Paste your essay in here..Intro-
This research will create a clear insight into the theory that these artists (Marcel Duchamp and Andy Warhol) are perhaps linked to the development of a consumerist society. Providing an insight into Consumerism, what a Consumerist Society is and how it has affected art; since the post-war boom in the United States in the late 1940’s and early 50’s (Foster, 113). This discussion will continue to analyse the two artists Marcel Duchamp and Andy Warhol, evaluating their two most famous artworks, ‘Fountain’ and ‘Campbell’s Soup Can’s’. Did they play a part in the normalisation of mass consumerism?
CONSUMERISM-
Historians argue that the solid time of the Industrial Revolution is not entirely clear, it could’ve been between 1770’s-1850’s (Stearns, P.N., 18). But with the development of this revolution, man was being replaced with machine and technology was evolving rapidly because of this. After many years, Americans in the 1920’s were the first to use electric vacuum cleaners, listen to commercial radio broadcasts and to drink fresh orange juice year-round (Mintz, S., & McNeil, S.). Consumerism boomed after WWII, and so ‘throughout the 1950’s America had seen a dizzying expansion in consumerism and the mass media’ (Hopkins, 43). Leading to the normalisation of everyday products (such as household appliances, cars and even food stuffs that would only be available seasonally) that us, in Western society, could never imagine our lives without.
The Roosevelt Institute suggests consumerism as beneficial to the working-class people, or ‘the many’. From the outset, consumerism as an idea generates plenty of jobs and ‘directly or indirectly most jobs depend on manufacturing, transforming [materials] through physical, chemical or mechanical processes … into new products’ (‘IND’ at a glance’). It was implied by the Straits Times, that this social structure of rising consumption is beneficial to consumers (‘the good and bad sides of consumerism’), when in reality it is based on planned obsolescence; the designing of an object to only have a short lifespan, which encourages buyers to move to the next model. (Bulow. 729,749)
Because of this new ideology, art became available to everyone and artists could be anyone; society was changing. For example, Arte Povera and FLUXUS is a movement created in the (ARTE 1960’s ) with the intentions of art being made from reusable and affordable items, which commonly would be classed as literal rubbish. But with this development ‘artists had to compete with fast social turnover of imagery and a decline in their audiences’ attention spans’ (Hopkins 76). Art changed rapidly due to this and became more of a “free-for-all” fight for uniqueness and rank, ‘it is argued that that kind of individualism is a thing of the past, that the old individual and individualist subject is ‘dead’’ (Foster 114). But with the expansion of art being available to all, this led to the rise of post-war art prices (Hopkins 43), which has only caused a larger imbalance among society -which still continues today at a much developed rate- almost as if there is still a ‘high art’ attitude with added consumption.
Unavoidable consumerism
MARCEL DUCHAMP-
Marcel Duchamp is a renowned artist and ‘anti-artist’ . Benefactor of the term readymade , Duchamp began his career as a cubist painter, experimenting with different approaches and forms. He has therefore been placed into different ‘isms’ and movements from Cubism, Dada and Fauvism. (‘Anti Art’)
He moved to Los Angeles in 1915, two years after abstracting his practice from painting to the readymade. (In perspective timeline). From this point onwards Marcel changed the course of art forever (‘Marcel Duchamp artist overview and analysis’), It is quoted that it was precisely Duchamp who dramatically assisted in the explosive disruption of the assumptions of engagement with visual art (Seigel. 947), aiding in the freedom artists have in contemporary society today, by evolving his theories of concept art into the readymade.
FOUNTAIN 1917-
Although ‘Bottlerack’ was Duchamp’s first readymade, it is ‘Fountain’ that had the most impact on Duchamp’s notoriety and the Art world. Transformed into an art object in 1917, Duchamp submitted a white porcelain urinal laid on its back with the name and date ‘R.Mutt, 1917’ painted onto the side (This object, in terms of culture and society, was a consumer commodity. Before mass production toilets would be small outhouses or chamber pots kept under beds and dumped onto the streets, rudimentary to say the least. It was only by 1848 that a law was passed that meant people had to have a toilet, by means of necessity (‘Chamber pot, Victorian, Original’). Even still, it was mainly the upper class that would have a proper functioning indoor ‘sanitary’ toilet.). Entered under a false name, to the newly established Society of Independent Artists, a society that Duchamp himself had helped found and promote (Howarth, S., et.al.). Only to have it rejected because the members viewed it as merely a urinal, not art. Although this new society had sworn to accept a modern view of art and an all-inclusive ethos (Howarth, S., et.al.), the society denied this work as ‘indecent’ and ‘unsanitary’. This lead to Duchamp immediately resigning and voicing his horror of this denial (Howarth, S., et.al.).
