Semiotics Paper 12-20 - Georgetown Digital Commons

advertisement
Lynn El-Roeiy
Professor Irvine
CCT 711
12/20/15
The Semiotics of Pop Art
Signs, Signals and Social Growth
In the current era, most people would not consider a can of Campbell’s
Soup to have the potential to be an artistic masterpiece that sparked social
change and intellectual growth. Granted, the flash of red color and cursive
writing is aesthetically appealing and enticing, yet it does not necessarily warrant
the same admiration that one feels when viewing Vincent Van Gogh’s, “The
Starry Night,” or Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica.” Yet in 1962, Andy Warhol’s artistic
adaptation of “Campbell’s Soup Cans” transformed the mundane image of a
staple grocery store item into a wildly popular and lauded icon of Pop Art. During
the 1950s and 1960s, Pop Art emerged as a stark contrast to previous art forms,
exploring the boundary between art and pop culture and how the two ironically
yet earnestly intersect. Typical subjects of this art movement included common
products such as groceries, elements of advertisement and objects that were
usually presented as being removed from a background or underlying setting that
provided context and an inherent purpose. This paper will examine the key
semiotic features of Pop Art as both a form of artistic expression and critical part
of 20th century art, as well as dissect what exactly is the signifier and signified in
such an artistic genre.
Writer Carl I. Belz explains that Pop Art possesses, “A distinct selfconsciousness” (105). This is a highly accurate and observant statement that
transcends the place Pop Art had during its initial debut into modern society.
El-Roeiy
1
Pop Art does not attempt to trigger a different reaction in its viewers that the one
it clearly presents; it is an entirely straightforward and aesthetically obvious in its
content. A prime feature of the artistic genre is that it defied the intentional
ambiguity of recent movements such as abstract painting, which Belz
characterized as, “a phenomenon that somehow lost touch with reality,” and left,
“spectators of the twentieth century art,” craving, “the return of recognizable
subject matter” (105). Although these descriptions are easily gained from simply
viewing an example of Pop Art, it is in these seemingly obvious details that Pop
Art has such power and ability in its delivery. Pop Art lacks the suggested or
even guided message of the artist behind a particular piece; it is a raw, nearly
comical interpretation of an object in its plainest form. However, in the plainness
of its seemingly indifferent artistic representation, it makes the viewer question
whether objects are actually superficial and their appearance somewhat
superficial or if those images are actually a reflection of deep and complex
themes in reality. Constructing a Semiotic narrative of Pop Art, specifically art
works created by artist Andy Warhol, could lead to potential answers for such a
question.
In the text, Handbook of Semiotics, author Winfried Noth articulates pivotal
ways to understand how the objects depicted in Pop Art act as both a signifier, or
the concrete form of a sign, and the signified, or what the sign is referencing.
Prior to exploring how Pop Art fits into semiotics on a whole, it is crucial to study
how an object is even converted into a work of art that in turn becomes a
manipulated representation of reality and society. Noth provides valuable insight
El-Roeiy
2
into the more basic steps of studying signifiers and what they actually signify in
his explanation of “Semiotics of Objects: State of the Art” (440). In this selection,
he probes different levels of objects, such as “Aesthetic Objects,” or “Objects of
Cultural Praxis,” in terms of how they are converted from mundane samples of
ordinary life into part of a social commentary.
In his discussion of “Aesthetic Objects,” Noth pinpoints a major theme
within the semiotic breakdown of Pop Art: Specialization. The author explains
that, “Specialization refers to the fact that language is exclusively or at least
primarily communicative in its function. Speech production requires little
energetic effort, and man is free to perform other activities while speaking.
Object languages are not specialized in this sense” (Noth, 441). Art does have
its own form of communication in its presentation of signifiers, yet it is not a
“language” that was specifically designed to communicate. When objects are
used as referents and signifiers, Noth explains that a subtle yet important
distinction emerges within a semiotic perspective of art. He notes that, “Objects
of signs raise the semiotic question of the difference between sign vehicle
(signifier or representamen) and its referent (denotatum)” (Noth, 443). In Pop
Art, there seems to be multiple dimensions of signs that all coalesce to form a
singular message. In the example of Andy Warhol’s “Campbell’s Soup Cans,”
the painting’s subject could be seen as an ironic representamen of modern
society’s fixation on materialism and superficial elements of appearance.
