Andy Warhol's Soup Cans: Why Is This Art?
Summary
TLDRThis conversation between Sal Khan and Steven Zucker explores Andy Warhol's famous 'Campbell's Soup Cans' artwork. They discuss how placing everyday objects like a soup can in a museum setting transforms them into art by encouraging viewers to see them in a new way. Warhol's work is viewed as a reflection of industrial and mass-produced culture, challenging traditional ideas of what fine art should be. The conversation touches on the role of modern art in reshaping perceptions and pushing boundaries, highlighting Warhol's influence in redefining artistic expression.
Takeaways
- đš Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans series from 1962 challenges the idea of what can be considered art.
- đ€ The context of a museum or studio changes the meaning of everyday objects, making people view them differently.
- đïž Warhol's work is not about technical skill but about relocating and transforming everyday objects into art.
- đ„« Warhol took something mundane, like a can of soup, and made it a focal point for people to pay attention to.
- đĄ In 1962, Warhol's focus on mass production and factory culture reflected the industrialization of society.
- đ A college prank involving a lunch tray mirrors the idea of transforming everyday objects into art, similar to Warhol's approach.
- đ ïž Marcel Duchamp's earlier work gave artists like Warhol the 'license' to shift focus from traditional art-making techniques to the ideas behind the work.
- đŠ Warhol's use of mechanical processes, like rubber stamping, reflects modern manufacturing and the shift away from handmade art.
- đ§ There is a debate about whether Warhol's work is great because people have justified it over time or because it genuinely challenges perceptions.
- đŒïž The idea of pushing boundaries in art by choosing lowly or commercial subjects, like Warhol and other pop artists, was radical in the 1960s but is now accepted.
Q & A
What is the main focus of the discussion between Sal Khan and Steven Zucker?
-The main focus is on Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans and how it challenges the traditional notion of art, particularly in modern art, by transforming mundane objects into subjects of fine art.
Why does Sal Khan question whether the Campbell's Soup Cans can be considered art?
-Sal Khan questions whether it can be considered art because the Campbell's Soup Cans resemble commercial advertising, and he wonders if they would be viewed differently outside of a museum context.
How does the context of the museum change the perception of Warhol's work?
-By placing the Campbell's Soup Cans in a museum, the artwork is given a new context that invites viewers to look at it in a different way, transforming its meaning from mere advertising to a reflection on culture and mass production.
What point does Steven Zucker make about technical skill in modern art?
-Zucker points out that modern art is not necessarily about technical skill or beautifully rendered images. Instead, it's about relocating and transforming everyday objects to make viewers think about them differently.
Why does Sal Khan compare Warholâs work to a prank done by a college student?
-Sal Khan recalls a college student who placed a lunch tray on a podium as a prank, which led people to view the tray in a different way. He draws a parallel to Warhol's approach, where mundane objects are presented as art, challenging the viewer's perspective.
What role does Marcel Duchamp play in the conversation?
-Steven Zucker references Marcel Duchamp as an earlier artist who also challenged the conventional boundaries of art by focusing on ideas rather than technical execution, similar to Warholâs approach.
How does mass production relate to Warholâs Campbell's Soup Cans?
-Warholâs Campbell's Soup Cans reflect the industrial and mass-produced nature of modern society, highlighting how even everyday, mass-produced objects can be subjects of art.
Why does Sal Khan feel that people justify Warhol's greatness post hoc?
-Sal Khan suggests that people may interpret Warhol's work in ways that justify his greatness after the fact, whether he used mechanical processes or hand-drawn methods, leading to a sense of cynicism about how art is evaluated.
How does Steven Zucker explain the significance of Warholâs use of a mechanical process in his work?
-Zucker explains that Warhol's decision to use mechanical processes, such as rubber stamps, reflects a shift in art-making towards industrial methods, mirroring the mass-produced nature of modern life.
What makes Warholâs Campbell's Soup Cans noteworthy according to Steven Zucker?
-Warholâs Campbell's Soup Cans are noteworthy because they challenged the conventional scope of fine art by focusing on lowly, everyday subjects like canned soup, which were previously considered outside the realm of fine art.