After varied responses, Fountain was finally socially accepted, throughout its lifespan Duchamp allowed several copies to be released (Higgs, J.). A couple of which still exist today. Duchamp released these copies under the hope that he could remove the idea of enshrined art, so that several galleries could hold his work.
The fountain is now in the London Tate Modern gallery in the ‘Materials and Objects’ collection, it is displayed as an artefact and an educative object. Placed solitary in a room, symbolising its weight on the art world but also completely going against the works intentions (as the work has been idolised and placed inside of a vitrine like a religious idol). Mirrored by vials of miscellaneous matter and quotes by famous artists relating to what materials represent to them in theory and why they have used such ‘Avant-Garde ’ materials to create art. How materials even such as couscous are used in modern art today and are fully accepted, whereas things such as couscous might have been a luxury to a non-consumer society and as the line between life and consumerism are blurred, things such as couscous, are overlooked as a tool to nourish the body. Which is direct influence from Duchamp freeing objects from having a solid meaning. They only had to be reimagined.
As art was revolutionised –as it has been many times- by the theory of concept.
Why am I talking about the materials (consumerism)
ANDY WARHOL-
Andy Warhol is also a key figure in the contemporary art world. Warhol became famous as a pop artist, he was also a filmmaker, a writer, a photographer and the creator of his own carefully honed celebrity image. (MacCabe, et.al. 11). Exhausting the imagery of everyday objects to represent the effect of a consumer society, he created large silk screen canvasses of celebrities and household products (such as Brillo pads). Even down to his processes he suggested consumer undertones, which entailed repeating the same movements over and over, like a factory machine. He used silkscreen techniques only used for advertisement and news at the time, which caused scepticism as to whether it was to be classed as valid art, due to there being a machine between artist and the art itself (REVOLVER GALLERY). (He is regularly quoted as attempting to make himself a machine (Swenson, G. R.) through his artistic processes and self-promotion). In developing a persona for himself, he was labelled ‘underground’ (King, K., 22), all to keep up appearances and stay relevant in the age of mass media and changing fashions, Warhol ‘embodied the paradox of modernist art’ (Buchloh,B.H.D., 3) and was visibly, heavily influenced by the Consumerist movement of the time. The vast increase in consumption also led to the speedy development of technology, which Andy Warhol also found a personal connection to, using many devices such as video cameras, the Polaroid and tape recorders. It is pointed out that these were ‘the technology of reproduction’ (MacCabe, et.al. 15). Reproduction, which is a key feature in almost all of Andy’s work. He repeats the same image one after the other. Warhol was younger than Duchamp, which suggests the reason behind a more direct and obvious ‘consumer’ theme; he was born later into consumerism.
CAMPBELLS SOUP CANS 1962-
‘Campbell’s Soup Cans’ were first shown in the Ferus Gallery at the start of July, 1962 (‘Andy Warhol, Campbell’s Soup Can’s’). With bold primary colours and flat monochromatic tone, the 33 screen prints of soup cans were displayed uniformly in a grid like composite pattern with exactly 3 inches separating each one. Meaning it would be regularly compared to that of a super market shelf display (Stäuble, Kiefer. 274), where such products would be found and bought, Warhol metaphorically took the concept of the everyday soup can from its usual home and re-presented them on a white gallery wall. Although this did not stop the automatic suggestion of a supermarket display.
This piece was ground-breaking in terms of the way it was produced (because of its process and obscurity) but also because of its contents being repeated imagery of soup, a very mundane object that is not given a second thought after its filling had been consumed. Was this Warhol’s intention? In this piece, the only differences in prints were the flavour names and the odd human error (i.e. a smudge or colour bleed in the ink). Warhol continued to create art with this making process after its controversial response. He began filmmaking and produced hour long movies of one single scene, full of ‘nothingness’. Gaining most of its audience through pure ‘success-de-scandale’ (Ashton, D., 245). Despite the fame he gained through this piece, it is documented that Andy Warhol had not came up with this idea of Campbell’s can’s himself, his friend at the time Muriel Latow had suggested the idea after other artists (such as Roy Litchenstein) had begun the same comic strip method which Warhol was practicing while working in the windows of clothing companies (Comenas, G.), before moving onto screen printing. This frustrated and depressed Warhol and so he begged his friend for the idea at the price of $50 (Comenas, G.) Warhol seemed unsure of the context of a lot of his work, when in interviews. However there are also articles in which Warhol had been asked about the relevance of the soup cans, after speculation that he had eaten a substantial amount of Campbell’s soup, to which he replied ‘oh yeah, I had a Campbell’s soup every day for about 20 years.’ (Goldsmith, et.al. 242.)
