UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Consuming visions : pop art, mass culture, and the American dream, 1962-65 Gillespie, Sandra Elizabeth 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1992_spring_gillespie_sandra.pdf [ 7.13MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087476.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087476-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087476-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087476-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087476-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087476-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087476-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

CONSUMING VISIONS:POP ART, MASS CULTURE, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM1962-65bySANDRA ELIZABETH GILLESPIEB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1986Diploma in Art History, The University of British Columbia, 1988A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDEPARTMENT OF FINE ARTSWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAOctober 1992© Sandra Elizabeth Gillespie, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of TiNe ARTSThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate  OCT .^\992.DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTBetween 1962 and 1965 pop art received a phenomenal amountof exposure in mass-market magazines such as Time, Life,Esquire, Ladies Home Journal, Business Week, House and Garden.,and Reader's Digest. While coverage of art in non-artpublications was in itself not unusual, the rapidity, prevalence,extensiveness, and ambiguity of pop coverage were unique. In thewritings of most pop art historians this phenomenon is eitheroverlooked or explained away as yet another instance of givingthe masses what they want; in this case, bright, cheery,affirmative images of consumer culture which conform incrediblywell to both the form and content of most mass-marketpublications. From even a cursory survey of mainstreamperiodical imaging of pop in the years 1962-65, however, itbecomes obvious that mass-market magazines were notpresenting pop art as simply a hip and clever advertisement forcontemporary U.S. life.By means of a detailed examination of how pop art wasrepresented in Life, Time, Ladies Home Journal, and House andGarden, this thesis aims to provide a more complex understandingof both pop's noteworthy presence in these magazines and itsrelationship to U.S. consumer culture of the early sixties.Locating common themes of pop coverage is the starting point forsuch an investigation. By determining what parameters areconsistently utilized to frame pop and then situating thoseparameters within historically-relevant resonances, we begin tosee that pop was the focus of such unprecedented public attentionnot only because of its challenge to existing aesthetic norms butalso because of its patent connection to consumer culture and theheated debates surrounding it.Moving from this general overview to a more specific analysisof pop's re-presentation in the mainstream press and itsrelationship to contemporary U.S. life necessitates a closerexamination of how pop was actually presented in the magazinesthemselves. Through a textual and visual deconstruction of thematerial representations of pop the general concepts and debatesdetermined earlier are situated within the larger socio-culturalstructure within which mass-market magazines' representationsof pop were operating. Issues arising out of period critiques ofconsumerism and mass culture on the subjects of individualism,progress, democracy, and nationalism are then factored into anexplanation of the intricate mixture of ridicule and admirationcharacteristic of the magazines' representations of pop,revealing pop art as an active player in the ongoing questioningand re-definition of such concepts.Thus we find that the imaging of pop art found in non-artpublications is not as pro-pop/pro-consumer culture as manytheorists and historians would have us believe. While far fromrevolutionary critiques of early sixties U.S. society, the textualand visual representations of pop found in mass-marketmagazines do evince tensions over societal changes introduced bythe hegemony of mass culture and the U.S.' intimate conceptualassociation with it. The historical significance of such anuncomfortability lies in the recognition that it is these sametensions--over issues of individualism, progress, democracy, andnationalism--which will play key roles in the extensivequestioning of U.S. values and morals which takes place in thesecond half of the sixties.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT^ iiTABLE OF CONTENTS^ vLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v iACKNOWLEDGEMENTS^ v i iINTRODUCTION.CONSUMING VISIONS, VISIONS OF CONSUMPTION^1CHAPTER ONE: POP POPS IN^ 1 5The Life and Time and Vogue of Pop^ 1 5Distinctively Unexpected 24The Myths of Mass Culture^ 4 2CHAPTER TWO: MOCKING ADMIRATION^ 5 2The Culture Industry, Sixties Style 5 4Provocatively Prosaic^ 62From The Factory To You 6 7The New American Dreamers?^ 7 9Super Art Market/ Supermarket Art 8 8Pop as Persona^ 91CONCLUSION. WAKING UP FROM THE DREAM^ 10 5SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY^ 11 0APPENDIX 1:POP ART IN MASS-MARKET MAGAZINES, 1962-65^120ILLUSTRATIONS^ 122vLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS1. "Something New is Cooking," Life, v. 52, n. 24 (June 15, 1962):115.^ 1222. "Something New is Cooking," 120.^ 12 33. "At Home with Henry," Time, v. 83, n. 8 (Feb. 21, 1963): 40.^1244. "You Bought It, Now Live with It," Life, v. 59, n.3 (July 16, 1965);60.^ 1255. James Rosenquist, The Lines Were Etched Deeply On The Map of HerFace., 1962.^ 1266. "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" Life, v. 56, n. 5 (Jan. 31, 1964):80.^ 1277. "Sold-Out Art, " Life, v. 55, n. 12 (Sept. 20, 1963): 128.^1288. Roy Lichtenstein, We Rose Up Slowly, 1964.^ 1299. Andy Warhol, 100 Campbell Soup Cans, 1962. 13010."You Think this is a Supermarket?" Life. v. 57, n. 21 (Nov. 20, 1964):138.^ 13111. "Far-out Refrigerators," Life, v. 58, n. 8 (Feb. 26, 1965): 55. 13212. "Styles Too are Pushed Further Out by Pop," Life, v. 58, n. 8 (Feb.26, 1965): 64.^ 13313. "You Bought It Now Live with It," 58.^ 13414. du Plessix Gray, Francine. "The House That Pop Built," House and Garden, v. 127, n. 5 (May 1965): 159.^ 13515. "Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," Time, V. 81, N. 18 (May 3,1963): 66.^ 13 6viACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis thesis was a long-time in the making but, finally, it is finishedand there are certain people who deserve credit for their role in thisrather amazing feat. First, I must thank Professors Rose Marie SanJuan and Serge Guilbaut for their willingness to advise on a topic whichwas initially very hazily, albeit zealously, defined and for theirsubsequent insightful critiques and commentaries. To fellow studentLora Rempel goes a profusion of appreciation, not only because it is duesolely to her phenomenal editing skills that this paper is readable inparts, but also because she was such a constant and enthusiasticsource of encouragement, discussion, and debate. Sue Melnychuk shouldbe recognized for her lively interpretation of the intellectual life andfor consistently asking thought-provoking questions (even when I didnot necessarily want to hear them) which had a decisive influence onthe final shape of this paper. Lies! Jauk's familiarity with thediscourses around popular culture and her genuine interest in thesubject matter of this thesis was, and is, truly invigorating. Heartfeltgratitude goes to Patsi Longmire and the British Columbia wildernessfor keeping me sane and to Andrea Burbidge for her timely andinspirational manifestations of faith. Natasha Milne and CharlesHargreaves were instrumental in providing the technical and materialmeans for me to complete this thesis in New York City during thesummer of 1992. To my family I owe a huge debt of thankfulness fortheir steadfast support of my actions these last few years and theirunwavering confidence in me. I could not have done it without them.viiINTRODUCTION:CONSUMING VISIONS, VISIONS OF CONSUMPTIONExploding onto the art scene with its 1962 group exhibition at theSidney Janis Gallery in New York City, pop art immediately commandedthe attention not only of the art world per se but also of the generalpublic. 1 Between the covers of popular U.S. periodicals as diverse asTime, Ladies Home Journal, Esquire, Life, House and Garden, Vogue,Business Week, and even Reader's Digest, pop art was championed,ridiculed, vilified, debated, debased, defended, and denounced. In themore generally-oriented, inexpensive magazines in particular, popreceived rapid, extensive, and, in the case of Time and Life, repeatcoverage.NOTES1 1n his New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970, Henry Geldzahler,assistant curator of American Painting and Sculpture at theMetropolitan Museum of Art, reveals the extent of pop's "popularity" bymeans of a personal anecdote.No movement in the history of American art wasnamed and received more quickly. A year after it hitthe galleries and magazines, I had an air conditionerinstalled in my apartment. An Andy Warhol paintingof six Marilyn Monroes was leaning against a wall."What's that, Pop Art?" the air conditioner manasked. Can you imagine someone in a similarsituation in 1950, asking of a Jackson Pollock,"What's that, Abstract Expressionism?"Henry Geldzahler, New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970 (NewYork: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1969), p. 35.1While articles on art in most of these magazines were not untypical,the rapidity, prevalence, and frequency of pop art's presence wereunprecedented. This phenomenon of pop art coverage by mass-marketmagazines has traditionally been accounted for by art historians of theperiod as indicative of either pop's whole-hearted promotion ofcontemporary U.S. consumer culture or its unwitting co-optation bythat same insatiably materialistic and spectacular society. This paperproblematizes the reductive nature of such explanations by groundingpop art's representation in mass-market magazines within a morecomplex understanding of the concepts of "art" and "culture" current inthe United States circa 1962-65 and through situating this complexitywithin the heated debate over the value and state of consumer, or mass,culture. 22 While acknowledging that the term "mass culture" is a loaded one Iutilize it throughout this paper. My reasons for doing so are twofold.One, by applying the term to a specific historical moment I aspire toremove some of its mythic quality of universality while simultaneouslypreserving the sense of power and magnitude that is present in thedefinition of mass as "a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity."(Random House Dictionary of the English language, 2nd ed., 1983.)Simultaneously, I hope to somewhat exorcise the term of theoxymoronic stigma which has haunted it by situating mass culture asan actual historical occurence which reveals much about the theory andpractice of democracy in the United States in the early sixties.The relationship between consumer and mass culture at this time isof key importance here. Mass culture, understood as a form ofcivilization wherein large numbers of individuals are equally exposedto all that that civilization has to offer, is the vehicle for consumerculture. It is mass culture's industries, commensurate politics, andsheer numbers which produce the jobs, finances, goods and mindset forconsumerism to occur. And it is primarily through the act ofconsuming, I shall argue, that U.S. citizens constructed themselves anda particular vision of "America" in the early sixties. Thus while notdirectly interchangeable conceptually, consumer and mass culture's2Since the end of the second world war U.S. society had undergone anumber of conspicuous and significant economic, political, and socialchanges. Incorporating all of these transformations and symbolic of aparadigm shift was the ubiquitous presence of consumer culture. Theresult of a confluence of historical events--among them an ultra-efficient war industry gone civilian, unprecedented affluence for anoteworthy proportion of the U.S. public, and greatly increased leisuretime--consumerism was in full bloom by the early sixties. Much of themiddle-class U.S. population had moved beyond simply purchasing morenumerous or higher quality staples--kitchen appliances, televisions,washing machines--into the realm of luxury goods. Stereos, pools, andEuropean vacations were no longer the sole property of the wealthy inthe sixties technicolour version of the "American Dream.".Such conspicuous abundance for so many, particularly as manifestedby consumer purchases, was not without its critics, however.Rumblings were heard from both the political left and right over thehidden costs of consumption, costs which could not be measured indollars and cents but only in the more ephemeral currency of individualvalues and national pride. David Reisman raised the spectre ofconformity with his delineation of the outer-directed person; JohnKenneth Galbraith detailed the seductive power of greed; C. WrightMills outlined the daily workings and future effects of the politics ofpower; and Michael Harrington drew a haunting picture of an "affluent"and "progressive" America of which it was difficult to be proud. 3 Thelink is of such a fundamental nature, especially in regards to theconcerns of this paper, that they will be used interchangeably here.3David Reisman, The Lonely Crowd  (New York: 1952); John KennethGalbraith, The Affluent Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958); C.3necessary consequences of both this questioning of consumerism andthe material changes wrought by contemporary consumer practice werea rethinking and redefinition of constituitive aspects of U.S. life, chiefamong them individualism, progress, democracy, and nationalism.The conceptual tranformations which inevitably accompanied thisrevamping of the powerful myth of the American Dream occurred atmany levels, including that of culture. Indeed, in its taking up of whatearly pop chronicler John Rublowsky has called the "materialmanifestations of the encroaching twentieth century"4 --Coca Cola,canned food, television, rock and roll, mass-produced automobiles,appliances, and movie stars--pop art not only challenged dominant mid-twentieth century concepts of "Art" but made links with contemporaryU.S. culture too patent for viewers to ignore. At a moment when thesocio-economic structure of the United States was undergoing rapidchange, pop art garishly illuminated the key player in thismetamorphosis--consumer culture. Through its shuffling of thecategories of high and low, pop provided a stage on which the topicalissues such an association provoked could be played out. In itsexamination of the representation of pop art in mass-market magazinesin the United States between 1962 and 1965, this thesis seeks tocomplexify the plot of such a drama and to determine the relationshipof pop's presentation in these publications to contemporary U.S.consumer culture.Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: 1956); Michael Harrington,The Other America  (New York: MacMillan Co., 1962).4John Rublowsky, Pop Art (New York: Basic Books, 1965), p. 7.4A valid question which may arise at this point is why the focus onmass-market magazines?^The answer to this query is relativelystraightforward and comes in two parts. First, if one wishes toinvestigate the convoluted connections between pop art and consumerculture, what more likely venue to stake out than the realm in whichthe two so intimately converge? True, analyses of pop art exhibitions,art journal coverage, and critical debates can all contribute to a betterunderstanding of the resonance of pop art's many forays back and forthacross the border between art and mass culture, highbrow and lowbrow.Pop art's representation in mass-market magazines deserves particularattention in regards to this issue, however, not only because it is anarea of research usually explained away or neglected altogether, butalso because of mass-market magazines' singular combination of popart and consumer culture.Looking at pop art between the covers of House and Garden or Timeis a very different spatial and conceptual experience from viewing it ina gallery setting. In an art gallery, pop's presence is predominantlyaesthetic and its relationship to contemporary U.S. society fairlyabstract whereas amidst the advertisements and articles found inmass-market magazines the symbiotic nature of pop art and massculture's relationship becomes increasingly obvious. Mass-marketmagazines are there to sell their advertisers products and theaccompanying lifestyles afterall and as such they are exemplary of a"consumeristic" mentality. Pop's frequent appearance on Life andTime's pages thus provides an excellent opportunity to investigate theintricacies and subtlties of its relationship to consumer culture, the5very culture the magazines depend on for their existence. 5^Whichbrings me to the second part of my rationale for working on magazinerepresentations of pop art.As already noted, the prevalence, rapidity, and frequency of popart's coverage in mass-market magazines were unprecedented.Traditionally, different magazines tended to focus on different aspectsof the art world depending on their target readership, or, if a similarsubject was covered, it would be one already extensively discussed inthe art press. With pop art, however, a profusion of essays quicklyappeared in fashion, news, financial, and general interest magazineswithout waiting for the "word" from art authorities. Mass-marketmagazine coverage of pop art is thus worthy of examination in its ownright as a milestone in art journalism. 6The phenomenon of pop's prolific and diverse coverage in mass-market magazines also problematizes certain mass-culture theories5 Of course, pop art did make appearances in other consumption-oriented locales such as the 1964/65 New York World's Fair. But pop'sphysical presence there was lost in the overall "pop sensibility" of thefair as a whole and pop's visibility as art was minor in comparison tothe other "high" art on display. For details of pop's presence at thefair see Helen A. Harrison's "Art for the Millions, or Art for theMarket?" and Ileen Sheppard's "Icons and Images: The Cultural Legacyof the Fair," both in Remembering the Future: The New York World's Fair From 1939 to 1964 (New York: Rizzoli, 1989), pp. 137-166 and pp.167-199, respectively.6 For specific acknowledgement of pop's novel rise to stardom in thepopular press see Jennifer Wells, "The Sixties: Pop Goes the Market,"in Definitive Statements: American Art 1965-66 (Providence, RI:Brown University, 1986), pp. 53-61, esp. pp. 56-57. A more generalaccount of art as a topical concern in newspapers and magazines in thesixties is found in Sidra Stich, Made in USA: An Americanization of Modern Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p. 10.6which picture the mass media as simply putting its ownunsophisticated and conservatizing twist on what has already beenexplored, debated, discussed, and documented in more intellectual andradical realms. Contemporary theorists such as Theodor Adorno, MaxHorkheimer, Bernard Rosenberg, and Dwight MacDonald all indictedmass-market magazines' corporate ownership, huge advertisingrevenue, and sensationalism as accomplices in what they variouslydescibed as the levelling, debasing, or homogenization, of culture.?According to the logic underlying the assumptions of these andlike-minded theorists, pop art would find a warm welcome in the mediaand among the general public primarily because its bright, machinedimages of soup cans, comic-book characters, and Ford cars so closelyresembled modern-day advertisements for consumer products,advertisements whose seductive and manipulative power was well-documented in numerous best-selling tomes of the time. 8 In otherwords, pop is popular because it re-presents the comfortable, thefamiliar. Such a theorization of pop's "success" both presupposes andsimultaneously reinscribes the consumer culture which pop art7Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, The Dialectic of Enlightenment(New York: Herder and Herder, 1972); Bernard Rosenberg and DavidManning White, eds., Mass Culture  (New York: Free Press, 1957); DwightMacDonald, Masscult and Midcult  (New York: Random House, 1961).8The most well-known and sensational of these was Vance Packard'sThe Hidden Persuaders (New York: David McKay, 1957). Also influentialin their respective takes on the power of advertising were DavidPotter, People of Plenty(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954);John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1958); Betty Freidan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Doubleday Dell,1963); and Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).7pictures as already-existent, homogenous, and stable, therebyoverlooking the inherently dynamic, heterogenous, and vascillatingnature of any hegemonic culture. U.S. middle class consumer culturewas not a static entity in the early sixties, it did not passively existas a form of dominance. Like all hegemonic powers it had to becontinually "renewed, recreated, defended, and modified." 9For the most part, art historical work on pop's relationship toconsumer or mass culture has neglected theories of hegemony andinstead followed the influential line of thinking originated by suchwriters as Adorno and Horkheimer. Within pop art historiography, forinstance, one finds two distinct "camps" which may be distinguishedby the contrasting themes of critique and celebration but which alsowork with a similar conception of mass culture. 1 ° One group holds thatpop art was an ironic comment on contemporary U.S. consumer culturewhich a certain segment of the population, namely cultural elites,9 Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1977), p. 112.10This celebration/critique split began with the first coverage of popand continues today. Some representative examples of book-lengthstudies and exhibition catalogues include: Rublowsky, Pop Art (1965);Mario Amaya, Pop as Art (London: Studio Vista, Limited, 1965); LucyLippard, Pop Art  (New York: Praeger, 1968); Suzi Gablik and JohnRussell, Pop Art Redefined (New York: Praeger, 1969); LawrenceAlloway, American Pop Art (New York: Whitney Museum of AmericanArt, 1974); and Carol Anne Mahsun, Pop Art and the Critics (Ann Arbor:UMI Research Press, 1987). In her work in Made In USA: An Americanization of Modern Art, author Sidra Stich does set pop art in amore complicated cultural context than other pop historians but shedoes so solely with the objective of assessing its "aesthetic strengthand its importance with reference to the mainstream of modernism".Stich, p. 4. Thus the how and why of pop's noteworthy presence in themass media find no place in her analysis.8could "get." In contrast, the other position believes that pop'sflirtation with advertising and publicity was a genuine glorification ofand acquiescence to the power of the dominant culture and its media.And yet a shared assumption of both of these positions is that pop ispart of an "Art" tradition outside of mass culture. Whether approvingit, mocking it, or wallowing in ambivalence, pop art is viewed ascommenting on current U.S. culture while simultaneously distancedfrom that culture by virtue of its categorical link to high art. 11That distance, however, is significantly reduced when pop art isrepresented in the mass media. In magazines, on television, and at theworld's fair, the line between art and life becomes blurred with an artsuch as pop, an art which utilizes the form and content of magazineadvertising, television commercials, and world fair marquees.According to much of the existent literature on pop, the resultingconfusion between "outside" and "inside" is demonstrated by thewidespread appropriation of pop art as artistic advertisements forcontemporary U.S. society in mass-market magazines such as Life. Insuch a locale pop loses what tenuous artistic distance it oncepossessed, becoming a servant to the whims of an ideologicallyconservative media machine. Hence, according to both pop art history"camps", pop's supposedly ready acceptance by the mainstream presscan be accounted for by its use as cultural affirmation of the dominant,materialistic, consumption-driven ideology of the U.S. in the earlysixties.11 Cecile Whiting, ""Class, Taste, and the Gendered Gaze: TomWesselman's Domestic Interiors," unpublished lecture, Vancouver ArtGallery, April 1, 1990.9The surge in contemporary writings on pop which began with theunexpected death of Andy Warhol in 1987 has done little to dispute themonolithic character of such a reading. Pop art's representation in themass media continues to be neglected by scholars based on theassumption that its function in such a site is inherently and simplyaffirmative. Attention is focused instead on the congruencies betweenpop and the artistic traditions preceeding it. Any social commentarypop art is granted is thus viewed as a product of aesthetic distancefrom its contentious subject matter. As astutely observed by art criticPaul Taylor, pop art has become assimilated into art history's "grandprocession," with Warhol being the "newest modern artist" and his workdiscussed almost exclusively in terms of its "avant-garde" formalproperties or its knowingly satiric take on sixties materialism. 