▽ POPISM

I have recently had the chance to readdress one of my favourite pieces of art literature, which is none other than, POPism by Andy Warhol and Pat Hackett - Warhol’s personal view of the pop phenomenon within 1960’s New York. Warhol’s frankness, entertaining anecdotes and priceless humoUr make a truly engaging read and as it is written in an accessible, conversational tone, it is a book, just as Warhol’s art, which is easy to relate to and enjoy. Commendably, it provides the reader with a more humanistic view of Warhol, as he was known by many to possess a somewhat taciturn, enigmatic public persona. It is certainly a treat to see Warhol open up more, slightly revealing his true character, as well as explaining the motives behind his artistic production and means of working as an artist and filmmaker.

POPism effectively captures Warhol’s fascination with people. Despite his inherent shyness he was without a doubt, a people person. It is certainly no secret that he was particularly enamored with those in possession of astounding beauty or engaging character; one would usually be required to be blessed with that incomprehensible air of star-quality in order to capture his attention. The way Warhol describes all of his friends and peers in this personal account, makes it is easy to see that he found something of interest and value in them all. I believe Warhol possessed a very laudable degree of appreciation for most things, whether they were commonplace, consumerist objects or his work colleagues and friends. I think this appreciation, particularly that for people, was arguably a consequence of his highly religious upbringing, as it certainly appears a very Catholic notion, to see intrinsic value in everyone. Warhol claims that the 60’s were about people, not about what they did, and this evokes an uncanny similarity to the rise of reality television in recent years, where individuals who often do not do much, but are beautiful, rich or have interesting lives have their every move watched. Also, one must not forget the likes of social networking, were everyday people can brand themselves to some extent and have their everyday actions followed – this notion is also reminiscent of Warhol’s insightful words. It is certainly amazing to think that all of them years ago in the 60’s Warhol was endorsing in the type of culture that we are absolutely consumed by today in which everyday people can become famous or acquire a lot of attention with very little effort through reality television or social media sites. 

POPism also denotes something that presumably most people would already have guessed about Warhol – that he was a great businessman. Of course, pop art is intrinsically liked to commercialism and consumerism so it is no surprise really that the acclaimed ‘father of pop’ possessed great business acumen. However, the book reveals just how business orientated he was, and how it ultimately made him into a household name. I discovered that the content of his paintings would usually depend on the taste and interests of others, as he was often inclined to ask others what his paintings should be of. This of course meant he would always have an audience, even when pop art was not considered ‘good art’. I also ascertained that his flower paintings, which were exhibited in France were only produced because France was not interested in new art at the time - they had gone back to liking the impressionists mostly. Therefore, Warhol realised that the French would endorse in his flower paintings and he proceeded to take them to France. Once again we see he was a crowd pleaser; the content of his work could sometimes appear nothing more than an artful business move.  However, one of the most salient, business-minded claims that Warhol makes within this book is that in order to be successful one must always have their work exhibited in a good gallery. This is because the art that survives is that which the ‘ruling class’ decrees should survive, and if works are exhibited in good galleries the ‘ruling class’ are more liable to taking notice of them.

One of my favorite parts of the book is when Warhol proceeds to discuss the abstract expressionists, who simply begrudged pop art.  The abstract expressionists are described as butch, violent and tough. Their ruggedness is denoted as something of a tradition that went alongside their anguished art. I was both shocked and amused to hear one anecdote where Jackson Pollock apparently called Milton Resnick a ‘De Kooning imitator’, and Resnick subsequently asked him to step outside. I had always known that Pollock had been quite a character, but I had no idea he wound up in situations as extreme as this! Warhol makes a priceless comment with regards to the violent, brawly abstract expressionists – he asks the reader to imagine him walking over to fellow pop artist Lichtenstein and asking him to ‘step outside’ because he had heard he had insulted his soup cans!  Warhol’s character of course did not adhere to that of the typical abstract expressionist and neither did his most celebrated works. Nevertheless, it is rather interesting to note that within his first canvas paintings he did try to conform to the abstract expressionist style. He did two Coca-Cola paintings – one of the them with abstract expressionist hash marks half way up the side and the other just a stark, outlined Cola bottle in black and white.  It is a good job that Warhol soon came to his senses and did not try to adhere stylistically to abstract expressionism; his stark, outlined ‘plastic’ aesthetic is ultimately what provided a magnificent reflection of the commodity consumerist culture that was augmenting in 1960’s America, and subsequently made him a leading figure in the pop art movement.

Commendably, POPism reminds me not to have such romantic notions of the 1960’s New York factory scene as I am sometimes inclined to. I am often disposed to possessing an idyllic idea of the scene, but who could not be with the likes of Warhol, the beautiful Edie Sedgwick and the sensational The Velvet Underground all together at the silver factory constantly partying and creating art.  However, POPism provides a realistic depiction of what really went on within the factory scene, and most of the time it is not too pretty. There was drug addiction and death aplenty; all sorts of psychotic people could simply wander into the factory to steal from or cause harm to others. This of course reached alarming heights when Warhol himself was shot in 1968. The art, the culture and the glamour of the scene may have effectively embodied the zeitgeist of 1960’s New York and be romanticised in minds like my own, but a lot of bad things went on in the scene and a lot of lives were taken or destroyed by drugs and POPism certainly does not disregard this.

As far as I can recall, Warhol was one of the very first artists I ever knew of, for as a child I did not relate as well to a classic masterpiece as I did to an image of Mickey Mouse. I have grown up in the machinations of a consumerist, capitalist culture; therefore, I was of course more inclined, in my younger years, to understand and appreciate Warhol’s work - the work of a pop artist. I have always, as a consequence, felt an inherent connection to him and his work. However, after reading this book I must admit, I became even more fanatical about Warhol, as I was able to view him as a down-to-earth man with great wit, humor and intelligence as opposed to a cold, austere eccentric with a platinum wig and glasses who printed Campbell soup cans.