LINK-
To start this section off it should be brought to attention that by the point in history these two artists existed, the world was recovering from an era of war, and were part of the fast development of the industrial revolution, which lead directly to consumerism. This means that objects were not necessarily a luxury anymore, everything was being recreated in a cheaper and more time efficient way than ever before. This means that appreciation of the skill of making the object slowly dwindled and made way for intense idolisation of mass accumulating objects. The ‘thinkers’ began to reign supreme.
In the art world, this surely had to have a predecessor as art tends to come hand-in-hand with history. Cornerstones of ism’s and movements usually begin from the political or social climate even if not intended by the artists to do this, It is debated by respected art therapist Doris Arrington that ‘art duplicates real life experiences by showing closeness and distance, similarities and differences’ (107).
Duchamp is quoted concerning himself with the ‘gendering’ of an object and its spectator, whether something is real or a replica and changing this completely so the only concern [towards an artwork] should be the concept (Hopkins, D). Warhol and Duchamp were both regularly ridiculed in the midst of exhibiting the before mentioned artworks as the concepts they had enveloped just weren’t ready to be understood by the masses. Who at this point had only just started to escape the theory that art can only fit in to specific high art standards. They both tried to break these boundaries, Duchamp stated ‘I’ve never had a special respect for enshrined art. The minute people say ‘it’s an outrage’, I’m ready to do it. It tempts me. (Ashton, D., 246) and in a selection of writings about Warhol he has stated when Picasso died he read in a magazine that he made four thousand pieces in a lifetime and he thought, ‘gee, I could do that in a day’ (MacCabe, et.al. 9). These quotes link together as they both try to throw away the standard idea of art. Let us remember one of the main structures behind consumerism is ‘planned obsolescence’, a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete (that is, unfashionable or no longer functional) after a certain period of time (Bulow 729,749)
This is a visible link to Duchamp, Warhol and consumerism. Having an object as an object, with little to no respect of its origin and exhausting an artwork removing the idolisation and replacing it with more art, from the outset, this is a complete process of consumerism.
They both imply a consumerist mind, about the object not being revered or having to be preserved. This can be backed up with the observation by David Hopkins that Duchamp was fond of paradoxes and humour, combining the two to remove Evangelical distinctions between art and life (41). Which is a perfect comparison against the actual subject of both artists work, placing celebrities and everyday objects into an art gallery, removing the distinction between art and life.
Arthur Danto wrote –in relation to the only joint exhibition between the two- that Duchamp’s motives were intellectual and Warhol’s were political (Clark, V.A., 3). This statement can be true to an extent, but due to the era that Duchamp was born it should be irrelevant as ‘by Warhol’s time materialism and consumerism reigned supreme and the processes of mechanical reproduction mediated our perceptions of the world (Clark, V.A., 3)’. Duchamp was aware of the beginning of consumerism, but
Warhol was pretty much born into consumerism. Meaning both were aware, however the means of communication through art had fluctuated, as it always does. As consumerism had ‘reigned supreme’ at Warhol’s peak this simply meant that he had to play consumerism by its own rules, so to speak, as he grew among the midst of it. Creating blasphemous, over saturated and completely wacky pieces for the time that people simply could not ignore. Consumerism works similarly in this way, feeding into every possible part of your life and filling it with the want for everything that we don’t as humans need.
Another point to raise here is that both artists are quoted to be playing their ego or creating a personality for the sake of fame, ‘Both artists changed the face of art by carefully controlling their identities as artists, announcing that they were giving up artistic production while still making work, exhibiting offbeat curatorial and installation interests, and, of course, playing with the ideas of industrial and mechanical reproduction and appropriated images and objects.’(Clark, 80) Could this imply consumerist undertones? A huge part of consumerism includes the advertising of products, this in theory, is the advertising of themselves as an artist.