1 2Positioned as a detached observer and insightful critic of mass culture,Warhol, for instance, is seen as commenting on mass culture'sDionysian excesses from the Apollinian heights of Fine Art. The schismbetween high art and the rest of life, which cultural historian AndreasHuyssen has described as "the great divide," is thus rigorouslyreinforced. 1 3Even critical social art historians such as Benjamin Buchloch andThomas Crow remain firmly attached to the assumptions about massculture that pervade the orthodox left position on pop art and which12 PauI Taylor, "Introduction," Post-Pop Art (Cambridge: MIT Press,1989): 11.13Andreas Huyssen, The Great Divide (Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 1986). Another excellent historical account of the splitbetween high and low is found in Jim Collins' Uncommon Cultures. Popular Culture and Post-Modernism (New York: Routledge, 1989).10appear to preclude detailed analyses of pop's relationship to consumerculture. 14 In his 1987 essay on Warhol's early work, for instance, Crowmakes the argument for a more complex understanding of Warhol'sposition as artistic producer by attributing to him a greater criticalityand political awareness than has been presented previously. Yet Crowdoes so within the framework of Warhol as an exception, asserting theuniqueness of pre-1965 work such as the Disaster series as aphenomenon both in Warhol's oeuvre and pop art generally. 15 With thisassertion Crow evinces both a continued reliance on contemporary arthistorical constructions of the avant-garde and artistic intention andan indifference to pop's ambiguous relationship to the standards of highart and its manifest engagement with the peculiarities of mass culture.Hence, while presenting a strongly-argued and valuable reading ofWarhol's early work, in stopping short of pushing his analysis into theunknown depths of consumer culture Crow misses out on some of pop'smost evocative echoes.That is not to say that Crow's study and others like it have nothingto offer pop art history, 16 that there is not significant work being1 4 Benjamin Buchloch, "Andy Warhol's One-Dimensional Art," in AndyWarhol: A Retrospective, Kynaston McShine, ed. (New York: Museum ofModern Art, 1989), pp. 39-61; Thomas Crow, "Saturday Disasters: Traceand Reference in Early Warhol, " Art in America. v. 75, n. 5 (May 1987),:128-36.15 Crow, 136.1 6 For a critical collection of essays on Warhol, for example, see HalFoster, ed., "The Work of Andy Warhol," Discussions in ContemporaryCulture, v. 3 (Seattle: Bay Press, 1989).11done, 17 or that no alternative positions have been articulated. 18 It is toclaim, however, that when it comes to the question of pop'srelationship to consumer culture, little attention has been focused onthe complexities and implications of such a symbiotic association interms of contemporaneous concepts and manifestations ofindividualism, progress, democracy and nationalism, conceptsundergoing significant shifts at this time due to the pervasiveness ofconsumer culture.Because the literature on pop art to date has focused on thewritings of intellectuals and art critics and on the works as exhibitedin galleries and museums, it necessarily retains the dominant line onpop's connection to mass culture; that is, that it is affirmative of U.S.consumer society. In so doing it overlooks a truly significant aspect ofpop art--its active role in the production, questioning, and redefinitionof U.S. consumer culture in the early 1960s. From the white-walledconfines of a gallery or in the typeset text of intellectual journals popart may appear to easily adapt to either extreme of elitist critique oruncritical celebration. But when viewed amongst advertisements forsoap and encyclopedias between the covers of mass-market magazinesand in the context of rapid technological progress, unprecedentedmaterial affluence, socioeconomic upheaval, and the publicized searchfor a national purpose, the tension between critique and celebration inpop art becomes visibly manifest.1 7 One good example would be Cecile Whiting's work on theinterelationship between discourses of class, taste, and gender in theearly work of Tom Wesselmann. See note 11 for full citation.1 8 Andreas Huyssen's "The Cultural Politics of Pop," in his book The Great Divide, is one such study.12In its presentation on the glossy pages of magazines like Time andLadies Home Journal pop not only provoked the question "can this beart?" but also found itself framed as a site rife with issues resonantof the contemporary dichotomies of growing mechanization and highunemployment, greater affluence and excessive materialism,augmented opportunities for choice and widespread conformity. Athorough examination of how pop art was presented in mass-marketmagazines is thus key in both fathoming the intricacies of therelationship between pop art and U.S. consumer society, and tocomprehending pop's active role in articulating an historically-specificversion of the American Dream.Hence the choice of both subject matter and methodologicalapproach found in this thesis. Chapter One sketches out the commonparameters of pop's textual and visual representation in mass-marketmagazines and illuminates the historical implications of theserepresentations and their reception through investigatingcontemporaneous concepts of art and debates over mass culture.Chapter Two locates these concepts and debates within the largersocio-cultural structure within which mass-market magazines'representations of pop were operating by deconstructing the actualmaterial representations of pop art found in Life, Time, Ladies HomeJournal, and House and Garden. Issues arising out of period critiques ofconsumerism and mass culture on the subjects of individualism,progress, democracy and nationalism are then factored into anexplanation of the intricate mixture of ridicule and admirationcharacteristic of mass-market magazines' representations of pop. Inthe Conclusion, the role of this ambiguous vision of pop art in theongoing drama of U.S. consumer culture is delineated and mass-market13representations of pop revealed as central characters in the plot'senactment. The fundamental concerns of this thesis, therefore, are:How is pop presented in mass-market magazines in the United States inthe years 1962-65 and what is the historical significance of therelationship between these representations and contemporary U.S.consumer society?14CHAPTER ONE: POP POPS IN"And pop art, much as it may outrage Pop, not to mentionGrandpop, is the biggest fad since art belonged to Dada."-Time, 1963 1 9In order to closely analyze how pop art was represented in arange of mass-market magazines in the United States in the earlysixties we first require a more general understanding of pop'scoverage as a cultural phenomenon. While articles on fine art inmass-market magazines like Ladies Home Journal and Life werenot untypical, the prolific nature of pop's presentation was andneeds to be accounted for historically. What was it about pop artthat made it the preferential object of such widespreadfascination? Through schematically delineating the themes ofmass-market magazines' coverage of pop and then contextualizingthem within changing definitions of art and heated debates overmass culture, this chapter addresses that very question andthereby lays the groundwork for a thorough textual and visualinvestigation of the actual material representations of pop foundin Time, Life, Ladies Home Journal, and House and Garden.THE LIFE AND TIME AND VOGUE OF POPNOTES1 9"Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," Time, v. 81, n. 18 (May 3,1963): 65.15In browsing through the June 1962 issue of Life magazine areader might have been somewhat surprised to discover images ofcafeteria pies, billboard-size tires, plaster people, and hugecomic-strip figures dominating the art pages (figure 1). While Lifemagazine had certainly dealt with contemporary art before, theworks it represented had always had some connection withparticular assumptions about "Art"--creativity and transcendence,for example. 20 Collected under the apt heading "Something New isCooking," the work of Wayne Thiebaud, James Rosenquist, GeorgeSegal, and Roy Lichtenstein blatantly possessed no such connectionbeing, in Life's words, as "easy as pie" to cook up and "inspired bycommonplace, mass-produced objects of everyday life". 21But it was not simply the "mundane" subject matter and less-than- painterly techniques employed that were startling. It wasalso the resultant blur between art and reality, highlighted bysubtitles such as "Plaster woman at a real table," colourphotographs of artworks that looked deceptively similar tofragments of billboard advertising and luncheon counter pastrycases, and text which consistently referred to the "unexpectedfamiliarity" of the imagery. That the artists who produced theseworks were former commercial painters (Rosenquist) or ex-chicken20While at times considered somewhat "baffling" the art of theabstract expressionists, for instance, was still framed by discussionsof inner visions and artistic transformation. See, for example, Life arteditor Dorothy Seiberling's two part series on the abstractexpressionists, "the world's 'dominant' artists today." "Baffling U.S.Art: What It Is About," Life v. 47, n. 19 (Nov. 9, 1959): 68-80 and "TheVaried Art of Four Pioneers," Life v. 47, n. 20 (Nov. 16, 1959): 74-86.21 "Something New Is Cooking," Life, v. 52, n. 24 (June 15, 1962): 115.16farmers turned schoolteachers (Segal) no doubt provided someexplanation for such a questionable aesthetic but the fact that theirshows were selling out for extremely large sums of money toimportant private collectors who would hang them alongside"revered DeKoonings and Picassos" quickly muddled matters onceagain.22Reading the text was not a prerequisite to having one's initialreaction to these artworks complexified, however. Subtitles like"Giant cartoons, $400 to $1200" and "Jarring blend of billboardpieces," combined with three-quarter page colour photographs ofwhat appeared to be cafeteria pies, pop bottles, and comic strips--themselves interspersed with advertisements for haircolour, tincans, homeowners insurance, toys, socks, and car maintenance--visually added depth to the enigma "how can this be art?" (figure 2)Not just for Life, but in fact a wide range of financially-successful U.S. magazines in the early 1960s, such an enigmaapparently made good copy. Time, Vogue, Reader's Digest, BusinessWeek, Ladies Home Journal, Esquire, House and Garden--all ranarticles on what came to be known as pop art. 23 To be sure,covering the intrigues of the art world was not an unusual activityfor mass-market magazines. The morally-enlightening andeducative aspects of art, as well as its more pragmatic function assignifier of social status, had long been recognized as of interestto a general public and thus a selling point for the magazines.22 "Something New is Cooking," 120.23 For a comprehensive listing of specific issues of mass-marketmagazines which reported on pop see Appendix 1.17Major exhibitions of Impressionist paintings or African tribalmasks, record-breaking auction sales, governmental funding for thearts, the latest works by acknowledged masters and critically-acclaimed newcomers, roundtables on modern art--all were givenspace on the art pages of assorted mass-market magazines.What is significant about the coverage of pop art between1962-65, however, is that it was picked up by so many magazines,so quickly, and then followed up fairly regularly. 24 Of course, dueto the differing editorial policies, aesthetic positions, targetaudiences, and material formats of these magazines the coverageof pop art was diverse. Some magazines loved pop art, some saw init the downfall of western civilzation as we know it, while stillothers hedged their bets, exploring the vast middleground betweenthese two extremes. There were also more subtle aspects to pop'smass-market magazine presentation, however. Differentperiodicals had differing opinions at various moments on assortedartists; the same journal would change its position, or at least itstone, on pop's social relevance from one issue to the next; and themore-exclusive magazine's well-known critic would at timesunwittingly find him or herself in complete agreement with the24The time frame 1962-65 has not been chosen arbitrarily. The "NewRealism" show held at the Sidney Janis Gallery in the fall of 1962 iswidely-recognized as the exhibit which put pop on the map. As this isthe same moment when a large number of mass-market magazines firstnoted pop on their pages, it seemed an appropriate place to begin thisstudy. 1965 was chosen as the end point, not only to put some limit onthe research I would be doing, but also because I feel that theparticular constellation of socio-political events I am discussingherein, as well as both pop production and mass-market magazinecoverage of it, has undergone notable transmutations by 1965.18aesthetic argument of the anonymous staffer of the mass-marketserial.Yet, despite the many incongruities in the representations ofpop art and the variegated spectrum of viewers to which thoserepresentations were addressed, pop's coverage in mass-marketmagazines was united in a number of distinctive and significantaspects. It is on these similarities that this paper concentrates.Such a focus does not imply a blithe erasure of the many andimportant distinctions between the various magazines discussedherein, however. Rather it is a keen awareness of the differentmarkets, formats, advertising bases, editorial policies, andtraditions of art coverage of magazines as diverse as House andGarden and Time which allows for the recognition of the highlyunusual, and thus intriguing, nature of their commonalities. Fornot only is the prevalence of mass-market magazine articles onpop anomalous, but also the thematic similarities of these articlesin regards to what was provocative about pop.Characteristically the articles began with an investigativefocus on the prosaic subject matter of pop art. Were the works"tedious copies of the banal"25 wondered Life in January 1964 or"ingenious lampoon[s] of contemporary mores" 26 mused Ladies HomeJournal in March of that same year, questions no doubt echoed bythe magazines' readers. In order to explain pop's content's25 Dorothy Seiberling, "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" Life, v. 56, n.5 (Jan. 31, 1964): 79.26 Emily Genauer, "Can This Be Art?" Ladies Home Journal. V. 81 (March1964): 151.19"normality" and contemporaneity and to analyze the formalproperties of the images such as their chemically-bright, primarycolours and machined appearance, allusions to the mass media andthe commercial art backgrounds of many of pop's artists wereoften brought up for discussion. For instance, Vogue's AlineSaarinen observed that pop artists were not painting actualobjects but the mass media symbols of the objects while in bothTime's "Cult of the Commonplace" and Life's "Something New IsCooking," artist James Rosenquist's past employment as abillboard painter is referenced in regards to the "economy-size"scale and "fragmented" quality of his work. 27 Technique andsubject matter, art and the everyday were thus presented as bothfamiliar and intimately united.The illustrations of pop art that accompanied these articleswere photographed, usually in colour, in the artist's studio, atgallery exhibitions or, more often than not, in collectors' homes astellingly evinced by articles with titles like "At Home withHenry," and "You Bought It, Now Live With It."28 The collectorsthemselves were often described as nouveau-riche business peopleand self-made success stories as in Time's 1964 account of RobertScull's meteoric rise from sign painter to taxicab and real estatemagnate.27Aline B. Saarinen, "Explosion of Pop Art," Vogue. v. 141, n. 8 (April15, 1963): 86; "Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," 67; "SomethingNew Is Cooking," 117.28"At Home With Henry," Time v. 83, n. 8 (Feb. 21, 1964): 40-45; "YouBought It, Now Live With It," Life v. 59, n. 3 (July 16, 1965): 56-91.20New York-born Robert Scull, 45, paid his way through nineyears of part-time college by painting signs, ran his ownindustrial design firm through the 1940s. He and his wifeEthel, whom everybody calls "Spike," lived in a one-room flata few blocks from the Museum of Modern Art and regarded itspaintings as theirs. 'Nearly all of our entertaining was heldin the penthouse of the museum,' Scull reminisces. ThenScull acquired a fleet of taxicabs, some real estate, andstarted making money. 29These were not individuals from upper class, established U.S.families who had a long line of art collecting behind them butpeople named Bob and Spike who were part of "a normal,unpretentious, upper middle-class American family" and who werepictured in Time magazine "laughing it up." 30 (figure 3)Quotations from these owners of pop art, stressing itscontemporaneity, market value, and "Americaness" were liberallyscattered throughout the articles with collectors Scull and LeonKraushar being the most vocal and thus, most cited. "I love pop artbecause it's the life we live today," claimed Kraushar in House andGarden in May 1965. "It's the American landscape, with itsbillboards, its highways, its hamburgers, its filling stations, itswonderful consumer goods." 31 Such quotations not only played a29"At Home With Henry," 40.30"At Home With Henry," 40. The "normality: of the Scull family isnoted both directly and indirectly in this article. An example of theless-direct reference is found on page 45 when, in describing a ratherunusual family portrait by Rosenquist, Robert Scull comments, "'Notquite the Mona Lisa but it's us."31 Francine du Plessix Gray, "The House That Pop Art Built," House andGarden, v. 127, n. 5 (May 1965): 162, 216.21large part in the texts themselves, but were also frequentlyemployed as subheadings or captions for the numerous images ofBrillo Boxes, fast food, and movie stars found throughout thearticles.(figure 4)Prominently displayed titles such as "Can this be art?", "Youthink this is a Supermarket?", and "Sold-Out Art," questioned pop'splace in the art realm, punned on its deceptive familiarity tothings in the 'real' world, and frequently remarked on itsfaddishness and financial success. In bold type subtitles and call-outs announced pop's link with consumerism, its mass mediasources, and its disputed claim to artistic status. The'everydayness' of pop's subject matter was emphasized literally inthe discussions in mass-market magazines and figuratively in thelanguage the articles utilized to analyze the works' relationship tocontemporary U.S. society--slang, quips, and witticisms arenoticeably present as in the unnamed Life writer's description ofThiebaud's Pies as "desserts [which] seem deserted, a lonelycaloric crowd untouched by human hands." 32 Such metaphors arenot unusual and play an important role in suggesting that, as far asmass-market magazine coverage is concerned, pop art is notpicturing U.S. consumer culture as a singularly attractiveenterprise but rather as a more complex, and complicated, affair.To summarize then, it appears that the representations of popart in mass-market magazines are repeatedly framed by aparticular set of parameters--subject matter, technique, thechanging role of the artist, a growing art market, and the place of32 "Something New is Cooking," 115.22private collectors in pop's success. Moreover what is textuallyasserted regarding these aspects of pop is simultaneously givenvisual articulation and force by how it is expressed--choice ofimagery, captions, type-size, titles, sub-headings, layout, and soforth. Precisely how the mass-market magazines' textual andvisual representations of pop art work together to present aparticular vision of pop--and, in fact, U.S. society--is the subjectmatter of the next chapter, however. Before that task can betackled we have to first take a step back and determine possiblehistorical resonances of those parameters by which pop is framed.That such diverse magazines as Time and Ladies Home Journalshared framing devices in reporting pop is a singular occurence andmust undoubtedly indicate current areas of import or concern incontemporary U.S. society. Being in the business of making money,mass-market magazines were hardly going to devote time andenergy to subject matter which they did not believe held someinterest for their readers/buyers. Parameters such as pop'ssubject matter or the growing art market were not chosenhaphazardly afterall, but arise both from the visual properties ofpop itself--especially in regards to its challenging of existingaesthetic paradigms--and specific interest in and manifestationsof consumer culture found in the United States in the early sixties.In mass-market magazines pop's subject matter is thisconsumer culture, its techniques related to the technologicalwonders of the mass media, and its collectors presented asindividualistic entrepreneurs and self-made successes. Whatsignificance might such characteristics hold in a society whereconformity, progress, and social status are the subject of much23debate? What was pop's relationship to postwar affluence and theresultant socio-economic and cultural shifts? Where did it fit intotraditional understandings of "Art" and what role did it play in theongoing changes to those understandings occurring in the sixties?By situating pop's representation in mass-market magazineswithin the context of "high" art tradition and debates over thegoods and evils of mass culture, we may in part be able to accountfor the widespread fascination with it.DISTINCTIVELY UNEXPECTEDPop art, in its very claim to artistic status, overturned viewers'expectations about art and its meanings. While one might arguethat its utilization of the customary artistic categories of stilllife, genre, nude, or portraiture provided a place for pop within atraditional understanding of art, its means of representation anduse of colour, scale, and two-dimensionality quickly renders suchan argument highly questionable. In its particular combination ofirreverance for and claims to traditional art, pop challengedviewers' beliefs both about art's functions and the very concept"A rt ".While disputing existing definitions of art was nothing new--itwas in fact a long-established prerequisite of avant-garde art bythis time--pop did so with a twist. Its challenge consisted notsimply of disputing the accepted form and subject matter of art, ashad impressionism in the nineteenth-century and abstractexpressionism in the twentieth, but of questioning the concepts oforiginality, authorship, and innovation which constituted thecategory "Art." Through a response to television, newspaper, and24magazine imagery which employed "artistic" scale and formats, popart problematized the supposed purity of the formal and visualcategories of high art and reframed the viewing idiom. As LynneCooke has observed in her work