Outlines
đš Exploring Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Can and Modern Art
The discussion begins with an analysis of Andy Warhol's 'Campbell's Soup Cans' at the Museum of Modern Art. Sal Khan and Steven Zucker contemplate why this artwork is considered significant. Sal notes that the artwork evokes something within him, though he questions if it would have the same effect outside a museum. Steven suggests that the museum context transforms it from mere advertising to art, highlighting one of the key aspects of modern art: changing the meaning of everyday objects by relocating them.
đŒïž The Shift in Artistic Focus and Meaning
Steven explains how Warhol's work symbolizes a shift from traditional art focused on technical skill to art that challenges viewers' perceptions. Warhol takes something mundane, like a soup can, and transforms it into a focal point, asking viewers to reconsider its significance. Steven points out that Warhol's subject matterâlowly advertising artâwas considered far removed from traditional fine art, yet Warhol brought it into the realm of high art.
đ§ Timing, Perspective, and the Role of the Artist
Sal reflects on the importance of timing in Warhol's success, suggesting that had Warhol created his art earlier or later, people might have dismissed it as quackery or derivative. Steven notes that Warhol's art reflected the cultural shift toward mass production and industrialization, asking what was truly authentic in modern society. This focus on factory-made goods, rather than nature, defined the visual world of Warhol's time.
đ€ The Fine Line Between Art and Pranks
Sal shares a story about a college prank where a lunch tray was displayed as art, comparing it to Warhol's work. Steven acknowledges the prankâs similarity to significant art movements, citing Marcel Duchamp's influence. Duchamp, like Warhol, challenged traditional ideas about art by focusing on the concept behind the artwork rather than the technical execution. Warhol used mechanical processes like rubber stamping, which reflected the industrial nature of modern life.
đŠ Art or Justification? A Critical View of Warhol's Techniques
Sal expresses skepticism, wondering if critics have retroactively justified Warhol's greatness by interpreting his use of mechanical techniques as reflecting industrialization. He questions whether Warhol would be praised regardless of the method he used, suggesting that interpretations may be influenced by a decision to elevate Warhol as a great artist. Steven validates the value of cynicism but also emphasizes that avant-garde artists aim to change the language of art and make it relevant to their historical moment.
đ Warhol's Radical Shift in 1962
Sal recalls learning about Warhol in fifth grade, which makes Warholâs work feel less unique to him now. Steven explains that Warholâs significance in 1962 lay in his ability to push boundaries by bringing commercial art into the realm of fine art. Roy Lichtenstein, a contemporary of Warhol, similarly sought out subject matter that was considered too low for art, making their work radical and shocking at the time.
đïž Pseudo-Art and Commercialism: When Does It Become Art?
The conversation turns to the blurred line between commercial art and fine art. Sal and Steven discuss how shining a light on something created for commercial purposes can sometimes elevate it to the level of art. Sal suggests that while Warholâs techniques might now seem derivative, it highlights how difficult it is to make people see the world in new ways today, compared to the radical impact of Warholâs work in the past.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄModern Art
đĄAndy Warhol
đĄCampbell's Soup Cans
đĄMass Production
đĄAvant-garde
đĄRelocation
đĄFine Art vs. Commercial Art
đĄMarcel Duchamp
đĄCynicism
đĄPop Art
Highlights
Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans challenges the definition of art by presenting everyday commercial objects as fine art.
Warhol's work evokes a reaction, questioning if art depends on the context it's viewed in, such as a museum or a marketing department.
Displaying the soup cans in a museum transforms their meaning, showing how modern art relocates mundane objects into something worthy of reflection.
Warhol's focus was not on technical skill, but rather on shifting perspectives and elevating everyday items to a higher artistic status.
The Campbell's Soup Cans represent a turning point in art by focusing on mass production, which reflected the industrial, not agrarian, nature of modern society.
The artwork highlighted what was truly authentic in the 1960s: mass production and factory-made goods, showing a shift away from traditional fine art subjects.
Warhol's approach of using a rubber stamp to mechanically reproduce parts of his painting comments on industrialization and the decline of handcraftsmanship.
The line between art and prank is blurred, as illustrated by a college student's prank of presenting a lunch tray as art, echoing Warhol's ideas.
