Roll…we were interested in Art”.

Lawrence Alloway however said “we didn’t feel any antipathy at all for commercial culture, just like many intellectuals did. We accepted it as a fact, we deeply challenged it and we consumed it with enthusiasm”. Alloway is in fact stating that Pop Art was not an invention; it was a reflection of the society back then, which was characterized by a large consumer power of the increasingly growing middle class.

Warhol’s philosophy was clear when he said: “Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art”. In short, money or the means that provide it is art by itself, which is perfectly fine from a capitalist standard, the problem arises when the person who says this, is an artist and intends to produce art by this principle. But how did he expect to accomplish such goal and manufacture art?

Warhol simply decided to standardize art, or perhaps in order to be more precise, imagery. From then on he would only need a label and marketing strategy to keep up with his reputation. He felt so sure about this idea that he didn’t have any problem in branding his studio as the Factory, filling his studio with co-workers and having his works labeled by the Factory instead of signing them personally.

This revolution in the art scene was equivalent to Ford’s in the industrial world. The same way Henry Ford is the father of the modern industrial standard of efficiency, Warhol is the father of contemporary art and set the foundation for the art market as we know it today. However, the difference between both of them is that art had to be intrinsically unique and brilliant; therefore the application of modern industrial productivity standards is not necessary as appealing to art. But since art is meant to be bought and used just as any other consumer product, then why not apply the same standards? This is the key idea that has allowed a social acceptance and admiration of Warhol and his works. He turned the art world up-side down, and still managed to be admired for it.

Pop Art was the antagonistic response to Renaissance, when artists were defined by their artistic geniality supported by a complete domination of craftsmanship. Warhol said "art is what you can get away with" but, could he redefine the rules of art and its market by simply producing works?

Warhol cleverly understood that consumerism was not only a consequence of economic middle class prosperity and increased productivity by industrial means, but more importantly the consequence of a society whose needs were promoted not by itself but by what came up in the media. He noticeably understood that a picture is worth a thousand words, but took this to the next level by simplifying the image in order to promote it better. At the time, society was starting to perceive reality through all media channels, making them the perfect tool for any businessman to exploit such a vast target market. The media infrastructure in the US was consistently bombarding households with implicit and explicit commercial messages which all had the same message: buying this product will bring happiness to your life. Companies didn’t sell a real need, they sold the perception of a need, which launched consumerism to historical levels.

Mass marketing was in its hay day, where advertiser’s messages could convince the audience of anything they show. Warhol understood it, and instead of working on his paintings, which he didn’t need to as the Factory would do this for him, he worked on his brand and his brand’s notoriety. Warhol had a distinctive aesthetic “label”, just like any consumer product whether it was cans, bottles, movie stars or dollars. He then needed a public relations and communication strategy that gave enhanced consistency to the brand. As a result of this communication strategy, The Factory became the epicenter of counterculture and in-adapted people of the time, who were nonetheless, admired public figures, thanks to mass media. This, Studio54, his publications, movies, TV interventions, etc. gave further popularity to Warhol amongst the mass, which increased his social power. He knew the power of the media when he said “that in the future everyone would have 15 minutes of fame”. However, he knew that this maxim was the present and the future of the world.

Marilyn Monroe (1964) by Andy Warhol

Something seemingly vague or a deep social critic?

It should not be forgotten that despite the colorful and cheerful representation of commercial iconography, this didn’t have an allegorical purpose but a straight forward critic of society through these objects. The real essence of Warhol was explicitly shown in his car crash and electric chairs works from 1963. Just like his paintings, they are visually contradictory, Warhol contradicted himself continuously in all forms, maybe consciously or maybe not, but this would pose an interesting cultural dilemma.

Warhol contested the cultural power of the social elite in favor of the masses with consumer standard “stamps”, “images” or “labels” like his. However, this intention proved to be inconsistent as he evolved and became an art businessman, who needed the power of the elite in order to gain notoriety and increase sales. His beliefs seemed very popular, but it was unsustainable in the art market if it was translated to his work.

Moreover, Warhol stated numerous times how worthless and meaningless his works were, and in some way he was right. The mechanical means employed in the production of the works and the absolute mystery of authorship –formed by himself– was very distant from craftsmanship and individual geniality that reached its maximum peak during the Renaissance. All that needed to be known was that the works came from the Factory, and that was enough to sell the works in large amounts. There was a very marked contradictory sense between a standardized, stamped picture of a meaningless, simple image with no authorship of a Turquoise Marilyn, and Diana and Actaeon from Titian the Italian Renaissance master; and yet they both have something very similar: PRICE. The Warhol was recently (2007) sold for $88 million and the Titian for $76 million (2009).

So if Warhol was aware of the lack of quality in his work and even promoted it, wasn’t he denouncing, in some way, the means by which his works were acquiring market value? Or was he simply mocking the cultural elite and buyers? Somehow, whether conscious or unconsciously, Warhol came to denounce the absurdity around art and its physical value; he was socially demonstrating that art, having been the maximum representation of the elite’s intellect, could become a worthless piece of material representing a vulgar and popular theme and still be purchased for ridiculous amounts of money. Warhol dehumanized art completely, and society has loved him completely for this ever since. The problem doesn’t come with Warhol himself and his philosophy –which is brilliant in a funny way– the problem comes when he becomes the reference of contemporary art and culture, which assimilates meaningless and worthless imagery as art, just because we are told so through all the media channels. However, the cultural elite could in response say that this discourse comes from an uneducated, popular and vulgar perspective. The truth is that they may be right, but then in which position does this leave the cultural elite when they buy a Warhol for millions?

Richard Hamilton once stated that the art that appealed to him had to be “popular (designed for the mass public), brief (short term solution), dispensable (easily forgotten), low cost, produced in series, young (aimed for the youth), ingenious, sexy, contrived, glamorous and very profitable”. Ironically enough it seemed as if he was describing not only the work of Andy Warhol, but also our civilization’s cultural taste and values for the past 60 years, underlining the importance of Andy Warhol who utterly revolutionized art history and our contemporary culture with his radical conceptual approach which has been extended to every aspect of our day to day life.