on British and U.S. pop art, unlikesuch patently avant-garde activity as happenings, which adoptednon-art means, materials, and techniques, and even took place invenues that were regarded as in some way alternative, pop artlocated itself "at the very heart of the mainstream," at theintersection of the realms of high and low. 33 Although appearingquite similar to Marcel Duchamp's work in revealing the process ofperception through the misconstruction of familiar forms, pop artemphasized the everydayness of its objects without the "inspired"artistic vision a Duchampian use of the everyday brought tocommon objects. Duchamp's decrees transformed a common objectinto an art work; pop's practice blurred the distinction betweencommon object and art.In their imaging of pop art, mass-market magazines oftenfocused on this manifest similarity of pop to everyday life. "Howcan this be art?" was a question raised again and again asdistinction, excellence, and uniqueness, commonly viewed as thethree most fundamental prerequisites of "high" art, were patentlymissing in pop art. 34 In fact, for many reviewers, it was not33 Lynne Cooke, ""The Independent Group: British and American Pop Art,A 'Palimpcestuous' Legacy," in Kirk Vardenoe and Adam Gopnik, eds.,Modern Art and Popular Culture (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1990), p.204.34 For more on pop's problematic and provocative relationship toexisting traditions of art see Dick Hebdige, "In Poor Taste: Notes onPop," Block 8 (1983), p. 65.25simply that these characteristics were absent in the works, butthat their very lack was what distinguished pop. Where was theoriginality in an art form which drew on advertising and mediaimagery for its subject matter? What kind of artists would usethe conventions and techniques of mass reproduction to thenrepresent it? What was so unique and inspirational about thedesign of a Brillo box?While images of high art were present in these magazinesprevious to pop 35 the dynamics of the situation had alteredsignificantly when it was no longer a case of "nine color pages ofRenoir followed by a picture of a roller-skating horse," 36 but ofnine colour pages of images of soup cans, movie stars, typewriters,political persona, and hotdogs which laid claim to artistic status,followed by one hundred and nine pages of advertisements,photographs, and illustrations for articles containing similarimagery which did not make such claims. In the context of high art,pop's utilization of diverse mass media signifiers--images subtlyblurred like those of early colour television, onomatopoetic andboldfaced texts resembling those found in comic books, repetitionof forms simulating supermarket shelf displays, magnified details35While lacking in critical analysis, Brad Collins' recenthistoriography of Life magazine and the abstract expressionistscontains a useful bibliography in this regard. Bradford R. Collins, "LifeMagazine and the Abstract Expressionists, 1948-51: A HistoriographicStudy of a Late Bohemian Enterprise," Art Bulletin, v. 73, n. 2 (June1991): 283-308.36 Dwight MacDonald, Masscult and Midcult (New York: Partisan Review,1964), p. 13.26comparable to journalistic photography, shallowness of spacesimilar to posters--made traditional significations for thesesignifiers questionable. In the context of mass-market magazines,they were doubly so. Was the image on the magazine page beforeyou pop art or a Romance comic panel, a pop painting or anadvertisement for a household spray cleaner, a pop sculpture or anautomat sandwich?Pop's provocative presence in mass-market magazines wascomplemented by the growing visibility of art in U.S. culture ingeneral and the resultant shifts in public perception regarding art'sdefinition and function. One symbolic yet significant aspect ofthese shifts was the Kennedy administration's acknowledgement ofthe significant role of the arts in U.S. life by appointing the WhiteHouse's first cultural coordinator, Arnold Heckscher, and formingthe President's Advisory Council on the Arts. In a speech made inearly June 1963, shortly before resigning and after sixteen monthsof working at what was to have been a six-month assignment,Heckscher clearly illuminates the position the administration hadtaken on the arts and why.'We have dreamed that through the arts we might. . . transformour lives. . . and make the age itself glorious. . . . No age beforeour own has dared suppose that the arts could be spread broadlywithout cheapening them. And the greatest ages have been thosethat took for granted that the arts were for the few . . . . Ourconviction that we can combine numbers with excellence . . . isas least as bold as that of the founders of our republic whoaffirmed that freedom and democracy were compatible.'3737As quoted in "Art and Politics," Newsweek v. 61, n. 24 (June 17,1963): 85.27Thus the link between democracy, culture, and the "masses" wasmade manifest. And how could it be otherwise when of all thecharacteristics that set the U.S. way of life apart, respect for theappearance of democracy is the most dominant?Democracy had also infiltrated the traditionally elite and highlyhierarchized structures of the art world. Increasingly, art wasbeing moved out of museum and gallery buildings to places wherelarger numbers of people could view them, either throughtransporting the art works themselves or circulating reproductionsin some form. For example, in Dallas the Museum of Fine Arts had arotating collection at the LoveField terminal of the airport whilein Boston its counterpart was busy circulating over 62,000 slidesto art clubs, classes, and individuals--three times as many as ithad ten years earlier. In addition, museums began opening at nightin order to service interested businesspeople who did not have thetime to visit during the day and artmobiles became familiar sightsin towns far from any gallery. 3838Alvin Toffler, The Culture Consumers (New York: St. Martin's Press,1964), pp. 169-170. "Art Seminars in the Home" offered by thevenerable Metropolitan Museum of Art provided both lectures and colourreproductions--"suitable for framing"--that were guaranteed toincrease the whole family's appreciation for art. The syllabus includedsuch topics as "What is a painting?" "Composition," "Technique," and"The artist as visionary." In the advertisement cited over 200,000families had already subscribed. Harper's v. 227, n. 1362 (Nov. 1963):npag.28One did not have to even leave the living room in order toexperience culture by the early sixties, however, as art hadmanaged to find favour with that most demanding of clients--thetelevision. As James Thrall Soby, former assistant director ofMOMA (1943-45), commented in the Saturday Review in 1957,One of the many indications of art's enormous and growingpopularity in this country is the frequency with which it ismentioned on TV or furnishes the central theme of TV programs.One hears on good authority that unusually large audienceswatched a California jockey win $64,000 for his ability toidentify paintings and sculptures; more recently the duelbetween Vincent Price and Edward G. Robinson was aphenomenal success. . . . It's getting so a fantastic number of TVperformers mention art in one connection or another, andunlikely people turn out to be aspiring painters or dedicatedconnoisseurs. 39As Soby notes, art's presence on television was a multifaceted one.It supplied the dramatic plot for many a television program, had anumber of regular shows dedicated to it--Brian O'Doherty's"Invitation to Art" and Jean Marie Drot's "Art and Man," forexample--and was the star player of many hour-long colourspecials such as "The Louvre: A Golden Prison" and "The Art ofCollecting."While far from being unanimously hailed as a breakthrough--dueprimarily to problems with screen curvature, light fluctuation, andpersonality presentation--televised art was viewed as a medium39James Thrall Soby, "Art on TV," Saturday Review v. 40 (April 13,1957): 29.29with a future. More innovative techniques, methods, and planningwere needed in order to do justice to the art and to keep theviewer's attention but television's practice of blow-ups, close-ups, and selective details were seen positively as providing freshinsights and new perspectives. 40 With four times as manytelevision sets in homes in 1965 than there had been thirteen yearsearlier41 access to such art programming, and thus to art,increased dramatically. The results of such access was, as FrankStanton, president of the Columbia Broadcasting System said in aNovember 1962 lecture at Dartmouth College, to shrink the greatvoid between art produced for the few at the top and art for themasses. "Now cultural activity of variety and depth has becomethe common heritage and the common quest of all the people." 4240 For a range of contemporaneous readings dealing with the issue ofart on television see: Robert Lewis Sharpton, "Art on TV: The Louvre,"Saturday Review v. 47 (Dec. 19, 1964): 18; Katherine Kuh, "The Art ofCollecting," Saturday Review v.47 (Jan. 18, 1964): 37-52; KatherineKuh, "The Unhappy Marriage of Art and TV," Saturday Review v. 44 (Jan.21, 1961): 61; "Art and the People," America v. 108 (Feb. 2, 1963): 162-63; Soby, 29-30; Mannes, 56-61.41 In 1952 there were 17 million television sets in the States. By 1958that number had reached 48.5 million and by 1965, 70 million. RussellNye, The Unembarassed Muse (New York: Dial Press,1970), p. 407.42As quoted in Helen B. Schaffer, 'Arts and the People," in William B.Dickinson, Jr., ed., Cultural life and Leisure in America (Wasington, D.C.:Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1969), p. 44. In House and Garden's May1965 article "The House That Pop Built," there is a quotation from LeonKraushar that echoes Stanton's statement but with an emphasis onpop's role in the new aesthetic order. "With all the new leisure time,more people are interested in art than at any other time in history. Artis no longer an interest for the wealthy dowager: it must become anart of the masses and that's the great role of pop art." du Plessix Gray,216.30The issue of increased access to art and the concept of commonheritage received a shot in the arm in a very public fashion at the1964 World's Fair in New York when Fair director Robert Mosesmanaged to convince the Vatican--through personal consultationswith Pope Paul VI--to show Michelangelo's Pieta at the fair. Theprogress of the negotiations, the debates over the wisdom oftransporting the 465 year-old marble sculpture, and its eventualarrival and installation at the fair were events all avidly reportedin the press. 43While fine art was a familiar sight at world's fairs, both thelarger and more specific context in which one found the Pieta is ofinterest. The 1964 Fair was described at the time as an enticingand flattering mirroring of the free-enterprise system ascorporate logos abounded and the products of mass production andtechnology were highlighted using modern-day advertisingtechniques. The Pieta, considered one of the major art works ofwestern civilization and once available to only those U.S. citizensable to travel to Rome, was one of the exposition's highlights andmade the Vatican pavillion one of the most popular sites of theNew York fair. Seen through a plexiglass security shield from aseries of viewing tiers which were part of a highway of movingsidewalks, one was afforded about a minute's glimpse of the work.Surrounded by flowing, deep-blue drapery and bathed in a halo offluorescent lighting, the Pieta practically glowed, an effect no43 Helen A. Harrison, "Art for the Millions, or Art for the Market?" inRemembering the Future: The New York World's Fair from 1939 to 1964(New York: Rizzoli, 1989), p. 148.31doubt enhanced by the "Gregorian muzak" playing in thebackground. 44 Although certainly not a typical setting for high art,the dramatic presentation itself would have been both somewhatfamiliar and seductively attractive to fairgoers fluent in thelanguage of contemporary advertising. Just as the rest of the fairrepresented the world around them, only brighter, the Pietarepresented all that was wondrous in art, only louder.While still being produced and shown in the rarefied atmosphereof the New York art world, pop art was also making incursions intomore frequented altitudes. At the world's fair, for instance, pop'sdominant presence on the New York State Building's exterior servedas a kind of aesthetic billboard announcing that New York was to beidentified with the most recent trends in painting and sculpturewhile simultaneously conforming incredibly well with the overall"consumerized" look of the fair. So well in fact that pop's claim toartistic status was challenged in some of the other pavillions. AsMax Kozloff reported in The Nation in 1964, "in the IBM show ananouncer calls for a work of art to appear on the screen, gets afilmed shot of Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup cans, demands 'real'art, and is rewarded with an Ingres' Odalisque".45Pietas and odalisques were obvious objects of contemplationand discussion, soup cans and brillo boxes were apparently not so.The mystification that surrounded the former was significantlylacking in the latter. Pietas and odalisques were enveloped in an44Harrison, p. 162.45 Max Kozloff, "Pop on the Meadow," Nation v. 199, n. 1 (July 13,1964): 17.32exclusionary parlance of connoisseurship and priviledge, a foreignlanguage many viewers had come to expect in their tentativeventures into the esoteric realm of Art. Even when physicallyaccessible to the "masses" as they were at the 1964 world's fairsite, the conceptual accessibility of these works, originally madefor the papacy and the French upper class, was minimal. Brightly-illuminated by a flourescent halo though it was, Michelangelo'sPieta was still shrouded in the opaque aura of Art.And in the late 50s and early 60s auras were big sellers as U.Scitizens adjusted their social status through actually buying art aswell as looking at it. With a shorter work week, paid vacations,and early retirement, the middle class, white, male U.S. worker hadmore free time for longer periods than ever before and, as theeconomy steadily grew, more money to spend on it. A significantproportion of both this disposable income and leisure time wasspent on culture. 46 . "America became a nation of culture consumersfor whom art was not just an object of beauty that providedsensory pleasure, but a commodity." 47 . A 1965 Business Weekarticle corroborates such observations with an evaluation of art'snewfound role as a statement of personal taste and a significant46This new and apparently widely available leisure time was seenas such an important aspect of the "good life" which was thepresent-day United States that it even rated a Life special year-end double issue. While there had been a time when only the richhad much leisure, Life's introduction mused, with the introductionof mass production and automation, "suddenly what used to be thesmall leisured classes became the big leisured masses." "The GoodLife," Life, v. 47, n. 26 (Dec. 28, 1959): 2.47 Stich, p. 10.33factor in social positioning. 48 Owning original art had become amiddle-class status symbol of note.Quick to pick up on the needs of its middle-class customers,major department stores had special showings of fine art or evenopened fine art departments. In Los Angeles a $200,000 collectionof aboriginal art from New Guinea was "selling like sunglasses at$3 to $3,000 apiece" at the May Co. department store49 while insome of its 755 retail outlets Sears was also out to prove that"fine art can , be mass-marketedN. 80 Having hired Vincent Price,"actor and art connoisseur" to gather together an initial inventoryof approximately $1 million in art works, Sears began to tour the48 "For more than art's sake," Business Week (May 15, 1965), p. 151.Included in an another Business Week article on art was aninteresting aside on the relationship of the new attitude to artpossession to the longevity of contemporary marital unions. "Ontheory that paintings are becoming as vital to the decor of today'snew households as china or silver patterns, Findlay Galleries, Inc.,Chicago, has set up what it believes is the first bridal registry forpaintings in the U.S." It allows an exchange after five years due toacknowledgement of developing tastes " or if the marriage isdissolved in that time, the couple may turn in their original choicefor two pictures with the same value." Business Week (June 19,1965), p. 82.49 "The Economy: New and Exuberant," Time, v. 81 (may 31, 1963):56.50"At Sears, art conquers," Business Week (Dec. 1, 1962), p. 28-29.While there was a "sprinkling of lorgnettes and fur stoles" at theart opening in the Detroit Sears store "among the estimated 4500who jammed the opening more workaday garb dominated: leatherjackets, smart casual coats - the trappings of Mr. and Mrs.Suburbia." Besides a booming art business, side benefits to Searsincluded attracting customers who would not usually come toSears and a 3-5 percent increase in the sale of home furnishings,the department that housed the exhibits.34collection in groups of several hundred at its major stores.Including original works by Rembrandt, Goya, Millet, Hogarth, Dufy,Chagall, Rouault, Vlaminck, and Picasso, and with prices rangingfrom $30 to $9,000, Sears was able to sell 12,000 art works for atotal of $1.2 million in less than two years. Drawing features forthe Sears customer were terms that could run as low as $5 down,$5 a month for three years and, of course, the familiar environmentof a department store. "We are taking the chi-chi out of art,"declared Price, 51 indicating the appeal the Sears displays wouldhave for the average buyer who was intimidated by imposing artgalleries and their equally-imposing staff.Department store executives were not the only ones torecognize a growing market when they saw one, however, and artwas just as much a commodity and status symbol on 57th St. as itwas in a suburban mall, although not packaged in quite the samefashion. In the early sixties, increasing numbers of sharpentrepeneurs and art world hopefuls opened galleries whileexisting enterprises turned to new selling techniques morereminiscent of Madison Ave than the Left Bank. 52 Art becameanother playing piece in the game of supply and demand as newly-affluent and often self-made industrialists and businesspersonsshowed their eagerness to don the mantle of patron of the arts.Neophyte collectors for the most part, their tendency to move51 Business Week (Oct. 13, 1962), p. 54.52The number of art galleries in New York doubled between 1950and 1960. Alvin Toffler, "A Quantity of Culture," Fortune, v. 64, n.5 (Nov. 1961): 127.35outside the established collecting and connisseurship patternsmade for good stories in the popular press and was aided andabetted by dwindling supplies of blue chip "old Master" works. 53Although the British aristocracy and French upper class werehaving to break up collections because of their need for ready cash,these prestigious art works were snapped up as soon as they wereon the market, if not before, leaving many enthusiastic potentialbuyers empty-handed. 54This demand for art by the newer collectors was in part filledby and in part created the overwhelming interest in contemporarywork which characterized the early sixties. Jackson Pollock'sdeath in 1956, combined with the international success of the "newAmerican painting," had triggered a price rise in abstractexpressionist work which grounded the legitimation ofcontemporary art as an area of collection and investment on solidlyU.S. soil. 55 With the world art centre now thriving in New Yorkunder the banner of challenging older, established, Europeantraditions, there was a greater acceptance of the untested and theexperimental. For historian J.B. Plumb "it was as if the widespreadbelief in infinite possibilities in the sixties gave rise to an53Jennifer Wells, "The Sixties: Pop goes the Market," in DefinitiveStatements (Providence: Brown University, 1986), pp. 56-57.54 "For more than art's sake," 151.55This grounding was made more solid with U.S. pop artist RobertRauschenberg's win at the 1964 Venice Biennale. See LaurieMonahan, The New Frontier Goes to Venice (Unpublished Master'sThesis, University of British columbia, 1985) for furtherinformation in this regard.36appetite for novelty and change in art." 56 Although Plumb'sobservation needs to be mediated by an awareness that avant-gardeculture since the mid-nineteenth century had similarly traded onthe new and the different, there was a significant shift in terms ofcollectors and collecting practices at this time which underliesand lends historical credence to his statement. As Esquiremagazine noted in 1965 the "new" had become a distinguishing"accoutrement" and a sign of rising social status for anunprecedented number of U.S. citizens. 57 To be among the firstcollectors of a new art movement was to identify oneself in asignificant fashion. It was a gamble to be sure, but the rewardswere great, including having one's collection, home, and spouse asthe focus of a colour-illustrated feature of the most widely-readmagazines of the day.What was truly novel about the U.S. arts scene in the early1960s, however, was both the serious consideration of newly-emerging artists from the moment of their arrival on the nationalart stage and the call for U.S. standards in the arts. The logic56J.B. Plumb, "A Nose for Treasure and a Taste for Profit, "  NewYork Times Book Review (15 Feb., 1981), p. 11.57Marvin Elkoff, "The American Painter as a Blue Chip," Esquire v.63, n. 1 (Jan. 1965): 41. "In a short span of time, serious avant-garde collecting changed from a private and depreciated 'act' ofcommitment to untested ideas into a conspicuous public activitythat drew more and more eager recruits from the age of affluence.Advocacy and support of experimental art has now gained such ahold on the American imagination that the normal lag betweenartistic invention and its public acceptance is disappearing." SamHunter, The Harry N. Abrams Family Collection (New York: JewishMuseum, 1966), n.pag.37behind these aesthetic shifts was commonsensically outlined byone reviewer in the Saturday Evening Post: since patterns of livinghad changed rapidly of late and modern civilization was differentfrom the civilization which produced Chartres, modern civilizationshould have a new and different culture appropriate to its changedpatterns of living. 58 Internationally, the U.S. became increasinglyacknowledged as the place to be and its lifestyle--typicallycharacterized as technological, democratic, progressive--deemedas the most contemporary. "In order to interpret our period, anartist has to be familiar with its realities, its sensibility. Thesecan be felt better and more intensely in New York," stated artdealer Daniel Cordier as he permanently closed down his Parisgallery in July 1964. 59Even museums, traditionally somewhat hesitant to get on anyart movement bandwagon too early for fear of it being overturned,expanded their activities in contemporary art, especially U.S. art.Not only was the work available and relatively inexpensive but it58 Frederick Breitenfeld, Jr., "Who says I'm Uncultured?" SaturdayEvening Post v. 235, n. 27 (July 14-21, 1962): 10.59 "Goodbye Paris, Hello New York," Time v. 84, n. 3 (July 17, 1964):38. The timing of Cordier and a host of other Parisian dealers'departure from France is noteworthy in that it occurs immediatelyafter Robert Rauschenberg won the grand prize for painting at the1964 Venice Biennale.In addition to the mass exodus of Parisian dealers, bothcommercial and avant-garde, power in the art world wasconverging in New York in financial terms. "Sotheby's purchase ofthe controlling interest in Parke-Bernet . . . marks the final shiftof power to the United States, because it means that New York willbecome the auction, or price-setting, capital of the world." Elkoff,112 .38also attracted the media whose coverage in turn led to the largeraudiences the museums needed to assure their existence andgrowth. 