During the recent years in the history of modern art, there is one thing that one cannot miss to notice - we see that artists and the media are bound together.
During the recent years in the history of modern art, there is one thing that one cannot
miss to notice: we see that artists and the media are bound together. One cannot exist
without the other. The media feed from the extremes artists, sometimes, go to so that
they can deliver a piece of art. And artists survive completely on the coverage of the
media. Artists wish to shock and provoke in order to achieve getting as much
publicity as possible. Art collectors also benefit from scandals or publicity stunts that
are being created solely for attracting attention on a specific name. Saatchi is a very
good example of an advertisement expert who knows how to play the media game
very good and he secures his investments by creating as much publicity as possible
around the artist whose pieces he bought.
Throughout the history of modern art, there have been many people who know well
how to attract the media and take advantage of that to raise their value in the art
market. But there are two who we can consider masters into creating some kind of
interest around their names: Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons. Each used the media as
their subject matter and also became a media subject at the same time. Each made
their purpose in life to live under the spotlight because they knew that only this way
their words would be heard. I will start with Andy Warhol.
He understood the importance of the mass-media attention would have in his
life and took advantage of that very early in his career. He started by creating
advertisements that would be published on newspapers and recreated comic images
that were published in magazines he was reading when he was a child. His images
were instantly recognisable and would make him famous in his work field. But it was
not until he started printing his " Death and Disaster" series on canvas that the art
world started to notice him. He used the photos that were printed on the front pages of
newspapers when announcing that something horrible had happened. He reprinted
them again and again on canvas, imitating the way all newspapers print the same
photograph when covering the same topic. No matter how horrible the topic is, this
repetition minimises the effect it has on people and we become immune to the sadness
that we would normally feel when we see something horrific.
Publicity photos were one of his favourite subjects. When Marilyn Monroe died, he
paid his tribute to her by creating the first of what would later be a big series of prints
of big actors and singing stars. He used a publicity photograph that was created for the
promotion of a film she was making and he cropped her face. He exaggerated the
...
This is a preview of the whole essay
repetition minimises the effect it has on people and we become immune to the sadness
that we would normally feel when we see something horrific.
Publicity photos were one of his favourite subjects. When Marilyn Monroe died, he
paid his tribute to her by creating the first of what would later be a big series of prints
of big actors and singing stars. He used a publicity photograph that was created for the
promotion of a film she was making and he cropped her face. He exaggerated the
colours that she would normally on, although the picture was black-and-white and he
reproduced this image many times on the same canvas. He did not even correct the
smudges around the edges of each picture. He wanted to comment on the effect
images that were created by and for the media had on the masses. He underlined the
difficulty media-worshiped idols had to always appear immaculate. He always used
instantly recognisable faces. The same principle applied for the creation of the
Campbell's soup cans series. He wanted to use something that everybody would
recognise and identify with. He did the same when he created the different dollar bills
on canvas time and time again. He always wanted to be instantly recognised like his
subject matters.
After he was shot, the editor of Life magazine accused him of "having breathed a hint
of madness into American society". He printed a similar gun to the one that was used
to shot him with on canvas. He parodied the press all the time and then he bought
Interview magazine and became a part of them. He appeared to have a love-hate
relationship with the mass media. He cared what the media thought about his work
because they could promote or destroy any of his exhibitions. But he hated that
dependency and he would make moves to provoke them. His entire filming career was
like that. The subjects were always revolving around homosexuality that was a
forbidden subject still that period. He created exhibitions of packing boxes that no
body liked but still he was making money. His subject was always recognisable
objects through the media. He was using the media to draw his subjects from and the
media used him because whatever was written about him and his strange life was
selling. As the media were being reproduced many times (newspapers and
magazines), his art pieces were reproduced images taken from the media. One could
not exist without the other.
After his death, the headlines were screaming: "The pop king is dead". No
matter who loved him and who hated him, they all agreed in one thing: that he was the
king of pop art. This would be the way he would like to be remembered.
The other artist that I am going to analyse is Jeff Koons. He is being
considered the successor of Andy Warhol by the media. He claims that he is heavily
influenced by Marcel Duchamp, something that Warhol himself claimed too. The
similarities between their work are many. Amongst them is the way they both used
the media to draw their subjects from. Koons became famous for creating kitsch art.
He claims that he wanted to get across love and romance in a baroque rococo style.