Marcel Duchamp's earlier work gave Warhol license to question what constitutes art, shifting focus away from skill and towards conceptual ideas.
Warhol's significance lies in looking at the world differently and asking provocative questions, rather than technical execution.
Warhol deliberately explored low, commercial subjects to challenge the conventions of fine art, pushing boundaries of what could be considered art.
In 1962, Warhol's work was radical, asking viewers to rethink the value of mass-produced commercial imagery as worthy of artistic contemplation.
By shining a light on everyday objects like soup cans, Warhol made people reconsider their significance and value as art.
The radical nature of Warhol's work is now lost because pop art has been fully integrated into visual culture, but in its time, it was shocking.
Modern art struggles to find new ways of seeing the world, as many artistic concepts, like Warhol's focus on industrialization, have become normalized.
Transcripts
[MUSIC PLAYING]
SAL KHAN: We're looking at one of the single canvases
from a series of canvases of the Campbell's Soup Cans,
by Andy Warhol from 1962 at the Museum of Modern Art.
And one of the really important questions
that comes up about, especially modern art is, well,
why is this art?
SAL KHAN: When you ask me that, a bunch of things
kind of surface in my brain.
It does evoke something in me, so I'm inclined to say yes.
But then, there's a bunch of other things
that say, well, if I didn't see this in a museum,
and if I just saw this in the marketing
department of Campbell's Soup, would you
be viewing it differently?
STEVEN ZUCKER: Because it's advertising.
SAL KHAN: Yes.
STEVEN ZUCKER: But in the context of the museum
or in the context of Andy Warhol's studio, it's not quite
advertising, right?
SAL KHAN: Even if it's the exact same thing?
STEVEN ZUCKER: Yeah.
SAL KHAN: And the idea here is by putting it in the museum,
it's saying, look at this in a different way?
STEVEN ZUCKER: Well, that's right.
It really does relocate it.
It does change the meaning.
It does transform it.
And that's really one of the central ideas of modern art.
Is that you can take something that's not necessarily based
in technical skill, because I don't think
you would say that this is beautifully rendered--
SAL KHAN: Right.
STEVEN ZUCKER: But it relocates it
and makes us think about it in a different way.
SAL KHAN: And so, I guess he would get credit
for taking something that was very, almost mundane,
something you see in everyone's cupboard
and making it up a focal point.
Like, you should pay attention to this thing.
STEVEN ZUCKER: I think that's exactly right.
And I think that he's doing it about a subject that
was about as low a subject as one could go.
I mean, cheap advertising art was
something that was so far away from fine art,
from the great masters.
And then to focus on something as lowly
as a can of soup-- and cream of chicken no less.
Right?
[LAUGHTER]
SAL KHAN: A lot of it is, if he did it 50 years earlier,
people would have thought this guy's a quack,
and if you did now, they would think he was just derivative.
I mean, It was really just that time
where people happened to think this was art.
STEVEN ZUCKER: Well, I think that that's right.
In 1962, what Warhol is doing is he
saying, what is it about our culture that
is really authentic, and important?
And it was about mass production,
it was about factory.
He, in a sense, said let's not be looking at nature
as if we were still an agrarian culture,
we're now an industrial culture.
What is the stuff of our visual world, now?
SAL KHAN: I think I'm 80% there.
I remember in college, there was a student-run art exhibit,
and as a prank a student actually put
a little podium there and put his lunch tray.
He put a little placard next to it.
Lunch tray on Saturday, or something,
was what he called it.
So he did it as a prank and everyone thought
it was really funny, but to some degree,
it's kind of sounding like maybe what he did was art.
STEVEN ZUCKER: Well, I think that's why it was funny,
because it was so close, right?
SAL KHAN: And to some degree, when someone took a lunch tray,
and gave it the proper lighting, and gave it a podium
to look at it, and wrote a whole description about it,
I did view the lunch tray in a different way.
I mean, that is kind of the same idea.
Something that's such a mundane thing,
but you use it every day-- I mean,
what would you say to that?
Was that a prank or was that art?
STEVEN ZUCKER: Well, I think it is a prank,
but it's also very close to some important art that
had been made earlier in the century.