It could be argued that both Duchamp and Warhol actually played the capitalist society to their advantage to reach the top, just like the previous paragraph. It is said that Marcel Duchamp had no need to live by his wits, due to financial stability growing up, and so learned to live by his wits (IN PERSPECTIVE) which could be the foundations for him to have learned ‘the system’ and how to ‘play the system’ to his advantage. He also deliberately maintained an underground image (Hopkins, D) just like Warhol (King, K., 22), who played on mystery and ‘edge’ to maintain a celebrity image. Warhol knew that everyone was secretly corrupt after the ‘anomic space debris of the 60’s imploded [meaning] … any fool can be a master of [a] subject in a few hours’ (MacCabe, et.al.). But Warhol was not secret about it, many writings about him implied that he manipulated situations and relied on manipulation and sympathy to gain work. Even Duchamp is regularly referred to as a handsome, young successful man in his day (Masheck, J., et.al.). Which is pretty much all that was needed in society to gain recognition, good looks and the correct gender.
All of this evidence can be taken and compared next to the ‘theory of reputations’ in which it is suggested that reputations are justified by a certain piece of art (Heywood). Both artists had a most famous piece of art (Fountain & Campbell’s Soup can’s) and yet both artists stayed in the limelight due to their mysterious and ‘underground’ personas, making sure their names were slipped into the news now and again. People wanted to know more as the idea of shocking was part of everyday life, which Duchamp even said himself. Going on to imply the only shocking left is ‘no shocking’ (Ashton, D., 245) (Again, let us refer to the works of art these artists are most famous for, a urinal and several paintings of a soup can, ‘non-shocking’ objects that created a huge impact) Duchamp is quoted saying ‘Anything can be on top. Genius is invention of man, just like god’ (Ashton, D., 246). Was this a subtle hint to the use of his persona linking to his success?
‘Traditional art believed that high art was capable of profound insight into the social, historical and psychological conditions of human beings’ (Heywood). This statement can be instantly dismissed due to the name ‘HIGH’ art. Meaning only for the higher class. The higher class who exploited every class below without a consideration of the conditions of these ‘human beings’, historically (CITE??). Art still tends to use this process however of turning feelings into practice, but it is an individual process as art is more readily available to everyone, so interpretations can be vastly different from one another due to the sheer amount of information we come across in contemporary society. But it has been suggested that we were unable today to focus on our own present, as though we have become incapable of creating an aesthetic representation of our current experience. It is suggested that this is due to the ‘terrible indictment’ of capitalism itself or a pathological symptom of a society that can no longer deal with its time and history (ANTI AESTHETIC) This implies that the over saturation of objects and information have caused our minds to be so full or numbed they’ve almost imploded on themselves into an expansion of nothingness, like the outset of Duchamp’s Fountain. Just a urinal, suspended on a plinth. But once the surface is cracked there is so much concept behind this. Maybe this is just the struggles Duchamp faced when moving from one ism to the next. However, Duchamp lived in a time still oppressed in terms of individualism, so Fountain was seen as obscene. As it existed for a while people’s opinions slowly began to change up to the point where he is revolutionary in the contemporary art world.
To back this up Duchamp is quoted saying ‘I wanted to use my possibility to be an individual, and I suppose I have, no?’ (Ashton, D., 247).
To move on from this point philosopher Gilles Lipovetsky argued ‘consumption as a whole operates under the sign of fashion’ (WHO IS AW BUT FIND THE ORIGINAL PHILOSOPHERS QUOTE) So could Duchamp doing something so radical (creating Fountain) cause fashion to change? Art tends to influence everyday life and so using a normal mundane object as art meant it became normal to see urinals pop up everywhere, which is not necessarily a bad thing as having a sanitary place for toilets is a basic human need. Although he aimed to be an individual, this was still exploited by the crowd of consumers and became a mainstream fashion. On the other hand, Warhol had a strong interest in fashion (CITE THIS) and so worked the other way, instead of influencing a crowd, he played on the fashion that was already popular at the time and used it to gain notoriety. But this is because he was already in a time that was massively influenced by consumption, Duchamp was at the turning point of this society. He was the trend setter. ‘Duchamp’s and Warhol’s work could not be explained in terms of an existing mimetic, expressive formalist theories of art; yet they were bought, sold, exhibited, written about, and eventually respected, indeed revered, by much of the fine art world in Europe and America [where consumerism was writhe]’ (Heywood)