60 There was always the risk that one would get caught upin a fad and end up sacrificing some concept of quality forrelevance (a catchword of the period) but, as with privatecollectors, the potential rewards ultimately overcame anyreservations.In brief, as a result of the "boom" in culture in the late fiftiesand early sixties culture itself had come to include those artstraditionally considered high art, the book-of-the-month club, andeverything in-between while "consuming" culture meant anythingfrom attending a professional opera performance to taking aceramics class at the local community college. Culture was nolonger to be found only in leather-bound volumes, recital halls, orgalleries, but in paperbacks, on cassettes, and in departmentstores. 61 Indeed, the so-called culture boom was not solely a60 lrving Sandler, American Art of the Sixties (New York: Harperand Row, 1988), p. 122. A 200 percent increase in attendance atthe Metropolitan Museum of Art from 1953 to 1963 was said tohave been matched or surpassed by museums and galleries in otherparts of the country. Schaffer, pp. 46-48. The audiencesattending were from diverse social backgrounds as shown byArnold Mitchell, the economist responsible for a Stanford ResearchInstitute report working on trends in cultural consumption, whomade the illuminating discovery that "more servicemen visitingNew York go to the Museum of Modern Art than to any otherattraction except for the Empire State Building." Toffler, The ,Culture Consumers, p. 17.61 For example, due to an increasing demand, the number of finearts books published in the decade leading up to 1961 doubled. Andof course these books were not just published but sold as anincrease from 487,000 book purchases in 1947 to 903,000 in 195839statistical phenomenon documenting the increased number ofpeople listening, reading, or seeing what had always beenconsidered "Art," but a perceptual metastasis wherein the verynotion of "Art" was constantly being reshaped. In magazines, ontelevision, or at the 1964 world's fair, art had become a verypublic, in fact, a "mass" public, affair. 62With the growing visibility of art in U.S. culture in general andits concurrent redefinitions, it is thus unlikely that thewidespread engagement with pop in mass-market magazines wassolely attributable to what some viewed as its fraudulent claimsto artistic status. While pop might not possess the aura of a Pietanor easily fit into traditional categories of art, the shape of thosecategories was beginning to undergo significant alteration by theearly sixties; significant enough that pop was being collected bothby individuals and art institutions as early as 1961. Rather, thefascination with pop and a further explanation for the particularparameters framing it in mass-market magazines appears to residein "getting" the IBM announcer's joke--namely, that Ingres'odalisques are "real" art while Warhol's Campbell's soup cans arenot. Perhaps through a closer examination of the historically-clearly indicates. Statistical Abstact of the United States(Washington,D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1962), p. 521.62A now-famous description of the broad spectrum of massculture's public is found in Dwight MacDonald's evocative socio-economic cartography of Life magazine--"appearing on themahogany library tables of the rich, the glass cocktail tables ofthe middleclass, and the oilcloth kitchen tables of the poor."MacDonald, Masscult and Midcult, pp. 12-13.40loaded significance of paintings of a mass-produced, brand-namesoup we may in fact discover another factor of pop's "popularity."THE MYTHS OF MASS CULTURE63In a 1962 New York Times Magazine article entitled "Affluence'begins to Affect Europe," the central question asked is "will a highstandard of living 'Americanize' Europe?" 64 In the very phrasing ofthis query an easy equation is made between affluence, theproducts of mass culture, and the United States. The imagesaccompanying the article are themselves quite instructive as theyshow bewildered Europeans trying to fit a baguette into a toaster,putting wooden shoes in the dryer, and caught in freeway trafficjams in their sportcars, surrounded by billboards advertising wine,cigarettes, and motels "avec TV". When the audience of the63The title for this section is adapted from Alan Swingewood'sliterary-based study, The Myth of Mass Culture (London: MacMillanPress Ltd., 1977). Although presenting both "sides" of the debatefor historical contextualization of the issues involved, in thisthesis my interest lies in challenging the totalizing quality ofmuch left mass cultural analysis. Consequently I will focus onthat argument in regards to specific critiques of pop art'srepresentation in mass-market magazines. The flaws of theliberal pluralist position are, I believe, self-evident and groundedin their disregard for questions of authority, legitimation, andideology. For an interesting discussion of these problems and ofsignificant similarities in attitude towards mass culture by boththe left and right despite radically different assumptions abouthuman nature see Jim Ferreira, "Cultural Conservatism and MassCulture: The Case Against Democracy," Journal of AmericanCulture. v. 13, n. 1 (Spring 1990): 1-10.64 Edwin L. Dale, Jr., "'Affluence' Begins to Affect Europe," NewYork Times Magazine (Jan. 28, 1962): 12, 52.41magazine laughed at the humour present in the images it wasbecause they got the joke. There can be little doubt that for themas well as for the hapless Europeans depicted, consumer culture--toasters, dryers, cars, motels, television, billboard advertising--signified "America". This conflation of the United States withmass culture was not an untroubled one, however. Close on theheels of the second world war an impassioned debate arose in theUnited States regarding the good and evils of mass culture, adebate played out not only in intellectual journals and politicalproclamations but also in the mass media itself.For contemporary liberal theorists such as Edward Shils andDaniel Bell the mass society from which this mass culture bothemerged and was a constituitive factor provided a greater scopefor human initiative, development and freedom. 65 Because of thewealth of ideas and options accessible to the average citizen as aresult of technological progress and advanced industrialization,individuality, they argued, is enhanced through decision-makingwhich in turn leads to increased social participation. As Shilsstated in 1960,Mass society has aroused and enhanced individuality.Individuality is characterized by an openness to experience, anefflorescence of sensation and sensibility . . .[it] has liberatedthe cognitive, appreciative and moral capacities of individuals.Larger elements of the population have consciously learned tovalue the pleasures of eye, ear, taste, touch, and conviviality.65 Edward Shils, "Mass Society and Its Culture," Daedalus. v. 89, n.2 (Spring 1960): 288-314; Daniel Bell, "America as a Mass Society:A Critique," The End of Ideology (New York: Collier Books, 1961),pp. 21-38.42People make choices more freely in many spheres of life, andthese choices are not necessarily made for them by tradition,authority, or scarcity. 66Democracy in this view is strengthened as the social bases ofpolitical pluralism--free and open competetion for leadership,widespread participation in the selection of leaders, self-government in many areas of social life--are augmented. 67 Societyis pictured by these liberal theorists as a complex structure ofchecks and balances in which no one group wields dominant powerand in which, for the first time in human history, the broad mass ofthe population engages in a democratic mass culture. Nationalismis supposedly heightened as a sense of affinity in a shared culturegrows among members of different classes and regions of the samecountry. 68 Consumer culture is seen positively as it is equatedwith the fact that more people are buying more sophisticated goodsand participating in more cultural aspects of modern life, therebyachieving a higher standard of living than any other country in theworld.The benign function of mass culture in teaching individuals howto adjust to, cope with, and enjoy the fruits of consumer society isalso emphasized by intellectuals like Shils and Bell. Mass culturewas seen as providing no threat to elite culture but rather as66 Shils, 290.67W. Kornhauser, The Politics of Mass Society (New York: FreePress, 1960), pp. 230-31.68 Shils, 294.43playing a significant and positive role in pushing it on to a newstage of development, a stage that was more appropriate to thechanged and diverse social relations that constituted contemporarysociety. 69 Mass culture was argued for on the grounds that itspread high culture to new audiences--television coverage ofballet performances, paperback editions of Shakespeare--and wasthus seen as eventuating in a democratic common culture whichreinforces, not weakens, democratic institutions and processes.For liberal theorists, then, rather than being a source of alienation,the commodity offered liberation, the opportunity to exercise one'sindividual choice, and the "success" of mass culture was deemedproof positive of this.Choice was not something considered prevalent in mass societyby intellectuals on the left, however. Theorists such as C. WrightMills, Irving Howe, and Dwight MacDonald had a rather morepessimistic take on U.S. society in the fifties and sixties, picturingmass culture as a "profitable opiate, synthetically prepared forconsumption for a society of automatons". 70 As Bernard Rosenberg69 In an article in Fortune magazine in 1961 Alvin Tofflersummarized the recent societal shifts. "The character and qualityof American society are being drastically changed, in both theirpublic and private aspects, by mass interest in cultural activities.Perhaps this change is implied in the term 'democraticcivilization,' a condition to which Americans seem to be movingand which is far broader than political democracy. The lack ofhistorical precedent may be one reason that the present trendoccasions so much disquiet and acrimonious debate insophisticated quarters." Toffler, "A Quantity of Culture," 174.70Andrew Ross, No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture (New York: Routledge, 1989), p. 50. For a critical overview of44wrote in 1957, "at its worst, mass culture threatens not merely tocretinize our taste, but to brutalize our senses while paving theway to totalitarianism." 71 Mass culture is characterized asimposed from above, fabricated by technicians who have been hiredby corporations. Its audiences are viewed as passive consumerswho are unable to express themselves as self-conscious humanbeings because they are related to one another neither asindividuals nor as members of a community and whoseparticipation in "democratic" culture is limited to the choicebetween buying and not buying.Mass culture is democratic, notes MacDonald, "very, verydemocratic: it absolutely refuses to discriminate against, orbetween, anything or anybody. All is grist to its mill, and allcomes out finely ground indeed." 72 Due to collective forms ofeconomic and political life associated with modernindustrialization, left-leaning theorists such as MacDonald andMills view what was once an informed and critically independent"public" as having collapsed into a largely apathetic "mass", theconsequence of which is a weakened civil society. Due to this lackof critical public awareness, when nationalistic sentiments aredisplayed they are typically in jingoistic form. The population isfifties intellectuals' thoughts on mass culture see Ross's chaptertwo, "Containing Culture in the Cold War," pp. 42-64.71 Bernard Rosenberg and David Manning White, eds., Mass Culture(New York: Free Press, 1957), p. 9.72MacDonald, "A Theory of Mass Culture," in Rosenberg and ManningWhite, p. 62.45believed to grow passive, indifferent, and atomized, traditionalloyalties and associations becoming lax or dissolving completely,and human beings becoming solely consumers, mass-produced likethe products, entertainment, and values which they uncriticallyabsorb. 73While such general fears resembled those expressed lessapocolyptically by political leaders that mass hedonism would leadto the United States going usoft," 74 there was also the morespecific concern in left intellectual circles over high culture's rolein a society in which it needed to compete with mass culture or bemerged into it. 75 In the latter view, the newly-won leisure time of73 Mills, pp. 301-20.74 "We have gone soft . . . . The slow corrosion of luxury isbeginning to show." "Leisure could Mean Better Civilization," Life v. 47, n. 26 (Dec. 28, 1959): 62. The worry regarding the UnitedStates going soft in 1959 was Senator Kennedy's although it wascertainly not his alone. Towards the end of Eisenhower's finalterm in office a search had begun for the lost sense of nationalpurpose, a search which originated in cold war critiques ofconsumer culture. The Soviet Union's rapid recovery from thedevastation of World War II, its explosion of a hydrogen bomb, andits successful launching of Sputnik in 1957 put the U.S.'spreeminence in technology under question. Because advances intechnology were so intimately linked with progress and thus abetter existence in U.S. rhetoric, the Soviet successes in spacechallenged the U.S. way of life as tba best way of life in that asocialist-governed society had surpassed it technologically.Consequently, when Life magazine took up the ongoing quest for thenational purpose in a "crucial new series" begun on May 23, 1960,and posed the question of "what we as citizens and a nation hope toachieve," underlying such a query was also a questioning of thevalues associated with consumer sovereignty. "The NationalPurpose," Life v. 48 (May 23, 1960): 23.75MacDonald, "A Theory of Mass Culture," in Rosenberg and ManningWhite, p. 61. Such a concern was publically evinced in the early46the post-war period was spent in second and third-rate aestheticgratifications that would eventually "infect" culture and, becauseculture was the realm wherein the most important values of asociety lay, lead to the destruction of everything worthwhile incivilization. 76 In a special issue of Daedalus (the journal of theAmerican Academy of Arts and Sciences) devoted to "Mass Cultureand Mass Media," humanistic scholar Hannah Arendt provides aconcise description of the inevitable course of events. "Since theappetites of the entertainment industries are insatiable," writesArendt, "they will in time consume the classics, and therebydestroy culture." 77 At its best mass culture was deemed avulgarized reflection of high culture, its overriding effect beingfifties at the "Our Country and Our Culture" symposium, organizedby and eventually published in the Partisan Review in 1952. Thesymposium's participants cautioned that "serious" creativepursuits had to be kept above and beyond the "tawdry" products ofmass culture if they were to retain their purity and transformativepowers. " Hollywood movies, Coca-Cola, television, supermarkets,soda fountain luncheons, Time, Life, comic strips, massjournalism, and advertising" were mentioned by name as examplesof what to avoid. Stich, p. 9. Such a list is intriging as it couldvirtually double as a cataloguing of the subject matter of pop art.76 lmagery of disease and decay litter the texts on mass culture byleft intellectuals: middlebrow culture threatens to engulfeverything in its spreading ooze (MacDonald), the vast cultureindustries are parasites on the body of art (Howe), the virulence ofkitsch (Greenberg) needs to be quarantined (Harold Rosenberg), andthere is no avoiding contamination without avoiding contact (LouisKronenberger). For a historical grounding of such loaded rhetoricsee Ross, pp. 42-47.77Hannah Arendt as quoted in Norman Jacobs, "Mass Culture andMass Media," Daedalus v. 89, n .2 (Spring 1960): 275.47the infantalization of its viewers, listeners, and readers. Evencultural criticism which concerned itself with mass culture wasconsidered by certain intellectuals as a surrender to massculture's repulsive charms. 78Yet in at least one segment of mass culture itself, similardebates were simultaneously taking place. In magazines like Life,Newsweek, Look, and the New York Times Magazine, the goods andevils of U.S. mass culture and its effects on the arts were arguedover from positions not unlike those found in the "highbrow"journals. In a 1963 issue of Look magazine, for example, PresidentKennedy emphasized the widespread and unifying impact of the artsin every U.S. citizen's life and linked it to advances in technologyand mass culture. Every "American", be they "suburban, harassedhousewife," "weary husband," or adolescents "bent on a good time"now had access to the "humanizing" effects of the arts by means ofpaper-bound reprints of the "best books of the ages", recordings of78 So complained Clement Greenberg in one of the most prestigiousliberal-socialist journals of the country. As cited in Paul Buhule,ed., Popular Culture in America (Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1987), p. xvii. Ironically enough, many of thevery critics who looked upon the absorption of contemporary art bymass culture as the means to art's destruction--Harold Rosenberg,Dwight MacDonald, and Hilton Kramer, for example--werethemselves writing for mass-market periodicals or newspapers bythe mid-sixties. Neil Jumonville, Critical Crossings: The New YorkIntellectuals in Postwar America (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1991), p. 156. For a fairly comprehensive listingof the writers associated with different magazines andnewspapers circa 1965 see, "Art Establishment: Centers ofPower," Esquire, v. 63, n. 1 (Jan. 1965): 44-45.48classical music, and reproductions of art masterpieces. 79 Such aposition would find support in one issue of the New York TimesMagazine --"there is no discrepancy between artistic excellenceand the democratic ideal"--while another issue would contradict itby complaining that most of the population's dealings with culturewere superficial and the arts were in danger of losing their cuttingedge by becoming too democratic. 90 Newsweek, meanwhile,consistently revealed the consumeristic underside of the boom inculture, countering effusions about personal growth throughartistic creativity with contemporary accounts of status-seekingthrough cultural participation. 81An interesting instance of a meeting of minds over the value ofU.S. mass culture from what one would have expected to be quiteoppositional sources is found in two reviews of Alvin Toffler'sbook, The Culture Consumers. however. In the account found in theDecember 4, 1964 Nation--and after a fairly scathing critique of79John F. Kennedy, "The Arts in America," Look, v. 26, n. 26 (Dec.18, 1962): 110. It is interesting that Kennedy specificallymentions products frequently identified with the new leisuresociety and thus consumer culture. In so doing he acknowledges,albeit subtly, that one can now procure admittance to the artsthrough the mere act of consumption and that art, in fact, hadbecome a material good.80The quotation is from William Schuman, "Have we 'culture'?Yes--and no," New York Times Magazine  (September 22, 1963): p.21+. The other article referred to is Marya Mannes' "They'reCultural, But are They Cultured?" New York Times Magazine (July 9,1961): p. 12+.81 Karl E. Meyer, "Kulturvac 112B: 'You Can't Lick it. It Joins You,'"Newsweek. v. 61 (January 28, 1963): 26; "The Culture Business,"Newsweek. v. 60 (December 3, 1962): 62.49Toffler's unquenchable optimism and a calling up of DwightMacDonald as intellectual sparring partner--author HarrisDienstfrey focuses on the present-day cultural configuration of theUnited States. His appraisal: it is in the "essential and uniqueblending of the high and low . . . . [that] the heart of Americanhigher culture lies." 82 Such an assessment echoes that of theanonymous author of Newsweek's November 16, 1964 reviewentitled "Bread and Circuses." 83 Here too Toffler is criticized forhis priviledging of quantity over quality and Dwight MacDonald usedas an example of the opposite extreme. Here too, somewherebetween these two positions, "a vast middle ground remains to beconquered--and the garden we cultivate there must be bothexcellent and opulent." 84 High and low, excellent and opulent,quality and quantity--it is in what Dienstfrey describes as their"curious coupling" 85 that yet another position on mass culture isarticulated and where some critics believe the future of adistinctive U.S. version of culture is to be found.By the early sixties we thus find in the United States an ongoingdebate over mass culture, the opinions on which are that it is good,bad, or redeemable; the themes--and stakes--of which are workingconcepts of consumerism, individualism, progress, nationalism,82 Harris Dienstfrey, "The New Millions," The Nation, n. 199(December 4, 1964), p. 467.83"Bread and Circuses," Newsweek, v. 64 (November 16, 1964):105-106.84"Bread and Circuses," 106.85 Dienstfrey, p. 106.50and democracy; and the underlying assumption of which is that, forbetter or worse, mass culture is quintessentially "American."Simultaneously, we also have a changing socio-economic andcultural situation wherein a much larger and more diversifiedpublic is exposed to art while definitions of what constituted artare undergoing serious transformations. It should thus come aslittle surprise that images of a mass-produced, brand-name soupcreated such a flurry of public discussion and that mass-marketmagazines framed pop with parameters such as subject matter, thechanging role of the artist, and nouveau-riche collectors' avidinterest in pop. In the heated debate over mass culture which wastaking place in the U.S. in the late fifties and early sixties, artworks which looked like the contents of U.S. supermarket shelves,artists who silkscreened brand-name logos onto canvas, and self-made taxicab entrepreneurs turned art collectors were certain toignite sparks both within the art world and without.51CHAPTER TWO: MOCKING ADMIRATION"Some critics have compared Roy's bold, stiff figures with theworks of noted French painter, Fernand Leger. Others say Royseems to be sitting on the fence, mocking the household gods andgadgets that Americans love, and at the same time viewing themwith admiration. Still other people can't see much differencebetween Roy's outsized cartoons and ads and what is printed inthe newspapers."-Life, 19628 6After drawing out general themes of pop coverage and then locatingthose themes within some of the relevant concerns of early sixties U.S.culture it appears that pop art's manifest challenge to traditionaldefintions of art and its conspicuous and complex associations withmass culture are key factors in the mainstream press' fascination withpop. In order to thoroughly investigate the historical significance ofpop's representation in mass-market magazines in the United Statesbetween 1962 and 1965, however, we need to move beyond generalitiesto the specifics of how pop was portrayed visually and textually inmagazines like Life, Time, House and Garden, and Ladies Home Journal.Recognizing the complexity of both pop art and the magazines'production and reception, this chapter is unwilling to fall back onsimple theories of affirmation to account for pop's "popularity".Instead, it challenges the theory that pop was widely covered by mass-market magazines because it reinforced the overwhelminglyconsumeristic mindset such magazines were promoting and which wassupposedly dominant in the culture at large. The counter-argument isNOTES86"Something New Is Cooking," 120.52made by demonstrating that mainstream pop coverage was not souniformly positive--either in regards to pop or the society it wasimaging. To that end this chapter historically situates definitions ofart and debates over mass culture crucial to an understanding of popwithin a socio-culture structure undergoing rapid paradigmatic shifts.It is amidst the building blocks of such a structure--namely, amongstchanging concepts of individualism, progress, democracy, andnationalism--that the common parameters of pop's representation inmass-market magazines take on even greater historical interest andsignificance.That the consistent framing of pop art by communal parameters didnot lead to a definitive mass-market magazine interpretation of it isobvious from the diverse and divergent representations of pop art foundin these publications. In fact, another characteristic shared by thewide-range of magazines dealing with pop and which entwines itselfaround the frame constructed by these parameters, its tension pullingthe frame out of shape, is a sense of ambiguity about pop's aestheticworth. This is not to say that the magazines did not express opinionsregarding pop; they certainly did and usually quite vociferously. But itis to point out that even when an article came out vehemently for oragainst pop there was always some tension, contradiction, or vaguedisclaimer present which prevented explanatory closure. At times theambiguity was obvious as in Calvin Tompkin's remark, "art or not, it'sfood for thought." 