Additionally, in a more metaphysical sense, the painting could be seen as society
El-Roeiy
3
itself, as it is a shrine to a consumer good, which mimics the huge value we place
on material objects.
Winfried Noth’s explanation of Specialization also provides valuable
insight into the power that language (specifically, titles and captions) can have in
helping to decode the meaning of an art genre as subjective as Pop Art.
Conversely, it also demonstrates how little information a title can divulge about
the more abstract, more symbolic meaning of an artwork. Andy Warhol’s most
iconic paintings were labeled in simple phrases that usually only stated the brand
or object that was being depicted. His lauded painting of Campbell’s soup cans,
for example, was aptly titled, “Campbell’s Soup Cans.” Even his more notional
pieces, such as a colorful depiction of Marilyn Monroe’s head floating without a
body or physical background against a gold backdrop, were titled with similarly
simplistic phrases such as, “Gold Marilyn Monroe.” Andy Warhol, in a quite
conscious decision, chose to reveal the same amount of information about his
artworks in both visual and linguistic forms. This enhanced the object or subject
of the painting being the only form of communication between his artwork and the
viewer. There is no verbal expansion or explanation of a deeper meaning to
guide the viewer in how to interpret the message behind a specific painting.
Additionally, the lack of an expressive title further accentuates the reflexive
nature of Warhol’s work; as explained earlier, the viewer could interpret the
depiction of an object as a sign of social materialism or as social materialism
itself.
El-Roeiy
4
Michael Kelly, author of the book A Hunger for Aesthetics: Enacting the
Demands of Art, also stresses the importance of Pop Art having a quality of selfconsciousness or content awareness. He quotes Susan Sontag when explaining
that, “Art today is a new kind of instrument, an instrument for...organizing new
modes of sensibility,” and that, in turn, “artists have had to become selfconscious aestheticians: continually challenging their means, materials, and
methods” (Kelly, 25). The new “self-conscious aesthetician” created an entirely
new approach to pop culture and key social features. Rather than acting as a
reflection of the outside world, as is usually seen in fine art subject matter, the
paintings embodied the culture of the outside world itself while simultaneously
acting as a critic of that world. Kelly also reveals that modern society was
virtually required to have a reaction to Pop Art, whether it be positive or negative,
curious or controversial. He explains that, “aesthetic theory needed to be
substantially transformed if new facts incommensurate with existing theory
demanded such transformation. So rejecting Pop was not an option, any more
than rejecting new facts would be acceptable in the sciences” (28). Thus, Andy
Warhol’s work essentially started an entirely new aesthetic, one that tested the
boundaries of what could actually be labeled “art” in contemporary society.
It could be said that any non-documentary portrayal of reality (i.e. a
painting, drawing, computer animation, etc.) is art, as it is expressing a visual
message without being entirely accurate or obvious. This is an easy theory to
apply to artists such as Jackson Pollock, whose work is so blatantly unrealistic
that it cannot be categorized as a documentary recording of a subject, but rather
El-Roeiy
5
the artist’s own interpretation of a subject. However, it develops a more
complicated and nuanced meaning when applied to Pop Art, which is essentially
a handmade, slightly manipulated version of a photograph or actual subject. The
question arises of whether Andy Warhol’s painting of Campbell’s Soup Cans
could even be considered art. Is the piece a work of subjective visual expression
simply because it is displayed on a canvas and etched out in paint, which
somehow distinguishes it from a photograph or exact depiction of reality?
Michael Kelly explains that the key element that differentiates Pop Art from a
concrete depiction of reality lays in context. When reviewing Pop Art, “The issue
of aesthetic norms...is at heart an issue not merely of interpretation or taste, but
of understanding, and thus it is an implicit invitation to aestheticians to participate
in the discussion of 1960s art because their task is the critical understanding or
art’s normativity” (Kelly, 32). Thus, as a signifier, a work of Pop Art could be
considered “fine art” because it provokes a reaction in its viewer that is different
than what another depiction of the same signifier (in a different context, such as a
documentary photograph) would produce.