But we can say that what he really wants is to become rich.
He also recreated images produced for the media like the Jim Beam souvenir train that
he had his craftsmen made for him from stainless steal and he had the original whisky
bottles put into the miniature trains. His exhibitions were of ready-mades used as art.
This was a principle Duchamp introduced to the world with his recreation of the
Mona Lisa with moustache and a urinal named "fountain".
He lives in the real world of mass production. His work has been described as forcing
the world to look around on insignificant objects that can become of artistic value
because his artefacts were polished and they gleamed. As the media represent today's
world and they way we do things, Koons' art will reflect in the future what the needs
were of today's society.
Koons does not hesitate to use his private life when it comes to getting some
public attention. He married Cicciolina, a former pornostar who managed to get into
the Italian parliament with her party. Her image is very familiar in Europe and I am
not ashamed to admit that I found out who Koons was after his marriage to her. She
has a very strong image and her face is very familiar. Something like Koons' teddy
bears.
In 1990 they had a series of pictures taken of them having sexual intercourse and then
he transferred them onto canvas and had an exhibition made exclusively with their
naked pictures. Nobody is surprised that this exhibition drew a lot of media attention
and it was all over the news and the tv shows. One show even had family defence
council trying to explain what the impact of this exhibition would be and what kind of
a man he is to publicise his personal life like this. He claimed that he wanted to
express their love for eachother and that he is trying to get rid of the guilt and
naughtiness that follows sex. He said that he and his wife were made for eachother,
she was a media woman and he was a media man (Koons, 1992, p.140). Of course his
exhibition was covered by the media and gave it the push needed to become a success.
The subject was something that people will go to see if they know that he exposed his
personal details for everyone to examine. And the media succeeded in making it look
forbidden and over the top. When the news of their child custody battle hit the
headlines, it was made apparent that they were exploiting eachother into establishing
themselves into their own work fields.
Recently, Koons sold a statue made from porcelain called "Michael Jackson
and Bubbles". A publicity picture of Michael Jackson and his pet monkey inspired it.
When he created it, the media could not help to notice the similarity of the concept
with Warhol's work. But this is something that Koons was aiming at. Whatever even
slightly resembles Warhol's work, he knew that would sell. The connection was also
made between the public image of the performer and the fact that Koons chose to use
this particular singer as his subject. Michael Jackson has lived all his life under the
public eye and he practically made his career based on media coverage. Everybody
admired the fact that Koons drew the attention on "the hollowness and fragility of his
celebrity status"(San Francisco Museum of Modern art website, 2000). The statue was
sold for £2 million. In the same action three of Warhol's Cambell's soup can were
sold. The attention was again drawn to the fact that two of the most distinct
representatives of the 20th century were sold in the same auction. Strangely enough,
Koons won this round.
The more we analyse the life and work of those two artists, the more we see
similarities beyond any kind of coincidence. The versatility of their work made them
to be loved and, at the same time, hated by the mass media. Some were saying that
they are worth of being mentioned as two of the leaders of 20th century modern art
and some were saying that it is so obvious that their motive is only to gain money and
power and they do not care about the cultural enrichment of today's people. They
both lived to provoke with their ideas and lack of morality. They were both very
interested in the way we see and live today, something that the media are dedicated
into doing everyday by criticising and suggesting ways about everything we do. In
today's commercial capitalistic society, all the artists want is money and fame. And
they strive to get them. Warhol admitted that he was only a commercial artist and
there was nothing deeper in him than what one can see on his paintings. On the other
hand, Jeff Koons gained the stardom based on his good looks that Warhol could never
get because of his awkward appearance. But the media treat them exactly the same: as
two artists who are only trying to self-promote themselves and they have nothing to
say through their work. And this is where the media have total control upon: the
opinions of entire nations depend on the media. That is something that those two
artists could never admit.
Word count:1826
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bourdon, David (1989) Warhol, New York: Abradale Press
Baker, D.S. 'Jeff Koons and the paradox of a superstar's phenomenon', Available: http://eserver.org/bs/04/Baker.html, 24/05/2001, 17:18
Bell, Bowyer 'A good deed undone', Available: http://www.reviewny.com/current/ 99_00/dec_1/artfeatures1.html, 24/05/2001, 17:27
Zinovia Bilbiloglou - 1 -