87 At other moments it was much more subtle--images that were not satisfactorily accounted for by the text, a certain87 Calvin Tomkins, "Art or not, it's food for thought," Life, v. 57, n. 21(Nov. 20, 1964): 143.53turn of phrase or chosen adjective, or ironic titles and photographcaptions which altered the picture's initial impact.Similar to pop art's newsworthiness, however, such ambiguity isnot simply attributable to pop's questionable artistic value. Thisthesis posits that the tensions, vacillations, and irresolutions presentin mass-market magazine coverage of pop is indicative of underlyinganxieties and uncertainties over what pop art's form and content sogarishly illuminated--contemporary U.S. consumer culture. Beginningwith a brief description of the significant economic and aestheticshifts the U.S. magazine industry underwent in the late fifties andearly sixties and an outline locating mass-market magazines' place inthe mass culture debates, this chapter then proceeds to take apart theactual material representations of pop found in magazines such asTime, Life, Ladies Home Journal, and House and Garden. Through bothtextual and visual analyses I shall demonstrate that fundamentalconcepts of the U.S. socio-cultural structure--progress, individualism,democracy and nationalism, concepts which themselves wereundergoing revision due to contemporary debates on consumerism andmass culture--play an integral role both in explaining the complexmixture of ridicule and admiration characteristic of mass-marketmagazine representations of pop and in accounting for the widespreadinterest this new art form generated.THE CULTURE INDUSTRY, SIXTIES STYLELike most media-related businesses in the 1950s and early 1960s,the growth of the magazine industry was exponential. As high schooleducation, white-collar employment, and increased leisure timebecame the norm for many members of the white middle class, these54individuals began to devote more money and more time to purchasingand reading a wide variety of periodicals.88 As circulation figures rosethe actual propietorship of these periodicals became concentrated inthe hands of a few large publishers.89 Parallelling changes in the radioand television industries, wherein the number of stations grewdramatically while the number of networks actually shrank, 90 editorialcontrol of the major U.S. magazines became the exclusive property ofgroups like the Curtis Publishing Company (Saturday Evening Post,Holiday, Ladies Home Journal) and Henry Luce's Time-Life Inc. (Time,Life, Fortune, Architectural Forum, House and Home, Sports Illustrated).88Although the actual number of magazines did not increasesubstantially from 1955 to 1965 (from 260 to 275 titles) thecirculation of existing magazines did develop steadily over the sameyears. In 1955 one-issue circulation was 166,286,858; by 1965 it hadexpanded to 211,659,541--an increase which cannot be explainedsolely by population gains. The source of these figures is the AuditBureau of Circulations. ABC reports on general and farm magazines(excluding comics) for the first half of each year as compiled by theMagazine Publishers Association (MPA). Roland E. Wolseley, The Changing Magazine: Trends in Readership and Management (New York:Hastings House, 1973) p. 138.89 For more on the consolidation of the U.S. magazine industry in thefirst half of the twentieth century see James Playstead Wood's,Magazines in the United States, 2nd ed. (New York; Ronald Press Co.,1956), p. 326ff.90 ln 1950 there were four television networks and 107 stations with abroadcast revenue of $105.9 million. In 1960 there was one lessnetwork and 423 more stations with a broadcast revenue of $1268.6million. In 1950 there were seven radio networks and 2143 stationswith a broadcast revenue of $443.1 million. By 1960 there were onlyfour radio networks but 3470 stations with a total broadcast revenueof $591.9 million. Statistical Abstract of the United States(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1962), p. 521.55In an effort to keep advertisers--the source of mass-marketmagazine revenue and many of whom were considering making theswitch to television 91 --magazines became increasingly attractivephysically with more pictures, improved reproduction, and the use ofmore generous display. Type faces were modernized, new logo typesreplaced traditional ones, margins disappeared with the increased useof bleed (taking the image or text to the very edge of the page) forcolour and picture pages, and expanded areas of white space wereconsidered eyecatching because they were restful to the overloadedeyes and minds of potential readers. In her work on the visual cultureof the 1950s and 1960s, !ma Ebong describes these changes as amovement towards the magazines becoming literally "televisual"."Layouts," for example, "were bolder, even garish, with lettering forcedto become metaphoric of the complex audio-visual address of color91 Advertisers wanted to reach the largest market possible andtelevision was seen as the key to success in that endeavour. While thecost of advertising on television was high, the guarantee of hugeaudiences made it worth the large financial investment. Working on thecost per page per thousand formula, magazines with high circulationfigures such as Reader's Digest and Life had become almostprohibitively expensive by the late fifties with a black and white pageadvertisement costing $26,500 and $21,775 respectively.Centrespreads, two and four colour pages, and advertising inside thefront and back covers would be even more costly. Consequently, whenadvertisers who wished to reach nationwide audiences had to make thedecision between television and magazines, they invariably put theirmoney where the greater number of potential consumers were--television.56television [and] rapid visual massages were induced by juxtaposingoften wildly contrasting images." 92Although understanding that they could not transfer the aura oftelevision directly to their own media, magazines did try to simulatetelevision's stylistic approach to substance. Articles were shortenedand sharpened to facilitate reading and to balance the quickness ofimpression provided by the accompanying photography and a greatervariety of short features were introduced. In fact, a major part of theappeal that mass-market magazines were attempting to create wasspeed of coverage. 93 In competing with their up-to-the-minute mediasibling, mass-market magazines came to stress timeliness over in-depth analysis. A heavy accent was increasingly placed on the "now"—how to look, buy, know, be, and live in the rapid current ofcontemporary existence. Consuming was the key to success in thisendeavour and promoted as the way of life in most commercial U.S.magazines as poet/critic Randall Jarrell caustically observed in 1959.When one finishes Holiday or Harper's Bazaar or House and Gardenor The New Yorker or High Fidelity or Road and Track or--butmake your own list--buying something, going somewhere seems anecessary completion to the act of reading the magazine. Reader,isn't buying something, or fantasy-buying an important part ofyour and my emotional life? (If you reply, No, I'll think of you92 Ima Ebong, "The New Visual Culture," in Definitive Statements. American Art: 1964-66 (Providence, RI: Brown University, 1986), p.67.93J. P. Wood, p. 331.57with bitter envy as more than merely human; as deeply un-American.) 94The consequence of this overwhelming concern with consumptionwas, according to certain social theorists, a sensationalizing of thenews and arts and a homogenizing of the magazine's contents. Oneexample of such criticism would be Dwight MacDonald's now-famousdescription of Life magazine.The same issue will present a serious exposition of atomic energyfollowed by a disquisition on Rita Hayworth's love life; photos ofstarving children picking garbage in Calcutta and of sleek modelswearing adhesive brasseries; an editorial hailing BertrandRussell's eightieth birthday (A GREAT MIND IS STILL ANNOYINGAND ADORNING OUR AGE) across from a full-page photo of a matronarguing with a baseball umpire (MOM GETS THUMB); nine colorpages of Renoir followed by a picture of a roller-skating horse; acover announcing in the same type two features: A NEW FOREIGNPOLICY, BY JOHN FOSTER DULLES and KERIMA: HER MARATHON KISSIS A MOVIE SENSATION."95The outcome, say these same critics, is a "single, slushy compost," adegrading of the important rather than an elevating of the unimportant.In the case of art, for example, while initially it might seem culturallyefficacious to have nine colour pages of Renoirs, "that roller-skatinghorse comes along, and the final impression is that both Renoir and thehorse are talented." 9694 Randall Jarrell, "A Sad Heart at the Supermarket, " in Norman Jacobs,ed., Culture for the Millions? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), p. 99.95 MacDonald, Masscult and Midcult. p. 13.96 MacDonald, Masscult and Midcult, p. 13.58And MacDonald could confidently assert that that was the finalimpression left on a Life reader because for him, as for most lefttheorists, viewers/readers of mass culture passively absorbed whatthe magazines put before them and what the magazines put before themwas supposedly a kind of cultural pablum in which it was impossible todiscriminate between "authentic" culture and entertainment. In themost extreme version of such a view, modern mass culture is seen asadministered and imposed from above (magazine monopolies would befound here) on masses who are manipulated into believing false needsare their own when in fact all culture is standardized, organized, andadministered for the sole purpose of serving as an instrument of socialcontrol. 97 Exchange value dominates use value as function is replacedby packaging and advertising; art works become commodities andcommodities become aestheticized. 98 An art like pop which playedright into this confusion of values would, following the logic of massculture theorists such as MacDonald, be readily welcomed by thedisseminators of the mass cultural ooze, chief among them mass-market magazines.Which is in fact what happened, argued art critics such as BarbaraRose and Peter Selz. 99 People were drawn to the bright, easily-97 Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment (NewYork: Herder and Herder, 1972), p. 121.98 Huyssen, p. 21. For a further analysis of the aestheticization ofcommodities and the commodification of art see Frederic Jameson,"Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture," Social Text, n. 1 (1979), p.139ff.99 "But worst of all, of course, is the ghastly if unforeseeable ironythat the public really does love [pop]: they look at it, talk about it,enjoy it as they never have abstract painting." Barbara Rose, "Pop in59recognizable, humourous images; nouveau-riche collectors who knewnothing about art could be both unthreatened and avant-garde inpurchasing it; and the media rallied behind it as one of their own andbecause it was entertaining, slightly shocking and a great relief afterthe excesses of abstract expressionism. 10° This line of argument thentypically goes on to list the formal elements of pop which supposedlyaccount for its widespread reproduction in magazines. Technically itsresemblance to commercial art made it perfect for illustration.Similar to advertising, images were reduced to their most basic, sign-like essences. The use of primary colours was attractive, text wasbold and the imagery recognizable. Commodity as art. It was fun, itwas undemanding, it was an art of easy, painless humour that affirmedbourgeois consumeristic values in both form and content. No wonderPerspective," Encounter, v. 25 (August 1965): 59-60. Peter Selz, "PopGoes the Artist," Partisan Review, n. 30 (Summer 1963): 313-316.100Author and keen social observer Tom Wolfe (with tongue firmlyplanted in cheek describes this situation:Pop Art absolutely rejuvenated the New York art scene.It did for the galleries, the collectors, the gallery-goers, the art-minded press, and the artist's incomesabout what the Beatles did for the music business atabout the same time. It was the thaw! It was springagain! The press embraced Pop Art with priapic delight.That goddamned Abstract Expressionism had been sosolemn, so grim . . . 'Shards of interpenetratedsensibility make their way, tentatively, through a not-always compromisable field of cobalt blue--How couldyou write about the freaking stuff? Pop art you couldhave fun with.Tom Wolfe, The Painted Word (New York: Bantam, 1975), p.83.60magazines such as Time and Life were so quick to celebrate it. Animportant part of the machinery that creates art fashion, in choosing torepresent pop art so frequently, asserts Selz, these magazines aresaying forget critical examination and "let us, rather, rejoice in theGreat American Dream." 101 But are the representations of pop art inthese magazines so single-mindedly pro-pop? Pro the "AmericanDream"? Or are there in fact a number of distinctive leitmotifsrunning through the overall composition which preclude a totalizingharmonic incorporation?To return to Life's June 1962 coverage of pop, "Something New IsCooking" for example, pop is here predominantly portrayed as a kind ofgag, or at least misguided rendition of everyday life which some peoplewith alot of money are willing to buy. Photographs such as that of RoyLichtenstein sitting happily underneath his "giant cartoon" images ofspray cans and romance comic heroines (selling for $400 to $1200,remember) lend credence to such a reading. (figure 2) Yet, in the actualtext one also finds descriptions of "assembly lines" of pies and cakeswhich "march" across the canvas and artists who are angry about"radioactive skies and silver wood-grained wallpaper," aspects of popthat are more likely to make one think of contemporary social debateson increased mechanization in the workplace and nuclear testing thaninane jokes. 102 Perhaps by locating recurent themes such as these as101 Selz, "Pop Goes the Artist," 315.102For example, "The Economy: New and Exuberant," Time, v. 81 (May31, 1963): 58, discusses the effects of increased mechanization on theunderskilled and undereducated in the context of a booming economy.There is a plethora of articles on nuclear testing in mass-marketmagazines in the early sixties in light of increased above-groundtesting in the Soviet Union, France's pulling out of NATO, and61elicited by the parameters framing pop art in mass-market magazineswe can discover if pop was more than a catchy advertising jingle for aconsumeristic lifestyle--and if so, what particular tune was beingplayed.PROVOCATIVELY PROSAICMass-market magazines were quick to pick up on the challenge toartistic tradition that pop art offered in large type with headlines likeLife's "You think this is a supermarket? No, hold your hats . . . it's anart gallery," Readers Digest's "Pop Art, Shmop Art," and Ladies HomeJournal's "Can this be art?" 103 In these articles pop's relationship tothe subject matter of daily life was presented as one of greatintimacy, if not deceptive familiarity. In Time's "At Home with Henry,"for instance, the Scull's apartment is described as "so cluttered withart derived from familiar objects that frequently guests pick up anordinary cigarette box and ask who the artist was." 104 Obviously not anuncommon occurrence for in Life's "You Bought It, Now Live With It,"under an image of family friends examining Ritz crackers displayed in ajewel box, the tale is told of how these very crackers appealed to Moe,revelations that U.S. testing in New Mexico posed possible healthhazards. See for example "Allies and the Test Ban," Newsweek. v. 62(August 5, 1963): 19.103 "You think this is a Supermarket?" Life. v. 57, n. 21 (Nov. 20, 1964):138-139; Leo Rosten, "Pop Art, Shmop Art, Leave Me Alone," Reader's Digest, v. 87, n. 524 (Dec. 1965): 174; Emily Genauer, "Can this be Art?"Ladies Home Journal, v. 81 (March 1964): 151.104"At Home With Henry," 40.62the Krauschar's dog, who "polished them off without comment." 105 Thesomewhat disconcerting familiarity of pop's content was locatable notonly in collector's homes, however. In galleries that resembledsupermarkets and in museums where the art consisted of canvases withtelevision sets and towel racks attached to them the divisions betweenart and non-art, high and low, became ever more confusing. 106It was in fact pop's conspicuously vernacular imagery--moviestars, comic strips, convenience foods, suburban homes, brand-nameproducts--which was the first topic of discussion in mass-marketmagazine articles with adjectives like banal, commonplace,supramodern, vulgar, familiar, commercial, ignoble, and Americanemployed to describe it. The underlying theme of all of thesedescriptions, however, was pop's contemporaneity. As Life art criticDorothy Seiberling observed in 1964 regarding Lichtenstein's choice ofsubject matter, "he has magnified, and thus made inescapably visible,the most crassly materialistic and adolescent aspects of modernsociety." 107 For better or worse, pop highlighted the technological andconsumer-oriented aspects of contemporary U.S. existence and popartists were seen to be, in Time's estimation, "in touch with life.N1 08105 "You Bought It, Now Live With It," 58.106 In her Ladies Home Journal article on pop, Emily Genauer's openingsentence alludes to the provocative allusion subject matter of pop."One afternoon, in the Washington Gallery of Modern Art, I sat in frontof a painting for an hour, watching television. It was an astonishingexperience." Genauer, 151. The work she goes on to descibe is TomWesselmann's Still Life with Live TV, (1963).1076 Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" 83.108 "They Paint, You Recognize," 47.63It's not a statement of what the world could be, or will be, or was, orshould have been,'" claims collector Robert Scull in a 1964 Timearticle,It is a statement of what is, an art that will show who and whatwe really are and what we really thought long after we are allgone, because it holds up in one bright, luminous and concentratedthing . . . all the dispersed elements that go to make up ourlives. 109In looking simply at the Scull's collection as represented in mass-market magazines, the dispersed elements that pop held up included,among other things, suburban landscapes, plaster people, flags, tires,stoves, cars, and pop bottles. 110 Besides traditionally being consideredkitsch by the art world, such subject matter made up the visualenvironment and probably much of the aesthetic experience for a largeproportion of the U.S. population in the 1950s and 1960s. 111 In directcontrast to the interior monologues of abstract expressionism, pop art109 "At Home with Henry," 45.110This list of pop subject matter was garnered from works in theScull's collection such as Rosenquist's Silver Skies(1962) and Early inthe Morning,(1962) and Tom Wesselmann's Great American Nude Number30(1962) as represented in "Can this be art?" 151-155.111 Alan Solomon also makes this point in declaring pop the appropriateaesthetic for the sixties in his, "The New Art," Art International v. 7, n.7 (Sept. 25, 1963): 37-41. While Solomon presents an interesting casefor pop's challenge to aesthetic norms in a "post-Freudian" world, hisreading of the social impact of pop's imagery radically differs from myown. See especially his pp. 37-38.64dealt in the more extroverted and impersonal subject matterassociated with the mass media and contemporary daily life.And yet, while pop's subject matter was impersonal in that it wasoften mass-produced and without history, by the sixties the productsof mass technology had come to be thought of as "American" as it wasin the U.S. that most of these goods were both produced and consumed.For example, in a work such as James Rosenquist's The Lines WereEtched Deeply on Her Face (1961) one is confronted by parts of atypewriter keyboard, a barbequed hot-dog, a jean-clad dancing pair ofthighs, a woman's face, and a disc-shaped object. (figure 5) Genericenough "western" imagery today perhaps, but in the early sixtiesbarbeques, secretarial pools, rock and roll, and billboard advertising allsignalled contemporary "America."As Robert Scull alluded to, however, it was not just what was heldup by pop art but how it was held up that was also significant--"onebright, luminous and concentrated thingTM. Renouncing most of theconventions by which fine art had been made previously, pop paintingswere produced using commercial techniques and industrial media whichresulted in imagery consisting largely of bright colours, simplifiedforms, and intense, shallow space. These formal characteristics werethemselves often viewed as signifiers of contemporaneity, and thus,the United States. For example, in discussing the magnification ofobjects in James Rosenquist's billboard-like imagery in the April 15,1963 issue of Vogue, Aline B. Saarinen draws a direct connectionbetween the use of commercial techniques and the visual experiencesof contemporary U.S. life.65As we speed in cars and planes, as we are bombarded with movieand television close-ups, as we rifle through magazines, we areconfronted everywhere with the enlarged detail. For all of usthe fragmentary view is the usual twentieth-centuryexperience. 112In art magazines, however, critics like Michael Fried and BarbaraRose did not see much value in the kind of links between formalproperties and daily existence that Saarinen found provocative. 113Although both of these critics acknowledged that pop art had certainformal values, they also felt pop's form was irredeemably overwhelmedby its content and thus predicted that the present interest in pop wouldnot outlast its initial period of production and flurry of magazinecoverage. 114 In their minds, pop was too dependent on current societalmyths and would, for that reason, be unintelligible or dated tosubsequent generations of viewers. Thus, while Fried might register"an advance protest against the advent of a generation that will not beas moved by Warhol's beautiful, vulgar, heart-breaking icons of Marilyn112Aline B. Saarinen, "Explosion of Pop Art," Vogue. v. 141, n. 8 (April15, 1963): 136.113See, for example, Barbara Rose, "Dada Then and Now," ArtInternational v. 7, n. 1 (Jan. 25, 1963): 22-28 and Michael Fried, "NewYork Letter," Art International v. 6, n. 10 (Dec. 20, 1962): 57. Thelatter is a review of the first Warhol show held at the Stable Gallery.Although Rose and Fried had numerous aesthetic differences it isinteresting that they shared, as did many established art critics, aninitial antagonism to pop that bordered on the obsessive.114 "I am not at all sure that even the best of Warhol's work can muchoutlast the journalism on which it is forced to depend," declared Friedin Art International in 1962. 57.66Monroe as I am", it was with a clear and rational logic that he predictedpop's passing. 115The form of pop art--its colour, shape, size, and flatness--w a s discussed in mass-market magazines from the outset, however, albeitin relation to commercial art rather than formalist categories. 