For my latest assignment, I decided to change it up and choose a different artist and a different period in art history; specifically, I chose to study and analyse the art piece Marilyn Diptych by Andy Warhol. I chose this particular piece because of my absolute obsession with Marilyn Monroe (I could literally write a book about her) and also because of the ideas and thoughts I had from looking at the painting for the first time, with absolutely no context of what the artist was trying to do.
I liked that the artwork sparked thoughts immediately, unlike some of the previous work I've studied; I liked that I was immediately drawing conclusions and thinking about its meaning. It felt a lot of more stimulating than when I looked at the Dada movement or Pollock's work.
Initial Reaction:
My initial reaction to this work was one of interest. I was immediately drawn in and intellectually stimulated, wanting to postulate and theorize as to why Warhol had chosen to create this piece, what it was about, what it meant, etc. I was very interested in the recreation of the image multiple times and was fascinated by the way the image seems to degrade and change as the eye moves from left to right. It immediately sparked thought and analysis in my mind (though whether or not that analysis is right or not is a different story). However, in almost an exact flip from how I felt with Pollock's painting, on a simple aesthetic level, I don't really like it. I can understand why it was done, and why Warhol chose to do what he did; however, when I look at the piece from only an aesthetic level, I don't enjoy it.
Analysis:
I found Warhol's painting to be incredibly interesting, and ripe with the potential for analysis. Warhol uses a number of elements and principles within this piece, but without a doubt, the two that are used the most are colour and pattern, as well as quite a bit of emphasis. Warhol uses bright, neon, colours in half of the work, putting emphasis on the message of fakeness and saturation of consumer culture. The bright colours highlight the flatness of Monroe's face, showing the lack of life and flatness of an icon that Hollywood and America has worshipped for decades. He also uses pattern, specifically the repetition of Marlyn Monroe's face as a way to show the carbon copies that consumerism and capitalism often feeds the general public.
Interpretation:
Like I touched briefly on in the analysis, I think that with this painting, Warhol was attempting to comment on consumerism, capitalism, and the worship of pop culture and its figures. The artworks name is a direct reference to Diptych with the Virgin and Child Enthroned and the Crucifixion, a Christian painting created in the 13th century. Warhol goes through great pains to connect the religious devotion to a deity, with current consumerism and our worship of pop culture. However, everything else about the painting, the colours, the flatness, the repetition, all draw away from the fullness and completion that religion is supposed to bring you, and instead force the viewer to focus on the flatness of the image, the lack of depth within Marilyn Monroe's face, and consider the fact that this image was mass produced for consumption; that unlike with religion, the viewer does not have an emotional connection with the image.
Consideration of Cultural Context:
Context is incredibly important in art, there is never going to be an artist that tells you differently. With Warhol's work though, a bit of digging is needed to understand exactly when and why this work was created. It was made in 1962, in the height of capitalism and the golden age of film, which, when viewing the works subject matter, is difficult to argue has not had an influence on the painting. Actors and actresses were very highly controlled by studios back then and information about them was limited to what the studio gave the public. It seems that Warhol wanted to comment on the fact that despite the adoration and love showed Marilyn, no one really knew her, she was a product that was marketed to the masses.
Expression of Aesthetic Judgement:
I literally say it every. single. blog. post. but I don't believe that one person can define what art is. It's just not possible. So the way I reconcile this part of the assignment with that belief is that I tell myself that it's just if it worked for me, specifically, and not anyone else. So, for me personally, this piece of work was both successful and unsuccessful, depending on how you look at it. If you are only going on my aesthetic appreciation of the artwork and how it looked, then the answer is not really. The work itself appears garish and I don't really enjoy the bright colours contrasted with the darkness. However, when you take into account the context of the artwork and the meaning behind it, then yes, I do think it's successful. I think that everything I don't like aesthetically about the piece is what makes it and its message so impactful. Interestingly, I had the exact opposite reaction to this work as I did with Pollock's. While I aesthetically enjoyed Autumn Rythymn, I couldn't find meaning in it; with this artwork, I had the opposite experience.
Interpretation:
Like I touched briefly on in the analysis, I think that with this painting, Warhol was attempting to comment on consumerism, capitalism, and the worship of pop culture and its figures. The artworks name is a direct reference to Diptych with the Virgin and Child Enthroned and the Crucifixion, a Christian painting created in the 13th century. Warhol goes through great pains to connect the religious devotion to a deity, with current consumerism and our worship of pop culture. However, everything else about the painting, the colours, the flatness, the repetition, all draw away from the fullness and completion that religion is supposed to bring you, and instead force the viewer to focus on the flatness of the image, the lack of depth within Marilyn Monroe's face, and consider the fact that this image was mass produced for consumption; that unlike with religion, the viewer does not have an emotional connection with the image.
Consideration of Cultural Context:
Context is incredibly important in art, there is never going to be an artist that tells you differently. With Warhol's work though, a bit of digging is needed to understand exactly when and why this work was created. It was made in 1962, in the height of capitalism and the golden age of film, which, when viewing the works subject matter, is difficult to argue has not had an influence on the painting. Actors and actresses were very highly controlled by studios back then and information about them was limited to what the studio gave the public. It seems that Warhol wanted to comment on the fact that despite the adoration and love showed Marilyn, no one really knew her, she was a product that was marketed to the masses.
Expression of Aesthetic Judgement:
I literally say it every. single. blog. post. but I don't believe that one person can define what art is. It's just not possible. So the way I reconcile this part of the assignment with that belief is that I tell myself that it's just if it worked for me, specifically, and not anyone else. So, for me personally, this piece of work was both successful and unsuccessful, depending on how you look at it. If you are only going on my aesthetic appreciation of the artwork and how it looked, then the answer is not really. The work itself appears garish and I don't really enjoy the bright colours contrasted with the darkness. However, when you take into account the context of the artwork and the meaning behind it, then yes, I do think it's successful. I think that everything I don't like aesthetically about the piece is what makes it and its message so impactful. Interestingly, I had the exact opposite reaction to this work as I did with Pollock's. While I aesthetically enjoyed Autumn Rythymn, I couldn't find meaning in it; with this artwork, I had the opposite experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment