Although, I do not consider myself an artsy person, there are a few artists whose work I really enjoy. One of my favorite artists is Andy Warhol. He was a painter who is famous for his pop art. Recently I read an article from the Art Journal written by Paul Bergin. In the article, which was written in 1967, Bergin examined Warhol’s art at the pinnacle of his career. He examined many of Warhol’s painting, which he had completed at the time. Bergin argues Warhol offers his image, his mask, for public consumption, but deprives the public of anything more (Bergin 359-363). When Warhol was asked about his background he once replied, "Why don't you make it up?" The remark is characteristic. It shows Warhol's unwillingness to expose himself beyond his public mask (Bergin 359-363).
Bergin supports his claim, that with regard to the public Warhol does not want to exist outside of his image, with support from his paintings. Warhol’s emphasis upon a stylized exterior and the lack of concern for anything other than the obvious is a major theme in Warhol's art, as well as in his deportment (Bergin 359-363). He also says how all of Warhol's art takes shape and exists close to the unconscious. Meaning, it is not conceived in a conscious mind; neither is it intellectually precise (Bergin 359-363).
Also, Bergin suggests that how Warhol paints attributes to the mysteriousness meaning of his paintings. Warhol paints on silkscreen and there are a number of advantages to the use of a silkscreen (Bergin 359-363). According to Bergin it’s easier to silk-screen images than to paint them freehand. The author talks about the Warhol’s art as art of the “machine”. He says that Warhol’s art is of the machine not about it. He says the machine is, to the artist, a way of life, representative of a unique field of twentieth-century experience, and all of Warhol's art is a striving to express the machine in the machine's own terms (Bergin 359-363). In some of his painting Warhol deliberately calls upon his viewer to make a comparison between his world and the “real” world. For example in his painting, Flowers, 1964, has his viewer compare his flowers in the painting to flowers in real life (Bergin 359-363).
Lastly, Bergin finds Warhol’s death-image paintings the far most striking and interesting of all which really contribute to his argument that Warhol offers his image, his mask, for public consumption, but deprives the public of anything more. I find this evidence the most convincing. Warhol’s death-images, which he painted of news photographs, suicides, and auto accidents and then sometimes arranged them rows and repeated a number of times (Bergin 359-363). Bergin finds the end product striking, enigmatic, and a visual experience (Bergin 359-363). He says that the death images, when stacked up force the viewer to do a double take, and force him to consider the picture longer than he might have and finally force him, if he is observing the canvas at all (Bergin 359-363). Bergin concludes his article saying, if the validity of Warhol's art depends on his actually becoming the machine, it surely fails (Bergin 359-363). It takes a lot to see the true meaning Warhol’s art and someone who does not have a trained eye, like myself, won’t be able to fully understand what Warhol is trying to say in his paintings. It takes a lot more than knowing art and seeing lots of Warhol’s artwork to understand Warhol himself, but that’s the way Warhol wanted it. He wanted to offer his image for public consumption, but deprive the public of anything more.
Works Cited:
Bergin, Paul. "The Artist as Machine." College Art Association. 26.04 (1967): (359-363). Web. 20 Nov. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/stable/pdfplus/775065.pdf?acceptTC=true>.
No comments:
Post a Comment