116While the commercial art backgrounds of many of the artists--Warholand Rosenquist especially 117 --were included in most of the initial116Fried, 57. Fried made a similar argument in discussing a 1963Lichtenstein show at the Castelli Gallery. "The kind of criticism that Iwould level against Lichtenstein is not that his paintings are ugly orthat their content is vulgar: it is, rather, that they are trivial . . . . Thisis not to say that Lichtenstein fails to give pleasure: on the contrary,he is one of the most amusing artists working today: but I remainunconvinced that he is something more." Michael Fried, "New YorkLetter," Art International v. 7, n. 9 (Dec. 5, 1963): 66.116A comparison/contrast of art magazine and mass-market magazinecoverage of pop art in the years 1962-65 would make an illuminatingstudy, but unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this investigation.As a quick aside, however, it is interesting to note that when pop'sformal properties and the techniques used to represent them werediscussed in fine art magazines pre-1965 it was also in reference tocommercial art yet almost always in a deprecating manner. See forexample, "The New Interior Decorators," Art in America, v. 53, n. 3(June 1965): 52-61. From 1965 on, pop gains credibility in the artworld per se, its form now discussed in terms of that most revered offormalist characteristics--flatness.^See, for example, RobertRosenblum, "Pop Art and Non-Pop Art," Art and Literature  5 (Summer1965): 80-93.117 See, for example, "Something New Is Cooking," 117. Warholcontinued to work as a commercial artist until as late as 1964. Hiscareer as a free-lance commercial artist was a successful one, earninghim several major design awards and over $65,000 a year (in 1964dollars). Brian Wallis, "Absolute Warhol," Art in America, v. 7, n. 3(March 1989): 27. As a billboard painter and card-carrying unionmember, Rosenquist's commercial art career did not quite carry thecache of designer Warhol's. Such humble beginnings did not prevent himfrom being one of the most financially successful pop artists, however.67magazine coverage of pop, it was the application of commercialmethods to the production of high art which technically distinguishedpop artists from the most successful U.S. artists to date, the abstractexpressionists, and which was a focal point of much magazinediscussion.In fact, in Life's, "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?," Lichtenstein'sartistic methods are the raison d'etre of the article. 118 With the helpof step by step illustrations and text the reader discovers thatLichtenstein starts with scenes taken from comic books, which hesketches, then machine-projects to the size he wants and traces ontohis canvas. (figure 6) From there he "simulates" photoengravers dotswith a metal screen and paint roller, undotted parts of the picturebeing masked with paper. He completes the image by painting in theletters and black outlines. The article then observes that Lichtensteinoften sets up a series of related paintings by means of a productionline method--doing all the sketching, then dotting, then painting on aFor a thought-provoking argument on art world discomfort withRosenquist's imagery and technique due to class bias see JudithGoldman, "A Lot to Like," in James Rosenquist: The Early Pictures (NewYork: Rizzoli, 1992): 10-11.118 "Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" Life, v. 56, n. 5 (Jan. 31, 1964):79-83. A very interesting comparison on the issue of "creativity" or"genius" could be made between the representation of Lichtenstein'sworking method in this article and that of Jackson Pollock in "Is He theGreatest Living Painter in the United States?" also in Life, v. 28 (Aug.3, 1949): 42-47, especially in light of Pollock's rise to preminence(and notoriety) in the mainstream press due to his drip technique. Seealso, "Chaos, damn it," Time, v. 56 (Nov. 20, 1950): 70-71.68number of works simultaneously--thereby saving both time andeffort. 1 1 9Noting the questionable nature of Lichtenstein's practice in itssubtitle, "Life visits a controversial pioneer of pop art," the articleends with a section of text called "The artist has some answers." Ifthe phototext section's emphasis could be described as focusing onLichtenstein's actual working method, this latter section of text isdevoted to the ideas behind such a method. In response to the threequestions most asked of him--why does he choose subject matter thatis so banal, does he actually transform his source material, and is itart--Lichtenstein sidesteps straightforward answers, provokingreaders/viewers into thinking about what his images portray. "'I takea cliche and try to organize its forms to make it monumental . . . Thedifference is often not great, but it is crucial.'" "'The closer my workis to the original, the more threatening the content. ,,,120 DorothySeiberling, author of the article, believes a large part of the power ofLichtenstein's work is due to his use of commercial illustrationtechniques. By means of their impersonality and associations withmechanical mass production--"eliminating not only all painterlyhandiwork but [also] originality and uniqueness"--he leaves the viewer119 Both the worker versus artist and easy versus skilled dichotomiespresent in Life's representation of Lichtenstein's working method findtheir counterparts in an advertisement for wood finish which sharesthe last page of the article. Individuals in the advertisement aredepicted applying the finish with a roller while the copy proclaims thatit is so easy to learn that "anyone," not just professionals, can do it.120"Is He the Worst Artist In the U.S.?" 83.69wondering if his works are parodies, ironic gestures, or avant-gardeart. 121Certainly a dilemma for which there are no easy solutions in a worldwherein impersonality, unoriginality, sameness, and mass-productioncould easily call up images of a technologically-dominated, industry-regulated, environment. In taking as their subject matter the "tawdry"products of mass culture, pop artists had already threatened theirstatus as "serious" artists. 122 To then employ the techniques of themass media fully put into question the nature of their undertaking.Tension which arises from the similarity of Lichtenstein's and otherpop artist's working methods to physical, mechanical productionfrequently underlies the magazines' presentation of pop. In aSeptember 1963 Life article celebrating the growing art market, forexample, Wesselman's four by five foot Still life No. 16 is headed bythe title "Billboard Art for the Home." (figure 7) The accompanying textmakes direct reference to both the technique and subject matter of theimage when it describes potential purchasers as presumably not thesame "people who object to this sort of thing when it obscures theview along a highway." 123 Indeed, one of the necessary results ofcontemporary billboard advertising was the obstruction of vistas towhich this description refers. And that which was being advertised--7-up, Libby's fruit cocktail, plastic roses, cigarillos--was made in121 "Is He the Worst Artist In the U.S?" 83.122The description of mass culture's products as tawdry comes fromthe 1952 Partisan Review symposium on the state of Americanculture,"Our Country and Our Culture". See Chapter One, n. 55.123 "Sold Out Art," Life v. 55, n. 12 (Sept. 20, 1963): 128.70factories increasingly dotting the countryside. Goods such as thosefound on billboards and in suburban kitchen cupboards were mass-produced by veritable fleets of human beings who in their daily labour,if they were fortunate enough to have a job, had less and lessconnection with the final product.While industrial progress obviously had advantages, it alsocontained a number of drawbacks which were becoming more and moreobvious by the early sixties. Fifteen years after the second world war,increased automation had led not only to a predicted and valuedincrease in production but also to near-recessionary unemploymentrates. Even while exultating over the booming economy, weeklynewsmagazines such as Newsweek and Time could not ignore the humancost of certain technological advances. "Automated elevators,automated stock-room machinery, automated steel mills and countlessother devices are turning the underskilled and the undereducated intounemployables". 124 Multiplying unemployment in that part of thepopulation which had little chance of ever gaining the necessary skillsto find new jobs meant rising levels of poverty. In 1960, between 40and 50 million U.S. citizens--one-third of the population--were livingbelow the poverty line while close to the same number was living insubstandard dwellings--3 million in shacks, hovels, and tenements; 8.3million in deteriorating housing; and 4.3 million in homes lacking124"The Economy: New and Exuberant," 58. For more on this issue seeGeorge Lipsitz, Class and Culture in Cold War America  (New York:Praeger, 1981) and Michael Harrington, The Other America (New York:MacMillan Co., 1962), pp. 12ff.71essential plumbing facilities. 125 Technology had not provided betterlives for these people; in fact, it had worsened their chances for betterlives. Apparently "progress," that key pillar of the U.S. socio-culturalstructure, was not without its debilitative side effects.Both pop's techniques and subject matter as represented in mass-market magazines were representative of a "progressive" post-WWIIUnited States-- industrialized, advanced, automated. 126 U.S.industrialism had begun to be looked on favourably post WWII because,according to U.S. accounts at least, it was predominantly due to themilitary might of the United States, "the arsenal of democracy," thatfreedom had been preserved. 127 Postwar experience with aid programsbolstered such reasoning by seeming to indicate that politicaldemocracy was difficult to establish and preserve unless certainminimum standards of affluence could be maintained for a significantproportion of the population. Consequently, industrialism, since it wasthe most efficient producer of wealth in the modern world, was no125 Harrington, p. 1 and p. 139. Figures are derived from the 1960census.126 In the High and Low catalogue Varnedoe and Gopnik make much ofthe nostalgia element of pop, that is, that pop artists utilizedadvertising for consumer products of the forties and fifties, ratherthan the sixties, for their work. Varnedoe and Gopnik, pp. 335-347.While I do not deny this element in early pop art, it is not as prevalentas the High and Low authors make it out to be, and certainly not inevidence in the art works shown in mass-market magazines.127Thomas L. Hartshorne, The Distorted Image: Changing Conceptionsof the American Character Since Turner (Cleveland: Cleveland StateUniversity, 1968), p. 192.72longer regarded as the enemy of democracy, but as its strongestbastion. 128The success of the cultural explosion discussed earlier was partly aresult of this changed attitude to industry. Culture became an intrinsicelement of consumer society, a commodity among other mass-producedcommodities. Yet with a difference, for culture as image wasomnipresent. 129 It saturated society with signs and messages in theform of television, radio, film, newspapers, magazines, andbillboards. 130 It secured a familiar and acceptable place for technologyin the realm of the everyday visual field. And it was a sign of progress.As represented in mass-market magazines pop took an active part inthis signification inasmuch as it utilized industry-related methods ofproduction and re-presented the "products" of U.S. industry--popbottles, factory-farm turkeys, typewriters, presidents, movie stars--as they were displayed on television and billboards and shown innewspapers and magazines. When looking at pop art viewers of mass-market magazines saw not just any products but those which had arecognized place in their contemporary, technologically-advanced,everyday life.But it was pop art's particular blend of form and content thatrendered the imagery so compelling visually. In works such asLichtenstein's We Rose Up Slowly (1964) and Warhol's One Hundred128 Hartshorne, p. 192.129Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle (Detroit: Black and Red,1983), paragraphs 35-53.130 Frederic Jameson, "Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture," SocialText, n. 1 (1979), p. 139.73Campbell Soup Cans (1962), benday screen printing and silkscreenreproduction, respectively, produce a much more provocative imagethan the same content presented in a more traditional manner couldhope to offer. (figures 8 and 9) Playing with mass media connotationsin terms of both subject matter--comic books and supermarketshelves--and technique, these works were, in the words of HenryGeldzahler, assistant curator of American Painting and Sculpture at theMetropolitan Museum of Art, "immediately contemporary." 131As alluded to earlier, a crucial aspect of this contemporaneity wasits "Americaness." In a 1965 House and Garden discussion of TomWesselmann's Bathroom Collage Number 1 (1963), for example, Mrs.Leon Kraushar (we never learn her first name) makes just such aconnection. "'I love that painting because it shows a woman looking theway women look here, today, in America, not fat and old-fashioned likeRenoir's nudes. She is truly contemporary.IN 132 The Kraushar's newhome, which is the focus of the House and Garden article, is depictednot only with pop on its walls and installed in its rooms, but ascontaining the latest models of colour television, bathroom fixtures,living room furniture, and kitchen appliances. The geometric lines,precise order, and decorative colour all bespeak "tasteful moderndesign". Mr. Kraushar accentuates this impression by describing his131 Geldzahler, as reported in the transcripts of a symposium held atthe Museum of Modern Art in December 1962 and moderated by MOMAcurator of painting and sculpture, Peter Selz. "A Symposium on PopArt," Arts Magazine v. 37, n. 7(April 1963): 37.132du Plessix Gray, 162.74tastes as '"not modern, but supramodern.'" 133 Be it by means of U.S.women's bodies or U.S. consumer goods, an equation thus comes to bemade between three supposedly distinct characteristics:contemporaneity, "Americaness", and technological progress."Supermarket food is so American," remarked Calvin Tomkins in aLife article entitled "Art or not, it's food for thought" which was partof the "American Supermarket" exhibit coverage. 134 Tomkins couldconfidently state this and effortlessly have heads nodding in agreementwith him because there was a general recognition that supermarketsand the food in them, as they existed in the United States in the 1950sand 1960s, had no comparison anywhere else in the world. And thereason they had no comparison was because the U.S. technologicalknow-how which produced the mass quantities of canned meats, frozenvegetables, and sugar-coated cereals which filled their lengthy aisles,bulging freezers, and specials bins were not to be equalled. So what "Ifthe frozen-in-flavor of wax beans sometimes turns out to be theflavour of wax; this is all part of the world's highest standard ofliving." 135 "America" still meant progress because, for much of thetwentieth century, the U.S. visibly led the industrialized world in theareas of technological research and development which gave rise to133du Plessix Gray, 158.134 "You think this is a Supermarket?" 143.135"You Think This is a Supermarket?" 143. Calvin Tomkins goes on inthe article to describe Warhol's paintings of Campbell Soup cans as thearchetypal twentieth-century nightmare. "Up and down narrow aislesbetween high walls of brand-name uniformity, with the lights glaringdown and the canned music boring in, as we search desperately for onecan of Cream of Mushroom where every label reads Tomato."75major societal changes. Since the material results of such changeswere a large part of daily U.S. life, progress, contemporaneity, and"Americaness" became readily and rapidly conflated.Mass-market magazine coverage of pop artist Robert Rauschenberg'swin at the 1964 Venice Biennale had also blurred distinctions betweenthe concepts of progress, contemporaneity, and U.S. nationalism. 136Controversy over the win and cultural differences between Europe andthe U.S. were typically the hook set to draw readers into an article thatwould then go on to discuss and illustrate Rauschenberg's works,career, and philosophy. Cited as the "founder" of pop art in Life's "ArtPops In," Rauschenberg is described as giving "us a picture of hisAmerica, which he loves." 137 With works such as Monogram--"a stuffedangora goat standing inside an auto tire"--and techniques likesilkscreening which allow him to "reproduce" images any size he likes,Life writer Rosalind Constable believes Rauschenberg to be saying"Take another look at 'ugly' America . . . there is more beauty in it thenmeets your eye." 138In 1964 the phrase "ugly America" aided in calling up William J.Lederer and Eugene Burdick's best-selling book of five-years earlier,The Ugly American. 139 Ostensibly a fictionalized account of U.S.136 For a detailed analysis of Rauschenberg's win and the controversyaround it see, Laurie Monahan, The New Frontier Goes to Venice (University of British Columbia, unpublished Master's thesis, 1985).137 "Art Pops In," Life. v. 57, n.2 (July 10, 1964): 68.138 "Art Pops In," 68.139William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, The Ugly American (NewYork: W.W. Norton and Company, 1958).76foreign service in Asia, the book's main thesis was that the U.S. waslosing Asia to communism because U.S. commodities, not U.S.values/ethics/ideas, were being promoted. The book received bothfame and notoriety for its delineation of the excesses and abuses ofrepresentatives of the U.S. government abroad and played a significantrole in ongoing questioning of U.S. foreign policy in the late fifties andearly sixties. In her drawing on this association, Constable subtlyattempts to counter recent questioning over the direction U.S. culturehad taken of late and reaffirms its good and "beauty."Rock and roll, radios, pop bottles, billboards, news photographs--itis all of these elemets of daily life that Rauschenberg endows withmagical properties, argues Constable. For her, Rauschenberg is "a kindof Noah, sheperding into his ark everything he thinks worth salvaging incontemporary America." 140 In so doing, he is not making a socialcomment, however. Rather, his juxtapositions are aestheticstatements, holding together "marvelously" and possessing an"extraordinary elegance." In putting items from everyday life in hisworks, asserts Constable, Rauschenberg invites us to look at themagain. Underlying this aesthetic assertion, however, Constable is alsosuggesting that viewers realize how significant these items are aspart of a U.S. identity.The association of Rauschenberg's work with more than aestheticsand, in fact, a U.S. way of life, was a point frequently made in reportson the Biennale. 141 U.S. writers repeatedly countered the scorn of140"Art Pops In," 68.141 See Monahan for more on Biennale coverage.77European critics by claiming jealousy of the U.S.'s high standard ofliving as the fuel that fired descriptions of Rauschenberg's work as"grotesque pieces of junk and cans." 142 In the U.S. coverageRauschenberg is pictured as a lanky Texan who made it (a quarter pagephoto of the smiling winner adorns the opening page of Life's "Art PopsIn" article, for example). His creativity and wittiness in using itemsof contemporary existence to make aesthetic statements is cited againand again as taking the air out of stuffy, elitist (read European) arttraditions. Through his incorporation of the rectangular compositionsof cubism and drips and swoops of abstract expressionism, however,Rauschenberg still remains within certain artistic conventions.Not so with the pop artists predominantly pictured on the pages ofmass-market magazines between 1962-65. Wesselmann's two-dimensional nudes sprawled across suburban landscapes were as farfrom Renoir's frolicking nymphs as Rosenquist's huge canvases coveredwith typewriters, automobiles, and assorted body parts were fromDavid's history paintings. In technique as well one could still argue forRauschenberg's hand playing some role in creating the splashes, blurrededges, and rough textures characteristic of his work. The flatness,uniformity, and precision of Lichtenstein, Rosenquist, Wesselmann, andWarhol's work consistently resisted such interpretations, however. 143142 "Art Pops In," 65.143Other pop artists included in the 1964 Venice Biennale were JasperJohns, Claes Oldenberg, and Jim Dine. In contrast to the artistsconsistently represented in mass-market magazines, these artists,albeit to varying degress, all fulfill concurrent constructions ofcreativity more adaquately.78Because pop artists are viewed as operating via their brain andhands rather than their mind and passion they do not comply with themystique of the tortured artist fervently creating, be it in front of aneasel or on top of raw canvas laid on the floor. Andy Warhol's hiring of"assistants" to produce silkscreened work at his Factory was theepitome of this dichotomy of production and creation. Even in producinga commissioned portrait of Ethel Scull, Warhol did not work from hisown photography (or any other person's for that matter) as the transferfor the silkscreen. As Scull herself recounted in a 1964 Ladies HomeJournal article, Warhol took her to some automatic snapshot machinesin Times Square and kept two booths going for over an hour. 144 Fromthe more than 300 shots Warhol then selected 35 which were enlarged,silkscreened and inked to produce Ethel Scull 35 Times (1963). Otherthan the choice of machine-made photographs (and one cannot be surehow that was accomplished as Warhol was notorious for his haphazardselection style which at times included having others do his choosingfor him) the entire process was mechanical and could have been done byanyone, not necessarily an Artist.In her telling of the story Ethel Scull's priviledges Warhol as artist,however; only an artist would be so crazy, so creative, as to think upand then do such a thing. It was the novelty of the idea that mattered(Scull had expected to be taken to "Avedon or somebody like that" whenWarhol told her he had made a date with a photographer). The very144Genauer, 154. This anecdote was recounted in numerous mass-market magazine articles on pop, for example "At Home with Henry" and"You Bought It, Now Live With It." Warhol would repeat this portraittechnique numerous times over the next few years, including for acover of Time. v. 85, n. 5 (Jan. 29, 1965).79unconventionality of method, materials, and final product bespoke notonly uniqueness, in its own fashion, but also contemporaneity. In aworld where "new and improved" were qualities held in high regard, theartist who produced such work would be sure to achieve a certainamount of social recognition and accompanying artistic status.Despite Scull's assertion, however, how far Warhol, and by proxy,the rest of the pop artists, were in fact from the traditional idea of thecreative artist was a staple of much magazine coverage and a pointironically made in the May 15, 1964 issue of Time. In a brief articleentitled "Boxing Match," a Time reporter recounts how Warhol, an artist"who won fame painting picture's of Campbell's Soup cans," had acarpenter make 120 Brillo-size boxes and ordered a silkscreen stencilof the Brillo design. Warhol and his assistants then stencilled thedesign on all the boxes for a show at Manhattan's Stable Gallery wherethey sold for $300 each. In the paragraph immediatedly folowing thisstatement the article introduces James Harvey, an artist who regularlyshows his "muscular" abstract works at the Graham Gallery yet whostill "labors as a commercial artist" in order to make ends meet. Thesignificant connection between the two artists is made (as is thearticle's punchline) when the reader is acquainted with Harvey's keeninterest in keeping up with the newest in art production and hisvisiting of the latest Warhol exhibit. "What he saw made him chokeback an impulse to start a paternity suit. For it was Harvey who a fewyears ago designed the original Brillo box." 145The language used to describe Warhol's course of action--havingsomeone else make the boxes, ordering a stencil--versus Harvey's--145 "Boxing Match," Time. v. 83, n. 20 (May 15, 1964): 56.80"drawing his inspiration from religion and landscapes rather thansupermarketsTM, producing "muscular" works--is loaded. So too are theimages which accompany the piece--Warhol trapped or possibly lurkingbehind tall stacks of Brillo boxes, Harvey, in a larger photograph,kneeling in an almost reverential posture before a huge abstract canvaswhich appears to be a male figure holding his arms exuberantly wide-open. The effect one is left with is of Harvey, the creative individual,as having been unfairly treated (precisely by whom is unclear althoughart world tastemakers are implied) while Warhol, who comes across aspart-slick shyster and part-machine, gains art world fame.The issue of fame is an important one in discussions of the changingface of the art world in the sixties. Though initially used ironically inboth art magazine and non-art publications' coverage of pop, as thesixties progressed the title "the New American Dreamers" seemed moreand more appropriate as a description of pop artists and not only interms of their choice of subject matter but also in regards to theirsocial positions as artists. According to a 1962 Life article, eachartist developed independently, oblivious of the others' ideas andworks. 