Another major theme in the semiotic analysis of Pop Art is Parallel
Architecture, which is explained by author Ray Jackendoff in the excerpt, “The
Parallel Architecture and its Place in Cognitive Science.” Although his discussion
of this theory mostly apply to music or verbal expression, there are still many
overlapping perspectives in how such an approach can be applied to visual
mediums and, specifically, Pop Art. Jackendoff explains that Parallel
Architecture can provide meaning in expressions when, “The relation between
El-Roeiy
6
sound and meaning is mediated by a set of interface components, which
establish optimal linkings among the various structures and their parts” (647). A
major distinction in this explanation of an interface in this theory is that, “an
interface is not a level of structure but rather a connection between two levels of
structure” (Jackendoff, 647). In other genres of fine art, especially ones that very
accurately depict scenes of reality, an interface, or a joining of multiple forms of
communication or signs, can be its own component of how to process a work as
a whole. In Pop Art, interfaces function more as links between sign systems than
their own actors. There seems to be less need for transition between one sign
and the other. In more abstract examples of fine art, viewers need to form
connections between how the artist perceived the subject matter, how that
subject matter was ultimately portrayed, what the subject matter could represent
if it does not resemble its realistic inspiration, etc. In Pop Art, contrastingly,
interfaces and transition between sign systems become more condensed
because there is less of a need to process the subject matter that is being
visually presented. The subject is usually clear and relatable to everyday life.
Instead of a viewer transitioning from viewing the materials on the canvas to the
canvas in social context to how the social context joins with their own personal
context, etc., the depicted object is clear and readily recognized. The process of
recognizing the signs becomes condensed and easier for the viewer, leaving
more time for him or her to contextualize the significance of the piece in its social
and cultural importance.
El-Roeiy
7
Jackendoff’s rhetoric echoes what is described by both Winfried Noth and
Michael Kelly when applied to Pop Art. He explains that,
“The visual system is known to contain numerous areas specialized to
different aspects of visual perception: detection of motion, detection of
color, several independent mechanisms for constructing the perception of
depth, possible face perception, and many others. Each of them accounts
for a relatively limited aspect of visual understanding; the totality of visual
understanding arises from their combined efforts. In order for their efforts
to combine, they must communicate, linking their respective r
representation in an optimal fashion (Koch 2004)” (Jackendoff, 648).
Noth notes that visual works do not share a specific language or way of
communicating. Similarly, Kelly explains that interfaces and connections
between sign systems function differently in some forms of visual and musical
expression. Jackendoff’s theory, in conjunction with the resounding sentiments
of Noth and Kelly, explains that, “parallel derivation has no notion of logical
sequence, as is essential in a syntactocentric derivation” (Jackendoff, 650). The
lack of logical sequence in how a work of Pop Art communicates could actually
be analogous to how viewers perceive Pop Art. The subjects of Pop Art are vivid
and clear; there is little need to contemplate if the image is truly a can of soup or
if it is a different object. However, the irony and symbolism that the object
represents is extremely layered and complex, pushing the viewer to question
whether an item such as a can of soup is actually a metaphor for concepts as
grandiose and theoretical as social fixation on materialism.
El-Roeiy
8
Ray Jackendoff also explains that, within the field of Conceptual
Semantics, the way viewers derive meaning from a work of art is a language in
itself and again contributes to the overarching theoretical message that lays
buried in the piece. He divides the definition of Conceptual Semantics into two
components, Spatial Structure, in which, “shapes are encoded in a perspectiveindependent fashion, so that they can be recognized from any angle,” and,
Conceptural Structure, or the, “algebraic structure built up in terms of discrete
features and functions” (Jackendoff, 657). Although both are quite relevant to the
study of fine arts, Spatial Structure seems more pertinent to analyzing the visual
significance of works in the genre of Pop Art. Andy Warhol’s work definitely fits
the mold of portraying an object in a universally recognizable fashion. The
majority of his pieces feature objects and subjects that are extremely common
and familiar, making them instantly relatable to the viewer. However, the objects
also lack higher levels of depth and dimension, making the work of art appear the
same from almost every angle. His paintings, for the most part, are also quite
similar to one another. Warhol usually chooses to paint an image of a public
figure or common object in duplicate forms outlined with dark shading and
illuminated with bright, unnatural colors. Most of his works also lack
backgrounds, drawing greater attention to the subject in place of creating a more
cohesive and detailed landscape.
The connected features between Andy Warhol’s work allow his paintings
to not only fit into the highly concentrated genre of Pop Art, but also adopt their
own “specific” language that Noth explains most objects and visual works lack.
