The Art Machine: Roy Lichtenstein's Pop Art

Today's Geocuration is a quick one because of time constraints, but that doesn't mean it's lacking in interest.
Enjoy.

In the Car by Roy Lichtenstein (American); 1963;  oil and magna.
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland; Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art.

        In my post The Art Machine: Andy Warhol's Pop Art, I talk about the motivation behind Warhol's iconic pop art. Another iconic pop artist that exhibited alongside Warhol was Roy Lichtenstein. While Andy Warhol turned art into a mass-produced non-art art machine, Lichtenstein worked to redefine the definition of art through parody. Chances are you've seen his work without realizing it (or maybe you did?).

        If you look at the paintings' captions, you might notice the media used for these includes "magna." Magna was a brand name of acrylic resin paint that was developed in the late 1940s, and Lichtenstein used it extensively. It's different from traditional acrylic paint because the pigments are ground into acrylic resin by emulsifying them with solvents; it requires using turpentine or mineral spirits to work with because it, unlike traditional acrylic paint, is not water-soluble. Acrylic paint as we know it today was developed in 1960.

I know...Brad by Roy Lichtenstein (American); 1964; oil and magna.
Location: Cologne, Germany; Wallraf-Richartz Museum.

        On the subject of painting media, you might also notice that he places strong emphasis on the primary colors: red, blue, and yellow. Lichtenstein worked off of old comic strips and popular advertising to produce works that are "not 'American' painting but actually industrial painting," a sentiment similar to Warhol's—a relatively unexplored sentiment in the 1960s.

        Not only did Lichtenstein suggest commercialism, but his works remark on the idea of women being homemakers. These ideas live on presently in pop culture—take the Mad Men fad, for instance, and the revival in peplums and other 1950s-1960s fashions. Even the age-old damsel-in-distress is a theme repeated, albeit not originally Lichtenstein's idea; similarly, there has always been a special place in America's (and the world's) heart for thought and speech bubbles. Below you will find a quick look at how pop artist Roy Lichtenstein's work itself is parodied presently, similar to how he himself parodied other art.

M.A.C. Makeup Artist Karin Stone's Lichtenstein Girl
via Adriana de Barros's article, "The Real life Lichtenstein-Comic-Girl"

Chelsea King's Roy Lichtenstein Nails
via Chelsea King's Get Nailed
Follow Chelsea on Twitter

The Art Machine: Andy Warhol's Pop Art

        Andy Warhol's art appears, on the surface, as simple commercial pop art, but when one takes a closer look at the mind behind the art, the viewer is transported into the unconscious. Through screen prints, Warhol was able to act as the machine his work made commentary on, a sort of social industry. His pieces Campbell's Soup Cans and Red Liz (a portrait of Elizabeth Taylor) show iconic images that are deeply embedded in popular culture, seeping their way into fine art.

Campbell's Soup Cans by Andy Warhol (American); 1962; synthetic polymer paint on thirty-two canvases.
Location: New York City, United States; The Museum of Modern Art.

        Warhol takes things commonly seen and without thinking simply reproduces them; he is reproducing the mass produced, every-day object or a person that is often seen in films, on TV, or in photographs. Devoid of personality and emotion, the viewer is left with simply the image.  In a series of canvases, Warhol presents Campbell's Soup cans in a way that takes something every day and ordinary and transforms it into a statement regarding the use of machinery in our lives as consumers.  The easily recognized icon of the soup can in the image series condenses Warhol's message until it is unavoidable.

Red Liz by Andy Warhol (American); 1962; synthetic polymer paint and silkscreen ink on canvas.
Location: San Francisco, United States; San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

        Similarly, Warhol's portraits of Elizabeth Taylor (he did the portrait thirteen times: Silver, Blue, Orange, Yellow, Chartreuse, etc.), titled Red Liz, takes the actress and presents her as a logo, remarking on the idea of people as commercial property—ways to make money.  It is not photo-realistic, but, rather, it presents Taylor in bold, saturated, and semi-garish yet amazingly refined color combinations (turquoise, red, pink, and black). The act of doing this furthers his agenda that even an ugly painting is still valuable not because of the quality of the art, but because the art depicts some one held in high regard. Warhol essentially compares Elizabeth Taylor to commercial property, like the Campbell's Soup can; she was just turned out by the Hollywood machine.

        Both Campbell's Soup Cans and Red Liz demonstrate how two very different subject matters, a can of soup and an actress, realize America's machine.  Through the use of graphic styles and bold colors, Warhol is able to elevate the every day into fine art through his compositions' colors, patterns and subconscious messages.  Perhaps most importantly is that Warhol's personality and appearance distinguished the man from the image.

The Arnolfini Portrait: Revealing Interest in the Mundane

The Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck (Netherlandish); 1434; oil on oak panel.
Location: London, England; The National Gallery.

        The Arnolfini Portrait has a few different names, but they are all related. While this name is what it is commonly referred to as, there is no definitive answer to whom this painting actually depicts. It is thought to depict Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini and his wife Giovanna Cenami, but it was more recently discovered that this couple did not marry until several years after Jan van Eyck's (the painter) death. Due to this discovery, it has been suggested that this is Arnolfini and an undocumented first wife or that the man is related to Arnolfini, most likely Giovanni di Nicolao (his cousin) and one of his wives. As I mentioned in "Baroque and Caravaggio," not everything in Art History is definitively known.

        Aside from this mystery, this painting gives the impression of being fairly straight-forward. Again, however, the viewer needs to examine the details further to correct the assumption that this painting can be taken at face-value. This painting uses four-point perspective: the best way to explain this is to say you can observe the painting both from above (you look down at the dog, shoes, carpet, etc.) and below (you look up at the chandelier, the gentleman's hat, the bed's canopy, etc.). The woman could be pregnant (she does have one hand on what appears to be a pregnant belly) or this could actually be the latest fashion trend of the time (pregnant celebrities are always en vogue, right?). Further, the woman's hair does confirm that she must be married because it is up and covered; otherwise, an unwed woman's hair would be down.

        Other features of note include things that make this couple appear wealthy (some ideals never change, such as wanting to be seen as wealthy or prominent). This wealth is demonstrated by the rich colors and textures of the couple's clothes, including the man's fur trim and the velvet or similar fabric in the woman's dress. These fabrics are  heavy and most likely for winter, yet the viewer can see a cherry tree blooming outside the window.

        The couple stands before an oriental rug, most likely imported through trade, and the aforementioned chandelier. The couple also boasts a few rarities: oranges (then a delicacy that only the rich could afford) and a fancy mirror. The mirror is convex and actually  utilizes non-Euclidean geometry to show a reflection; upon close examination of it you can see two figures in a doorway, which again cannot be definitively identified. The border around the mirror depicts scenes from the Passion of Christ; the mirror itself is potentially a symbol for the Virgin Mary or the eye of God (seeing the vows of husband and wife).

        The dog could be a symbol of loyalty or simply a wedding gift, further showing the couple's wealth. There is only one candle in the chandelier, which could be a symbol of God or refer to a Flemish (this painting was created in Flanders) wedding tradition; it has also been proposed that this is an unconventional memorial portrait and that the candle signifies that while the husband is alive, the wife has passed (perhaps in labor and thus the pregnant appearance).

        These are but a few of the details you can visit within the seemingly mundane portrait of a husband and his allegedly pregnant wife and this painting is another example of how research relating to Art History can still uncover new facts, causing old theories to be revised and sometimes changed completely. As a last note, after observing this painting in more detail, you might have noticed something above the mirror. In Flemish, the artist has written "Johannes van Eyck was here," and the year 1434.