He had license to do that because
of somebody named Marcel Duchamp.
In fact, Warhol had, in a sense, the same kind of license.
To not focus on the making of something,
not focus on the brush work, not focus on the composition,
not focus on the color, but focus
on the refocusing of ideas.
SAL KHAN: And the reason why we talk about Warhol or Duchamp
or any of these people, is that, as you said, it's not like
did something technically profound.
Obviously, Campbell's Soup's marketing department
had already done something as equally as profound.
It's more that they were the people who
looked at the world in a slightly different way,
and highlighted that.
STEVEN ZUCKER: Well, I think that that's right.
Warhol's also very consciously working
towards asking the same questions
that the prankster at your school was asking.
He's saying, can this be art?
And in fact, he's really pushing it.
Look at the painting closely for a moment.
This is one of the last paintings
that he's actually painted.
He's really defined the calligraphy of this Campbell's.
He's really, sort of, rendered the reflection
of the tin at the top.
But then he stopped and he said, I
don't want to paint the fleur de lis.
You see those little fleur de lis down at the bottom?
I don't want to paint those.
So he actually had a little rubber stamp made of them,
and actually sort of placed them down mechanically.
What does that mean for an artist then to say,
I don't even want to bother to paint these.
I'm just going to find a mechanical process
to make this easier.
Warhol is doing something I think which is important,
which is reflecting the way that we manufacture,
the way that we construct our world.
Think about the things that we surround ourselves with.
Almost everything was made in a factory.
Almost nothing is singular in the world anymore.
It's not a world that we would normally find beautiful.
SAL KHAN: I don't know.
Sometimes I feel, and correct me if I'm wrong,
that a decision was made that Warhol was interesting,
or great, and then people will interpret his stuff
to justify his greatness.
That, oh, look, he used a printer
instead of drawing it, which shows that he was reflecting
the industrial, or whatever.
But then, if he'd done it the other way,
if he had hand drawn it, or hand drawn it with his elbow
or, you know, fingerprinted it or something,
we'd say, oh, isn't this tremendous?
Because normally we would see this thing printed by machine
and now he did it with his hands.
How much do you think that is the case?
Or am I just being cynical?
STEVEN ZUCKER: Well, no, I think that there's
value in a certain degree of cynicism.
And I think that, in some ways, what we're
really talking about here is, what does it
mean to be an avant garde artist?
What does it mean to, sort of, change the language of art?
And to try to find ways that art relates
to our historical moment in some really,
sort of, direct and authentic way.
SAL KHAN: And you know, maybe it's
easy for me to say this because I remember looking at this when
I--
STEVEN ZUCKER: Sure.
SAL KHAN: --took fifth grade art class, Andy Warhol and all
of that.
And so, now it seems almost not that unique,
but it's '62, what I'm hearing, is
that Warhol was really noteworthy because he really
did push people's thinking.
STEVEN ZUCKER: I think that Warhol was looking for,
in 1962, a kind of subject matter
that was completely outside of the scope
that we could consider fine art.
One of his contemporaries, Roy Lichtenstein,
was asked what pop art was.
And he said, well, we were looking for a subject
matter that was so despicable, that was so low, that nobody
could possibly believe that it was really art.
And I think you're right.
I think now we look at it, and it's
so much a part of our visual culture,
that we immediately accept it.
But I think it's really interesting to retrieve just
how shocking and radical that was.
SAL KHAN: This is fascinating.
It seems like there's a lot of potential there.
That stuff that-- it's pseudo-art
made for other purposes, for commercial purposes,
but if you, kind of, shine a light on it,
in the way that a light has been shown on this, that it does--
in your mind, would that cross the barrier into being art?
STEVEN ZUCKER: Well, I think that, you
know you mentioned before, that if somebody was doing this
now--
SAL KHAN: Yeah.
STEVEN ZUCKER: --it would feel really derivative.
SAL KHAN: Right.
STEVEN ZUCKER: And I think that that's right.
I think it underscores just how hard it
is to find, in our culture now, ways of making us
see the world in new ways.
SAL KHAN: Yeah.
Fascinating.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)