El-Roeiy
9
By adhering to a certain trend and common style, Warhol’s style develops more
easily discernible signs (such as duplication of one image possibly indicating the
ubiquity of consumerism) that thread all of his works together in presenting a
singular social commentary. However, as expressive and dynamic as Warhol’s
Pop Art paintings are, they do lack what some art critics say is a traditional,
possibly even essential component of artwork. Carl Belz, author of “Pop Art and
the American Experience,” explains that Pop Art lacks, “the cult of the ugly man,”
in which a, “man appears in a multitude of guises, all of which somehow stress
his baser physical and psychological natures” (106). He expands this definition
by saying that, “he is always unattractive as an individual,” but, “what usually
redeems him...is that he has style, or at least is neatly ‘styled’ by his creator”
(Belz, 106). This seems to be an especially pertinent statement when applied to
Warhol’s creations. His pieces not only center on attractive and popular designs,
but also usually enhance the positive features of the depicted subjects. For
example, some of his most famous portraits feature highly desired celebrities
such as Marilyn Monroe and Michael Jackson, their appealing faces highlighted
and illuminated by loud colors and neon shades of light. One could say that a
can of soup is unappealing in its ordinariness, but it is actually quite aesthetically
presentable, combining bright blocks of primary colors and neatly positioned
script to create a clean, fresh image.
Andy Warhol lacks a distinct “ugliness” in his pieces, and rather they seem
to be mostly focused on positive attributes and even lighthearted and cartoonish
with their gaudy colors and multiple frames. It is possible that Warhol did this
El-Roeiy
10
intentionally to draw more attention to the genre or premise of Pop Art rather than
the work of art itself. Pop Art is a phenomenon that primarily focuses on the idea
behind a subject or work of art instead of more basic systems of visual
communication such as paint strokes, color choices, perspective and texture.
Rather, the sign systems in Warhol’s paintings seem to be almost external from
the works themselves, pushing the viewer to look at his or her own life in the
context of central themes such as superficiality and materialism rather than how
the work of art fits into the context of modern society. Upon further
consideration, Warhol’s works may not even fit into the category of images, but
rather be better defined as “icons.” Winfried Noth explains that, “Often a
difference between icons and images is hardly discernible” (446). He notes that
Peirce defines icons as a term that, “covers a broader class of signs by likeness
which includes signs of non visual channels” (Noth, 442). Andy Warhol’s
combined use of irony and unnaturally concentrated focus on beauty could be
seen as his using of non visual channels, such as the viewers’ personal
perception of themselves and society as a whole, to create a system of signs that
exists outside of his subject matter or paintings.
Pop Art employs its signifiers as reflexive symbols that force viewers to
question what constitutes a subject matter qualifying as “art” in an age of
materialism, conspicuous consumption, hedonistic ventures and obsession with
fame and celebrity. Daniel Horowitz, author of the text, “Consuming Pleasures:
Intellectuals and Popular Culture in the Postwar World,” explains that, “By the
middle of the twentieth century new ways of looking at consumer culture
El-Roeiy
11
emerged, ones that emphasized pleasure, symbolic communication, skepticism
about moralistic judgments and an exploration of the relationship between
producers and consumers” (45). Artists in both Europe and the United States
addressed this controversial, seemingly morally depraved relationship with both a
serious acknowledgment of its reality and possible motivations as well as a
subtle sense of humor of its gaudy place in our lives. There is clearly irony and
dark humor in portraying a can of soup as a subject fascinating and unique
enough to be painted in vivid detail by an esteemed and talented artist.
However, this seemingly lighthearted or mocking humor transfers to more serious
subjects as well; images of Marilyn Monroe and Michael Jackson could highlight
the foolishness of society’s obsession with celebrities. Both subjects are
laudable and exciting, yet they are, in the simplest reduction of status, examples
of human beings, just as a can of soup is a simple reduction of all consumer
goods.