146 It was the art critics, gallery owners and media who quicklyformed "pop" artists into a movement. 147 Indeed, one of the results ofthe mass media's increasing coverage of art was to establish readily-146"Something New Is Cooking," 115.147 In a 1965 Esquire article Leo Castelli acknowledges that he did nottake on all the pop artists that came to him but encouraged othergalleries to show them in order to create the sense of a movement andto build up the enthusiasm of collectors, museums, and the press.Elkoff, 112.81identifiable names, to manufacture art world celebrities. 148 Such ashift in the conditions of reception led to a corresponding shift in theartist's production of their own self-image. As Irving Sandler hasrecently observed, "responding to their new notoriety and with the newopportunities to achieve wealth, celebrity, and tastemaking power,avant-garde artists of the sixties began to act more like successful'professionals' than 'bohemians', more like doctors and lawyers." 149Unlike the artists of generations past, pop artists did not profess toembrace poverty and alienation. They actually seemed to thrive on thesuccess the elaborate machinery of dealers, critics, museums,magazines, and collectors kept producing. And their works sold forhigher and higher amounts. Prices that established abstractexpressionist artists had only begun to garner by the late fifties, popartists were making within two years of their first showing. As notedin Time's "Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," "Wesselmann can sell acollage for $2,500; a Claes Oldenburg Floorburger is priced at $2,000;and James Rosenquist can fetch as much as $7,500 for a painting." 150Like the growing ranks of white collar employees, pop artists were148Just as it was at the forefront of what Time described as a second"Renaissance" economically, the U.S. was also playing a Renaissance-like role in altering the social status of artists. "A SecondRenaissance," Time. v. 80 (July 13, 1962): 34. For more information onthe interdependence of the media and its new stars see Anthony Haden-Guest, "The Celebrity Syndrome,"  New York/World Journal Tribune, 26March 1967, p. 28.149 lrving Sandler, American Art of the Sixties (New York: Harper andRow, 1988), p. 95.150"Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," 66.82"getting ahead" faster and more visibly than even their most recentpredecessors.This concept of "getting ahead" was a pronounced part of U.S. life bythe early sixties and intimately connected to a thriving consumerideology and significant shifts in the makeup of the employment sector.Indeed, by the late 1950s, the United States' economy was basically a"service economy" with most employees engaged in professionalcapacities or in distributive or promotional occupations. The number ofsales clerks, office workers, and advertising personnel was on the risewhile the number of individuals engaged in labour was in sharpdecline. 151 The widespread implementation of automation, the mergerof small businesses into large corporations, and increased educationalopportunities all played a role in this transmutation of the employmentsector from predominantly blue collar to overwhelmingly white collar.Due to this socio-economic upheaval many traditional signifiers ofclass differences could no longer be trusted. Such a situation wascertainly enviable in many respects both on the macro and on the micropolitical levels. Yet it also left people anxiously uncertain of theirplace in the new and rapidly-changing order of things. As the centralfigure of Saul Bellow's 1959 bestseller novel, Henderson the Rain King. observed, "'Nobody truly occupies a station in life anymore. There aredisplaced persons everywhere.'" 152 Through discriminating151 Statistically, in the ten-year period from 1947 to 1957, the numberof factory operatives fell four percent, the amount of clerical workersgrew 23 percent, and the salaried middle class expanded by 61 percent.Statistical Abstract of the United States  (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureauof the Census, 1962), pp. 457-58.152 Saul Bellow, Henderson the Rain King (New York: Viking, 1958).83consumption, however, one could at least purchase some peace of mindby making a downpayment on a place in the new social order. 153In addition to fostering a sense of identity, consuming also played asignificant role as proof of one's freedom of choice and thus was anational vocation. As an economist once put it, "a citizen casts a voteevery time he [sic] makes a purchase," 154 and in 1963, Time noted withapproval, U.S. consumers were marching to the polls in record numbers.Described as "noble,""free-spending,""a hero," or "life-enriched," thecontemporary consumer was the focus of much public interest anddiscussion as she/he was viewed as making the mythic American Dreammore tangible by buying a colour or second television set, going out fordinner and a play, or redecorating the family home. 155Increased consumer spending was also the guarantee of a healthyeconomy which in turn was an important selling point for thedemocratic-capitalist way of life. Certainly for that section of U.S.society which had recently experienced unprecedented material andcultural growth, consumer culture was an unqualified success. In153 "Today the currency into which all values tend to be translated isno longer money but appraisal by the peer-group. And this value, muchmore patently than money, is subject to booms and busts on manifestsocio-psychological grounds . . . . The appraisal of the peer-group isalways stated, in the final analysis, in terms of a consumptionpreference." David Reisman, "The Talk of the Town: The Socializationof Consumption Preferences," in Kenneth S, Lynn, ed., The American Society (New York: George Braziller, 1963), p. 232.154 "The Free-Spending Consumer," Time, v. 82, (August 23, 1963): 61.155 "The Noble Consumer," Time, v. 81 (Feb. 22, 1963): 67; "The Free-Spending Consumer," 61; "The Economy: New and Exuberant," 56; "TheLife-Enriched Consumer," 55.84furnishing the latest of material products at affordable prices, itfostered a sense of progress. In allowing for both the act of choosingfrom amongst a huge variety of consumer goods and the resultingdisplay of purchases made, it gave one the chance to express one'sindividualism. And inasmuch as it appeared to be a nationwidephenomenon, it was both democratic and patriotic. In the context of anongoing cold war this was not a contribution to be neglected.And politicians did not in fact let consumption'sindividualistic/nationalistic significance slip, but rather, fastened onto it. As Elaine Tyler May has observed in a recent study, in "one of themost noted verbal sparring matches of the century," then Vice-President Richard M. Nixon returned time and again to the issue ofchoice in his effort to outdo Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in thehistoric battle of opposing ideologies which came to be known as the"kitchen debate."To us, diversity, the right to choose, . . . is the most importantthing. We don't have one decision made at the top by onegovernment official. . . . We have many different manufacturersand many different kinds of washing machines so that thehousewives have a choice. . . .Would it not be better to compete inthe relative merits of washing machines than in the strength ofrockets? 156156 Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1988) pp. 16 and 17, respectively.Ehrenreich is another recent historian who locates affluence as the"ultimate rebuttal to the Soviets" in the context of the kitchen debate.Barbara Ehrenreich, Fear of Falling  (New York: Pantheon, 1989), p. 33.85While in emphasizing choice Nixon no doubt wanted to favourablycontrast what was viewed as the strengths of the U.S. system of freeenterprise and individualism against the constraints of communism, hisfocus on consumer choice is telling. By 1959, in a country wherein themonopoly sector had completed the translation of economic wealth intopolitical power157 and most governmental decisions were made by anexpert elite, 158 the act of consuming was in fact one of the few actionsleft to individuals through which they could exercise their choice andsee concrete results. In government speeches, addresses, and reports,the freedom to consume became synonymous with freedom, period,thereby promoting a kind of pseudo-individual state by means of abargain-basement veneer of democracy. 159157 Lipsitz, pp. 7-8.158At a press conference in 1962 John F. Kennedy reinforced thisconcept of government by experts as appropriate to the times. "'Thefact of the matter is that most of the problems . . . that we face aretechnical problems. They are very sophisticated judgements, which donot lend themselves to the great sort of passionate movements whichhave stirred this country so often in the past. [They] deal withquestions which are now beyond the comprehension of most men [sic] . ..'"^Quoted in Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissim (New York:W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1978), p. 77.159 "As the democratic model grows ever less relevant to the locationof political power, its forms of expression change, moving away froman emphasis on the politics of issues, towards the politics of style, asa means of further disgusing its loss of political power." RichardMaltby, Harmless Entertainment: Hollywood and the Ideology ofConsensus  (Metuchen, N.J. : Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1983), p. 233.Politicians themselves recognized the importance of style over issuesin the newly-dawned media age. For instance, John F. Kennedy's electioncampaign was an example par excellence of politician as commodity.Kennedy markedly improved in the polls after four television debateswith Nixon, an occurence which has since been attributed not to86Although initially distancing itself from the consumer boosting ofthe Eisenhower administration through emphasizing the seriousness ofthe cold war and the need for engagement, the Kennedy team was quickto learn that the New Frontier would require washing machines as wellas rockets if it was to "get America moving again". 160 Afterintroductory restraint and notable confrontations with big business--verbally and legislatively attacking the price-hiking magnates of thesteel industry in 1962 being the apogee--President John F. Kennedychanged his approach and framed economic policies which would createa stable environment for corporate prosperity and expansion. 161 ThisKennedy's superior debating skills but to the poor choice on Nixon's partof wearing a suit whose colour of grey blended in so well with thetelevision studio's walls. "'The Processed Politician has finallyarrived," observed veteran news reporter Eric Sevareid. Ronald J.Oakely, God's Country: America in the Fifties (New York: DembnerBooks, 1986), p. 416. For more on Kennedy's close and knowledgeablerelationship with the mass media see, Joseph P. Berry, John F. Kennedyand the Media: The First Television President  (Lanham, N.J.: UniversityPress of America, 1987).160William E. Leuchtenburg, The Troubled Feast  (Boston: Little, Brown,and Co., 1983), p. 117. This oppostion to the values of consumersociety made manifest under the auspices of the Eisenhowergovernment is evident in many of John K. Kennedy's early speeches.Throughout the 1960 election campaign, for example, Kennedycontinually underlined the distinction between public interest andprivate comfort, stressing the "softness" of the Eisenhowseradministration -- a softness that was costing the U.S. its rightfulplace in world power politics. In his acceptance speech at Los Angeleshe clearly indicated that such hedonistic wallowing in the excesses ofconsumerism would not be on the agenda of the New Frontier. The NewFrontier, said Kennedy, "sums up, not what I intend to offer theAmerican people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to theirpride, not their pocketbook." Leuchtenburg, p. 130.161 For popular acknowledgement of Kennedy's attitude change see "TheEconomy: New and Exuberant," 57. For a critical and historical analysis87shift in attitude signalled to the business community Kennedy'sgrowing awareness that if the U.S. was to be a successful contender inthe cold war a strong national economy was vital and that, in the earlysixties, the source of such strength was the profits derived fromconsumer spending. 162By the early sixties one of the areas in which consumer spending hadincreased dramatically was in purchases of art. Indeed, the role of popart as a supermarket art in a super art market was a consistently topicof interest in mass-market magazine articles both on pop and the artmarket in general. "SOLD OUT ART," "More Buyers Than Ever Sail Into ABroadening Market," claimed Life magazine in its September 1963overview of the U.S. art market. While art's popularity embraced theproducts of all schools it was "'pop' art, the sometimes witty, oftendefiant reproduction of humdrum gadgets of daily life," however, thatwas "the newest best-seller." 163 This point is brought home not only bythe introductory text but also by pop's visual domination of the layout.of the Kennedy administration's actions regarding the businesscommunity, both within the legislature and out, see Allen J. Matusow,The Unraveling of America (New York: Harper and Row, 1984).162 Not to be disregarded when examining the Kennedy government'schanging position on the value of consumption is the fact that the U.S.populace did not seem especially receptive to policies of restraint andadmonitions regarding their spending habits. In the 1960 electionKennedy's victory margin in the popular vote was the smallest since1880, providing little indication that the country was in a heroic moodor prepared to give either candidate a decisive mandate. By appealingto people's pride versus their pocketbook Kennedy had overlooked thesignificant reality that the source of pride for many U.S. citizens didindeed reside in their pocketbooks.163"Sold Out Art," 125.88Out of fourteen images pop was represented in six, forming anoticeable trend against the disparity of the other images which rangedfrom Picasso prints to "harmless little oils of rather inferiorflowers." 164 Subtitles for the pop works like "Colorful Fare To ChewOn," and "Frameup for the Mad Scientist," were not alone in theirpunning on the relationship between money and art either. Explanatorytext adjacent to each image followed through on the subtitles' wittytone--Thiebaud's "fare" selling for "up to $3000 per helping" whileLichtenstein's mad scientist "was framed--only for real and then hewas sold." 165Yet another example of the mainstream press' focus on pop's"commodified" subject matter and phenomenal financial success is thesix-page 1964 Life article on the Paul Bianchini Gallery's "AmericanSupermarket" show, "You Think This Is A Supermarket? Hold Your Hats,Its An Art Gallery!" Consumers/viewers are depicted in a double-pagecolour spread, poring over assorted goods which include a series ofenameled hot dog displays by Roy Lichtenstein, a James Rosenquistpainting advertising a "Noxema $100,000 Be-Beautiful Contest," and aWesselmann still-life depicting a freshly-roasted Butterball turkey.(figure 10) As the author of the article remarked, however, "the ladyshoppers would have good reason to cluck over the high cost of living--$27 for a hunk of swiss cheese, eggs at $144 a dozen, loins of pork for$49." 166 That is why we had to hold on to our hats. While the items164"Sold Out Art," 125.165 "Sold Out Art," 128, 129.166 "You think this is a Supermarket?" 138.89depicted might look like groceries they were actually art, and theprices proved it. 167 Of course it was easy to be confused whencommercial artist Mary Inman's replicas of meat and cheese, usuallyfound in grocers' and distributors' show windows, were sold besideeveryday 2/35 cents cans of Campbell's soup which were signed byAndy Warhol and selling quickly at $6 the can. 168In fact, it was pop's apparently intimate relationship with the worldof finance that was one of the major areas in which pop art as amovement raised problems for traditional definitions of art.Contemporaneous theories of art believed its function was to "re-humanize" a modern population whose everyday existence had beenreduced to a means-end activity. 169 How then were images thatactually accentuated the foundation of such activity--namely capital--humanizing? How were they art? Pop's public appeal, its artists'commercial art backgrounds, and its collectors' capitalisticprofessions all pointed to a more obvious relationship between art and167For a visitor to the gallery during the show's run, the supermarketatmosphere was undoubtedly heightened by the "soothing andmeaningless Muzak-type harmonies...piped through a sound system,interrupted now and then by an announcer intoning unadvertisedspecials." Rublowsky, p. 174.168The confusion grows as Inman's "Meat Case"(1964) was in LeonKraushar's constantly-expanding pop art collection by 1965, and herpiece "Ice Cream Sundae # 1"(1964) was included as fine art, notcommercial art, in the Milwaukee Art Center's 1965 exhibit, Pop Artand the American Tradition.169 Proponents of this position are too numerous to list here but seeRosenberg and Manning-White for some examples. For a rigoroustheorization of this position see Peter Burger, Theory of the Avant-Garde (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), p.48.90capital than had existed previously in bourgeois art, a relationshipwhich hinted at contemporary concerns regarding materialism. 170 Inzeroing in on this problematic in its consistent reference to thecommodity status of pop, mass-market magazine coverage promotedthe commercial and fashionable aspects of pop as signifiers ofcontentious contemporary concepts of consumerism, individualism, andnationalism.The most exteme manifestations of this were two related articlesin the February 26, 1965 issue of Life. The first, "Far-OutRefrigerators," makes patent the relationship between art andcommodity in its subtitle, "Even Pop Art is Used to Dress up NewModels." (figure 11) The introductory. sentence, "In their push to makethe U.S. a nation of two-refrigerator families, manufacturers haveforsaken the functional look for the far-out--even resorting to popart," 171 reiterates this point with the additional reminder of U.S.supremacy in regard to commodity production and consumption. In howmany other countries in 1965 could a family even dream of owning tworefrigerators? Indeed, the need for a second fridge in den, playroom, orliving room is not raised as an issue in the article. Rather, what isstressed is that in their appropriation of the look of pop,manufacturers are accomodating the modern lifestyles of contemporaryconsumers (the article is in the "Modern Living" section of Life). AsJack Straus, head of Macy's depatment store, explains, "Our economykeeps growing because our ability to consume is endless. The consumer170 1 am invoking Burger's distinctions between sacral, courtly, andbourgeois art in my use of the latter term. Burger, pp. 47-54.171 "Far-out Refrigerators," Life, v. 58, n. 8 (Feb. 26, 1965): 55.91goes on spending regardless of how many possessions he [sic] has. Theluxuries of today are the necessities of tomorrow." 172 Although notcreated by self-proclaimed artists, the fridge fronts are consideredpop because of their taking on of non-appliance guises. Just as pop artlooks like soup cans, comic strips, or advertisements, these fridgesresemble playing cards, English sentry guardboxes, and orientalarmoirs. Just as pop art sells for unprecedented amounts, thesefridges cost 50 to 100 percent more than standard models. 173This theme of consumerism becomes entangled with thecomplexities of nationalism and individualism in the second Lifearticle (this one in the "Fashion" section), "Styles too are pushedfurther out by pop." In this piece, which consists predominantly ofthree-quarter page fashion images with brief descriptions followed bya socio-aesthetic analysis courtesy of Life art critic RosalindConstable, pop becomes the means by which U.S. youth become "hipper"than their European counterparts.(figure 12) The "mundane" objectswhich pop artists "love to glorify" screen-printed on plain shifts aredescribed by Londoner and model Jill Stuart as a threat to those"invading far-out styles, the French ye-ye's and her hometown Chelsealook.". Through wearing pop art (which Constable views as a goldminefor commercial designers as long as they "stay away from the cornergift shop and spend more time in the supermarket," 174 ) U.S. youth claimtheir generation and nationality as a distinct group.172 "Great Shopping Spree," Time, v. 85 (Jan. 8, 1965): 50.173"Far-out Refrigerators," 56.174 "Styles too are pushed further out by pop," Life, v.58, n. 8 (Feb. 26,1965): 66.92Individualism by means of consumer choice was also a theme of theoriginal pop collectors, however. Collector Robert Scull was adamantin the belief that an art collection should make a personal statement."'It shows as much about the collector as it does about the artists. Aman reveals himself in it.'" 175 On a similar note, just as the rationalebehind the Kraushars building their house was to get away from "theconformist ranch-style look" they felt was dominating suburbia, LeonKraushar's rationale for selling his original collection of Dubuffet,Francis, Calder, and the Cobra school and buying pop was because popsymbolized his way of life. 176 And Scull and Kraushar's way of lifewas, despite their wealth, that of regular "guys", a point vividlybrought home by the photographs accompanying the articles. Forexample, in Time's "At Home with Henry" Ethel Scull is pictured seatedon Robert Scull's lap, "laughing it up" while in Life's "You Bought It,Now Live With It" the most famous collectors of pop--the Sculls,Krauschars, and Harry Abrams--are shown eating breakfast, washing upin the bathroom, lolling on beds and sofas, and watching television.(figure 13)The pop collectors' homes were frequently the site for both thephotography and discussion of pop in mass-market magazines. In Houseand Garden's May 1965 article, "The House That Pop Built," forexample, the text emphasizes the individualistic aspects of homebuilding and decoration--mixing antiques with ultramodernarchitecture, sacrificing a dressing table in order to make room for a175Genauer, 153.176du Plessix Gray, 162.93painting, "getting away from the conformist ranch-style look" ofsurburbia. While most House and Garden readers were probably notmajor art collectors, there was still a part of their life experiencesaccounted for in this article--that of identification through homedecoration. Who the Kraushar's are comes out very clearly in theirdecor choices. Full-page photographs depict their new home as a kindof living art gallery. (figure 14) Art works imaging newspaperheadlines, sliced bread, soup cans, and brillo pads are integrated intothe home's modern architecture and design. Descriptions accompanyingthe illustrations consist of a mixture of interior design notes and popart identifications. "Hanging over the older son's bed is a largepainting by Birillo; works at right are by Cy Twombley and RoyLichtenstein. Ottoman converts into a bed for overnight guests; Africandrums serve as tables." 177 Pop is presented as an integral element of a"supramodern" decorating scheme--"they're the only part of the decorthat interests me," claims Leon Kraushar--and the Kraushar's lifestyle.The title of the article, "The House That Pop Built," brings home thesepoints in typical double-entendre pop fashion.In her work on U.S. families in the cold war era Elaine Tyler May hasidentified the affluent suburban home as the symbol of the U.S.'scommodified way of life in the fifties and early sixties. 