Luis Alberto Casarrubias Beirana

A01211140 7SEM
10 Ideas on American Pop Art
and political engagement in the 1960s
1. Art which, till then, had a tendency to exclude reality
when it meant triviality.
Until then, aesthetics didnt come from everyday situations. Art
was held up in a pedestal, it came from galleries and art
institutions. Artists began to realize that there was also beauty
in the ordinary, and that this approach could connect once
again with people that were growing apart from high level art. It
was, in a way, democratization in art.
2. The process lasted several years, increasing in that way
its subversive potential, the idea of mobility being in
keeping with the very framework of the monument
which moved forward like a tank.
The subversive potential in works of art grew. One of the main
reasons was because the art was taken to the streets, to public
spaces, not only in official galleries. Also, art began to be
replicated and moved, from one place to another, people no
longer had to go in search of art, art came to them whether
they were looking for it or not.
3. The artists had a double language: they were both
dissidents and propagandists. The poster of protest
exposed the satirical potential of Pop Art and implicitly
satirized Pops social passivity.
There was a certain contradiction in Pop Artists using
advertisements techniques in order to criticize capitalism. But
at the same time they gave advertisement a critical
propagandistic purpose. They took advantage of displaying
images publicly (posters) in order to get to the people so pop
was no longer passive, It had a new courageous attitude to
protest through modified pop culture icons/clichs (those who
used it did not hesitate to use the few signs necessary to turn it
into a form of committed art) pasted on the streets, the posters
were displayed in the new art galleries: the streets.
4. For DArcangelo, it provided a position about the war to
the world and was thought more in those terms than in
terms of creating a work of art that would be considered
on an aesthetic level.
One of the authors of the Collage of Indignation did not
considered it on an aesthetic level. This really made me think

about the subjectivity of aesthetics, and how many artists

criticize that a work that is meant to be aesthetic can not be
made with utilitarian purposes. Perhaps some other artist
involved did gave the final piece an aesthetic value. So, is there
even a controversy? Maybe we should embrace the subjectivity
of aesthetic in order to let it evolve.
5. Pop Art sought ambiguity in its messages, and was
easy and amusing to get into, it gave birth to a peculiar
cult which often prevented the public from
understanding its real contribution. Thus, outside of U.S,
Pop Art turned out to be an apologist of the government,
the national ideology and a propaganda agent of the
American way of life. In the context of the Worlds
Fair, the war images were read by viewers as pertaining
the myth of the heroic (American) soldier and the
certitude of the US military position."
This is the first time I considered ambiguity dangerous in art.
But it should be analyzed on several levels. The first one is the
peoples ignorance and lack of information, the second one an
ambiguous message through pop art and finally the system of
globalization/capitalism that we live in. I believe the system is
the real problem, the peoples ignorance is a crisis and pop art
is mainly a victim. Artists should have the right to be as
ambiguous as they want as long as it has a purpose and theyre
honest with themselves it is our society and our system that
turned it in to a weapon of mass cultural misconception.
6. Lichtensteins war comic-book images functioned
similarly, monumentalizing the conflicts of the 1960s.
They translated militarism and its underlying ideological
basis into terms the average American could
understand: the US military position was reinforced and
the image of the countrys opponents as evils was
ingrained.
Given this example I would too like to argue that if I were an
artist, I would take as my obligation to understand the world
that I live in, and after that critically decide what my art could
stand for and what its consequences it would bring. Some of
the consequences could not be controlled but I would make an
effort to create incorruptible art.
7. Reconciled the American avant-garde art with the
government. Not surprising they should be interpreted
as statements in support of American foreign policy. A
commercial fair where financial and political interests
were at stake at the expense of cultural and artistic
motivations. The F-111 presents the essence of the
United States relationship to the world, displaying the
equation of the good life of peace, with its luxuries and

aspirations, and our involvement with the potential for

instant war and final annihilation.
Art, thus to its inherit nature to affect the perception in peoples
minds, should be used responsibly. Pop Art used advertising
techniques, therefore their levels of persuasion were extremely
high. The multiple ways in which their messages could be
portrayed made them susceptible to be corrupted by
economical and political interests.
8. Pop artists professed non-commitment led to a sort of
incapacity to react. They were faced with a recuperation
that took place because of an unsophisticated reading of
their works, which led to a shift in emphasis, turning
Pop into a conformist and propagandistic art. Pop
artists works perfectly corresponded to any watchword
set forth by public officials.
What surprises me the most is that attempts of Pop Art or
Contemporary art, even today, suffer the same crisis. There is
certainly an atmosphere of apolitical artists, but it is also
turning into mere uncompromised individuals. There should not
be a severe obligation for an artist to be compromised with the
world problems, but they certainly will suffer the consequences
along with us of the system that we live in so its up to them.
9. The standardized appearance of things were taken as
truly significant because they had become not only artsignificant but nation-significant. Pop realism, thus,
unconsciously kept the spectator from questioning
media clich images. Pop artists works blurred the
distinction between denotation and connotation, thus
allowing the context of the exhibition to give them their
full meaning.
I find this really scary. Mainly because all these clichs images
are still used repeatedly in our present days. Why are we still so
obsessed with Coke, the Car, the Hamburger, the Jukebox, fast
food, Americanism? Is there such a lack of cultural images
today that we still need to communicate through that old ones?
I believe this is something that reflects our current crisis of
identities as human beings, as a society, as nations.
10.
Pop Art encouraged the assumption that the United
States, as known through the media, confirmed the
actual world. The media seemed to say: This is
American society, make the best of it for it cannot be
changed. It can only be celebrated for better or for
worse. In international museums, POP ART APPEARED
TO BE CELEBRATING THE INEVITABLE.
This is incredibly sad. And never before I saw this topic from this
perspective. I believe than never before there has been an urge
for artists to be honest with themselves. With their past and

their present, with their own stories. Never before it is as

important to tell your own unique self through art without the
easy-borrowing, non-critical judgment, or doing without
consciousness. Globalization is a real phenomenon, but we
should not rush it at our own cost, we should not increase its
speed because in the process we might loose our authentic
perspective of aesthetic, our true beauty of being ourselves.