As controversial (and potentially quite offensive) as the speculated
meaning behind Pop Art as a movement was, there were also some art critics
and academics who considered it to be a fresh acceptance of what modern
society already know about itself. Daniel Horowitz explains that a select group
of, “authors went against the grain of the widely accepted framework within which
many American intellectuals...understood commercial culture” (46). He
continues by saying that the signs embedded within Pop Art were not created to
offend or bring to light the moral depravity of consumerism in viewers, but rather,
“advocated a somewhat more reciprocal relationship between producers and
El-Roeiy
12
consumers” (Horowitz, 46). In fact, he writes, “they emphasized the possibility
that it involved pleasurable expressiveness, rich meanings, and symbolic
communication” (Horowitz, 46). This theory, which was admittedly not widely
appreciated or pursued by its believers, could again be an indication of the
reflexive nature of Pop Art. Consumer culture is a dominating, often intimidating
phenomenon that has a sure and steady grip on most of society. Money and
material goods are of prime importance in nearly every single person’s life and
success, happiness and self worth are traits usually associated with a high
standard of living and the ability to earn greater wages. This cultural mindset
might be difficult for many individuals to process, accept and eventually embody.
Pop Art’s projection of consumer culture could be seen as an acknowledgment of
society’s discomfort with its presence. Pop Art’s signifier may not be intended to
shame or offend viewers for having such beliefs, but rather reassure them that it
is normal and at times necessary to question society’s focus on the superficial
and, in turn, it is also normal and acceptable to enjoy it.
Pop Art was more than an expression of fear or distaste towards
consumerism. It was an artistic movement that redefined how viewers could
interact with and understand subject matter, sign systems, cultural norms and
social science. From a Semiotic perspective, Pop Art broke ground in new and
profound ways, allowing signifiers to become reflections of the signified and
interfaces to no longer have to act as transitions between different sign systems.
On a whole, Pop Art provided a social commentary that was both ironically
distressing and subtly uplifting about how modern culture can be reflected not
El-Roeiy
13
only in brightly painted portraits of cans of soup, but also in the eyes of the
viewer who chooses to interpret the can of soup as exactly that – an object
available at any local grocery store – or a nearly endless number and variation of
signs that illuminate how we have evolved as a culture.
Works Cited
Bedlam_mayhem. “Thoughtage: Semiotic Analysis: Andy Warhol.”Thoughtage,
February 11, 2009.http://bedlammayhem.blogspot.com/2009/02/semioticanalysis-andy-warhol.html.
Belz, Carl I. “Pop Art and the American Experience.” Chicago Review17, no. 1
(1964): 104–15. doi:10.2307/25293848.
Carey, James W. Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society.
Psychology Press, 1989.
Heine, Bernd, and Heiko Narrog. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis.
Oxford University Press, 2015.
Horowitz, Daniel. Consuming Pleasures: Intellectuals and Popular Culture in the
Postwar World. University of Pennsylvania Press,
2012.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/j.ctt3fhnkt.
Jaworski, Adam, and Crispin Thurlow. Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image,
Space. A&C Black, 2010. Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image,
Space. A&C Black, 2010.
Kelly, Michael, ed. “THE POP EFFECT.” In A Hunger for Aesthetics, 25–55.
Enacting the Demands of Art. Columbia University Press,
2012.
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/10.7312/k
ell15292.7.
Kuspit, Donald B. “Pop Art: A Reactionary Realism.” Art Journal 36, no. 1 (1976):
31–38. doi:10.2307/776112.
Nöth, Winfried. Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, 1995.
Rohdie, Sam, ed. “Pop.” In Film Modernism, 164–69. Manchester University
Press,
2015.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/j.ctt18dzrf
5.45.
El-Roeiy
14
Signs in Contemporary Culture: An Introduction to Semiotics. 1 edition.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014.
Taylor, Pamela G., and Christine Ballengee-Morris. “Using Visual Culture to Put
a Contemporary ‘Fizz’ on the Study of Pop Art.” Art Education 56, no. 2
(2003): 2024.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/3194017.
“The Global Art Market Newswire.” Artnet News. Accessed December 18,
2015. https://news.artnet.com/.
Whiteley, Nigel, ed. “American Pop.” In Art and Pluralism, NED - New edition, 1,
1., 6:175–76. Lawrence Alloway’s Cultural Criticism. Liverpool University
Press,2012.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/j.ctt5v
j994. 43.
WILLIS, ELLEN, ed. “Andy Warhol, ?–1987.” In No More Nice Girls, NED - New
edition., 227–29. Countercultural Essays. University of Minnesota Press,
1992.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/10.5749/j.
cttttt5g.24.
El-Roeiy
15
Download