178 Thesuburban home offered even more than the opportunity to exercise one'sindividuality through consumer choice, however. Suburbia itself playeda significant role in maintaining the concept of grassroots democracy177du Plessix Gray, 162.178May, p. 181.94in a society in which an elite of experts and technocrats actually heldthe reins of power. In Time's June 20, 1960 cover story, "Suburbia,U.S.A." a similar observation was made by Don C. Peters, president of alarge Pittsburgh construction company and chairperson of the board ofsupervisors of suburban Pine Township.The American suburb is the last outpost of democracy, the onlylevel left on which the individual citizen can make his [sic]wishes felt directly and immediately. I think there's somethingidealistic about the search for a home in the suburbs. Call it areturn to the soil. It's something that calls most people sometime in their lives. 179In a society in which efficiency is a priority and every otherinfluence calls for their absorption within a larger metropolis, thesuburbs were the last hold out. In one metropolitan area alone therewould be literally hundreds of local suburban governments, eachmaintaining their own police force, fire station, health department, andlibrary. These local governments also retained the authority to enactordinances, hold elections, zone land, raise taxes, grant buildinglicenses, borrow money, and fix speed limits. 190 The justification forthis legal independence rested on the longstanding U.S. conviction thatsmall political units represent the purest expression of popular rule, inother words, grassroots democracy. While noted suburban sociologist179 "Suburbia U.S.A.," Time, v. 75, n. 25 (June 20, 1960): 15.180 Robert C. Wood, Suburbia: Its People and Their Politics (Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co., 1958), p. 10.95Robert C. Woods saw the persistence of this vision of suburbia as adeplorable fear of change and "symbolic protest against the greatorganization and the large society," 181 for inhabitants of suburbanhomes it apparently was an important semblance of political power in asociety in which traditional forms of political activity and influencewere the priviledge of a powerful few. 182Not everyone viewed suburbia as the last remaining outpost ofdemocracy in action, however. For William Whyte, Jr., author of thebestselling The Organization Man (1956), within its structure lay thepossibility of just the opposite. While Whyte admits to there beingmany variations among suburbias, he also finds that "there is anunmistakable similarity in the way of life." 183 The result of a numberof factors--similar careers, yearly earnings, family ideals, proximityof dwellings--suburbanites tend to spend alot of time keeping up, ordown, with the Jones. 184 Because suburban communities are tightlyknit (bonded by the social ideals of "belongingness" and"togetherness") consumption practices came to be regulated,consciously or not, by group preferences. What appears to be individualparticipation in civic activities, for example, may actually be aprerequisite activity for that individual to fit successfully with the181 Robert C. Wood, pp. 301-302.182 For a useful critical review of the literature on suburbia post-WWIIto the late sixties see, Scott Donaldson, The Suburban Myth (New York:Columbia University Press, 1969).183William H. Whyte, Jr., The Organization Man (New York: Simon andSchuster, 1956).184Whyte, pp.312-314.96"group." Hence suburbia's role as the seedbed of so many consumptiontrends--air conditioners, hi-fis, hula-hoops, PTAs, and so forth.A number of mass-market magazine articles viewed pop's "success"in a similar light--as a signifier of conformity and trendiness. In Timemagazine's 1963 article "Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," forexample, pop is viewed as "in" fashion, its artists, the "newbandwagon"; the galleries involved, "profit-minded"; and its collectorsof "whatever's new," gullible. 185 Subtitles announcing the banality ofpop's treatment of its subject matter--"Butterscotch Pie" and "Off theBillboard"--and its ambiguous role as art--"Which is the Flag?" and"What is Art?"--are visually reinforced with images of ClaesOldenburg's huge fabric hamburgers, James Rosenquist's fragments oftypewriters, Jasper Johns' painted flags, and Roy Lichtenstein's comicbook heroes. 186 (figure 15) The difference between art and the everydayis effaced both textually and visually and pop is censured for itsinhumanity. Commenting on Warhol's now-famous quotation, "I'd like tobe a machine, wouldn't you?" the article's unnamed author sarcasticallyresponds, "Obviously, most people want to be human beings and to lookat human art." 187 Needless to say, pop was not considered a human art.The author then concludes the review by condemming the "fashionable"185uPop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," Time v. 81, n. 18 (May 3,1963): 65-68.186 More specifically, images of art works included in this article are:Wesselmann's Great American Nude #10, Oldenburg's Floorburger,Rosenquist's The Lines Were Etched Deeply On Her Face, Lichtenstein'sLive Ammo, an untitled Rauschenberg combine painting, Dine'sCoat,Jasper Johns' Flag on Orange Field, and Warhol's Marilyn Monroe.187 "Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," 68.97people who embrace pop, that avant-garde public "hungry for more andmore avant" and ever-fearful of being labelled philistine. It is becauseof people like these, says the Time writer, that "pop artists are in thechips," 188 the implication being both that pop artists were undeservingof such financial success so early in their careers and that money wasbeing carelessly gambled by fashion-conscious collectors.The collectors responsible for the pop artists' monetaryachievements had an interesting relationship to art and capitalthemselves in that generally they were represented in mass-marketmagazines as individuals undestined for success who had madesomething of themselves by making a lot of money in business--the"American Dream" at its most basic. 189 That these collectors had morethan an aesthetic interest in pop was a point frequently, albeit attimes subtly, raised in mass-market magazine coverage of thecollectors. In a February 1964 Time article on the Sculls, for instance,188 "Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," 66.189As alluded to earlier in this paper, the most influential of the popcollectors, Robert C. Scull, paid his way through nine years of part-time college by painting signs and made his fortune as owner of a fleetof taxicabs, and the individual with the largest collection of pop art,Leon Kraushar, was an insurance broker. Other major collectors wereItalian industrialist, Giuseppe Panza di Biumo; corporate lawyer, LeonManuchin; book publisher Harry Abrams; and Richard Brown-Baker, theonly major collector to have a "modest" private income with which tofund his collecting. It is interesting to note, however, that it waspredominantly the collections of businessmen Scull and Kraushar whichwere discussed in mass-market magazines. Whether this was due toindividual collectors' differing desires for privacy or publicity oreditorial decisions made by the magazines themselves is an aspect ofmainstream pop coverage I have yet to ascertain.9 8NA.T. & T on the Walls" is one of three subtitles, 190 while in Life's July1965 look at three major pop collectors, "You Bought It, Now Live WithIt," Leon Kraushar's explanation of pop's significance for him employsyet another corporate analogy. "Pop is the art of today, and tomorrow,and all the future. These pictures are like IBM stock, don't forget that,and this is the time to buy, because pop is never going to die. I'm notplanning to sell my IBM stock either." 191It was because of their ready spending on what they saw as theaesthetic equivalent to major corporation stocks that many art criticsdesignated these new-rich collectors as one of the key reasons forpop's flooding of the art scene. Viewed in Encounter in 1965 as solelyinterested in pop's "publicity potential" and "trading value," collectorslike Scull and Kraushar were implicated in the blatant commodificationof art and the discrediting of any critical role for pop. 192 Obviously,190 "At Home with Henry," 40. In the section of the article under the "A.T. & r heading, the history of Robert Scull's art collecting andcommissioning is given. It begins with the story of how he sold hisfirst acquistion, a spurious Utrillo purchased for $245, for $55 profit.In the paragraph preceding this section we had discovered that suchcollecting--and financial shrewdness--must run in the family as theScull's eldest son buys "junior-sized examples" of pop by means ofinstallments from his allowance.191 "You bought it now live with it," 58.192 Barbara Rose, "Pop in Perspective," Encounter, v. 25 (August 1965):59-60. Peter Selz, Curator of Painting and Sculpture Exhibitions at theMuseum of Modern Art in the early sixties, also publically commentedon the questionable motives behind certain collectors' interest in pop."The Philistine who always enjoyed reading the comics but neveradmitted it can now have enlargements of them on the wall and beconsidered as avant-garde as the first de Kooning collector." PeterSelz as quoted in Brian O'Doherty, "Vanity Fair: The New York ArtScene, Newsweek v. 65 (Jan. 2, 1965): 56.99there is also an unacknowledged struggle to retain power going on here.Traditionally, it had been the galleries and critics that made thechoices that determined what was "hot," in both an aesthetic andmarket sense. 193 In the case of pop art, however, collectors were itsprincipal champions and primarily responsible for the media andfinancial success of the pop movement. 194Yet while pop art was the , newsworthy art movement in the firsthalf of the sixties, not all of its practitioners were given equal billing.As far as galleries and art journals were concerned, pop art meantwork by a wide assortment of artists--Rauschenberg, Johns,Chamberlain, Lichtenstein, Marisol, Dine, Indiana, Oldenburg. In mass-market magazines, however, the choice was somewhat more limited.While the works of a number of artists were mentioned, as we haveseen, the images which were consistently represented and discussedacross a range of mass-market magazines and over a number of yearswere principally the production of four artists--James Rosenquist, RoyLichtenstein, Andy Warhol, and Tom Wesselmann.Part of the explanation for the focus on these specific artists maybe found in an examination of how the coverage of pop art is related tocoverage of the collectors of pop art. Within the realm of mass-market193This is not to imply that aesthetic and financial success couldpractically be separated, albeit their conceptual disjunction was afundamental tenet of much art world discussion.194 For more on the direct involvement of pop art collectors in thesuccess of pop art see Rublowsky, pp. 154-167. Describing the effectmedia coverage of pop had on the art world, one observer likened it to "'a team of anthropologists in a Stone Age village; under their [the massmedia's] observation, the art world has changed." Alan Levy, The Culture Vultures (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1968), p. 202.100magazines, it was predominantly the works that these collectors hadpurchased that were lavishly illustrated and accompanied by anecdotaltexts. In articles such as Life's 1965 "You bought it now live with it,"Time's 1964 "At Home with Henry," and the Ladies Home Journal's 1964"Can This Be Art?" magazine photographers and writers went into thehomes of the collectors, most often the Sculls, to get a take on pop. 195Once inside they were usually confronted with works from a variety ofartistic movements but the dominant theme was pop, and in particular,the works of Lichtenstein, Wesselmann, Rosenquist, and Warhol.Their reporting and thus a mass-market magazine reader's vision ofpop art was not limited solely by the dominance of the works of alimited number of pop artists, however. A further circumscription ofpop's presence in mass-market magazines was taking place in that onlyspecific works of these specific artists were being purchased bycollectors and thus photographed and discussed. For example, whileworks by Warhol and Rosenquist were in all the major pop collectionsthere is never any mention of images such as Warhol's Red Explosion(1963) or Rosenquist's For the American Negro (1962), even though bothworks had been exhibited publically. It is pieces such as Rosenquist'sSilver Skies (1962) or Lichtenstein's romance-comic figures whichrecur time and again on the art pages of mass-market magazines.And yet, while the subject matter and form of the pop imagesportrayed in mass-market magazines is of a similar theme--namely,images of contemporary consumer society often rendered using195As noted in Chapter One, in mass-market magazines' discussions ofpop art the titles of the articles themselves--"At Home with Henry"--often attest to the context being one of the art's purchase andappreciation by pop art collectors.101commercial reproduction techniques--such commonality does notnecessarily result in homogeneity of the imagery itself or opinions ofit.No one feels lukewarm about it. Like Richard Nixon, the oldBrooklyn Dodgers, and birth control, "pop art" has its enthusiasts,including collectors who are paying twenty and thirty thousanddollars for some of it, and its violent detractors, including some ofour most respected critics. The battle lines, however, are notneatly drawn nor the reactions predictable. Even within theMuseum of Modern Art, there is no party line. The curator ofpaintings is explosively contemptuous of "pop art" but the Directorof Collections is studiously interested -- and the trustees havebought half a dozen. 196Similar to the Museum of Modern Art and the art world in general,mass-market magazines had no party line on pop. As we saw in thischapter, in their imaging of pop art mass-market magazine articlesoften focused on pop's deceptive similarity to everyday life. Yet thesesame texts would also show and talk about the collectors who werespending unprecedented sums for these goods as art. One issue of Timewould totally pan pop while nine months later, another issue would196Aline B. Saarinen, "Explosion of Pop Art," Vogue v. 141, n. 8 (April15, 1963): 86. Pop artist Andy Warhol had a slightly more dichotomousview of the situation. "The people who really like art don't like the artnow, while the people who don't know about art like what we are doing."Warhol in a June 1964 interview with Bruce Glaser on radio stationWBAI, New York. Carol Anne Mahsun, ed.  Pop Art: The Critical Dialogue(Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1989), p. 152.102conclude with a quotation from Robert Scull ardently defending pop. 197Magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post, which had traditionallydisdained or avoided art that seemed at all experimental, were nowcalling for the support and encouragement of those practicing artistswho were providing images of the contemporary United States. 198 Inthe same Time article, in fact in the same paragraph, in which artistMax Ernst is cited comparing pop to the feeble bubbles of flat Coca-Cola, architect Philip Johnson, "whose architecture is the essence ofelegance" is quoted describing pop as "the most important artmovement in the world today". 199This omnipresent ambiguity of mass-market magazine coverage isevidence of the challenging task the magazines had on their hands.Exhibited by commercial galleries and major museums, purchased byprivate collectors and renown art institutions, and analyzed in artmagazines and formal symposia, pop art was an object of some artisticnote and thus could not be summarily ridiculed or dismissed. At thesame time, however, pop art did consist of images of hamburgers,brillo boxes, spray cans, and luncheon meats, subject matter whichhardly seemed worthy of aesthetic contemplation. Consequently itappeared that one could neither simply mock nor admire pop art. Inadmiring it one could be viewed as an aesthetic philistine, confusingart and fashion, while in mocking it one ran the risk of mocking an197 Respectively, "Pop Art-Cult of the Commonplace," and "At Homewith Henry"198 Frederick Breitenfeld, Jr., "Who Says I'm Uncultured?" SaturdayEvening Post, v. 235, n. 27 (July 14-21, 1962): 10.199 "Pop Art-Cult of the Commonplace," 66.103avant-garde art movement as well as mass culture, contemporaneity,and their intimate link with hegemonic constructions of "America" inthe early sixties. The result of this dilemma was a mass-marketmagazine coverage full of tensions, vacillations, and contradictions,which may best be summed up as a kind of mocking admiration. Theargument of this paper is that such an appraisal was not only relevantto pop's aesthetic worth, however, but also to what pop's form andcontent had so brightly illuminated--contemporary U.S. consumerculture.104CONCLUSION: WAKING UP FROM THE DREAMIn the spectacular society in which, as Charlotte Willard noted inArt in America in 1964, television, newspapers, and magazinesincreasingly gave the "average" U.S. citizen a ringside seat from whichto view "the self-immolation of Buddhist monks, beaten Freedomriders, [and] dismembered bodies on holiday highways," 200 pop was anactive performer. Still, while some pop art may have dealt with the"homogenization" of issues which resulted from the integration or flowof graphic images of such events with sitcoms and advertisements fordeodorant, the face of pop that was unwaveringly proffered to mass-market magazines' readership was, according to the glamour-lovingstandards of the mass media, winningly attractive. It was not bombsnor blacks that one saw on the art pages of Time and Life but, asarchitect and pop collector Phillip Johnson happily sighed, "'pretty girlsand pop bottles.'"201And yet, this does not necessitate that the representations of popfound in mass-market magazines are affirmative of U.S. consumersociety in the early sixties. As demonstrated in the previous chapterthere were sufficient tensions, contradictions, and provocationspresent in mainstream pop coverage to make one either look again or aNOTES200Charlotte Willard, "Dealer's Eye View, " Art in America. v. 52, n. 2(April 1964):^127-130.201As quoted in "Pop Art-Cult of the Commonplace," 66.105little closer at those images of beer cans, brillo boxes, and bathrooms--and at what they signified. While mass-market magazine coverage didnot set pop up as a revolutionary art movement, neither did it portraypop as a successful advertisment for a consumeristic lifestyle. Rather,through consistently framing pop in terms of subject matter,technique, the changing image of the artist, the art market, and privatecollectors in its success, mass-market magazine reporting of popprovoked questions over pop's symbiotic relationship with massculture. True, the questioning rarely became pointed but a subtleuncomfortability does begin to show itself in the characteristicambiguity of the responses.While presented as originating from aesthetic concerns, thatuncomfortability actually emmanates from mixed sentiments over thevalue of consumer culture and the changes it had wrought in U.S.society by the early sixties. With the reign of mass culture didindividualism actually thrive or disappear altogether? D Idtechnological progress mean continual advancement or a widening gapbetween the have and have-nots? Was democracy experiencing itstruest practice in U.S. history or had the government in fact become amodern-day oligarchy? Most significantly perhaps, was mass cultureitself--and the culture with which it was most closely associated,namely that of the United States--the means of improving the overallquality of life or was it in fact a great leveller, the outcome of whichwas quality being submerged in a morass of quantity?Sitting in their suburban ranch homes with the backyard barbequefired, the front lawn freshly mowed, the freshly-washed clothesspinning in the dryer, the kids sitting attentively in front of the colourtelevision, the kitchen well-stocked with canned and packaged goods,106and the car parked in the two-door garage, in the late fifties and earlysixties a larger percentage of the U.S. population than ever before hadmaterial grounds for believing that the American Dream and all itpromised could become reality. The advertising and complimentarycontent to which they were exposed in mass-market magazinesprovided support and encouragement of the myth through furnishingready-made, full-colour examples of how to live the ideal/idyllic U.S.lifestyle. One might make fun of some of the foibles of a contemporaryconsumer society--the frozen-in-flavour of wax beans being wax, forinstance--but ultimately one admired consumer culture and all itprovided. By 1965, however, it was becoming more difficult to sustainsuch admiration, mockingly or otherwise. The fabric of the AmericanDream was no longer simply fraying at the edges but coming apart atthe seams as discontent with its texture and quality was beginning tobe voiced both at home and abroad.Both consumed and consuming, the visions of consumption whichlittered mass-market magazines' visual portrayls and textualdiscussions of pop art--brightly-coloured images of pop bottles,canned goods, spray cans, and hamburgers--were thus provocative notsimply on the level of artistic Impurity" but also on that of the statusof consumer products as integral elements of the American Dream inthe sixties. As pop collector and publishing magnate Harry Abramsobserved regarding pop artists in a 1965 issue of Life, "They're givingus a new way to look at things, to notice what's around us . . . . they'veopened our eyes..202 Between the covers of mass-market magazinesfrom 1962-65 it was a vision of a United States beginning to202 "You Bought It Now Live With It," 60.107experience doubts about the possibly prohibitive costs of aconsumeristic way of life to which one's eyes were opened.The counter-culture and student movements did not spring fully-formed out of Camelot in the mid-sixties afterall. Disaffection anddiscord evident in the fifties' racial struggles, growth of the Beatmovement, and rock and roll, as well as other tensions which lay justunder the surface of an aggressively conformist, wealthy, middle class,were the seeds of discontent which would burst forth in the secondhalf of the decade as a full-blown questioning of the values ofcontemporary U.S. society. The concepts of individualism, progress,democracy, and nationalism which had taken form in the post-warperiod were then loudly challenged by student protestors, civil rightsactivists, the Vietnam war, the assasinations of Martin Luther King andRobert Kennedy, the ecological movement, women's liberation, and soforth.While pop art's presentation in mass-market magazines certainlydid not spark off any revolutions on its own, the tensions it revealedabout contemporary U.S. consumer society play an active role in theongoing questioning of the values of that society taking place in thesixties. Hence I have to disagree when a writer like Genauer in LadiesHome Journal claims that pop art has received so much attentionbecause "we can look at [pop] as if it were a reflection in a distortingmirror at the circus, and laugh. We can pretend that this is reallydistortion, that we are in a circus." While laughter certainly is a partof one's experience of pop as presented in mass-market magazines,there is a self-mocking quality to it that is clearly grounded in therealities of everyday life in the early sixties U.S. and that has no placein the fantasy world found under the Big Top.108SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHYAngus, Ian, and Sut Jhally, eds. Cultural Politics in ContemporaryAmerica. London: Routledge, 1989.Arato, Andrew and Eike Gebhardt, eds. The Essential Frankfurt SchoolReader. New York: Continuum, 1987.Aries, Philippe and Georges Duby, eds. A History of Private Life.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987."Art and Politics." Newsweek, v. 61, n. 24 (June 17, 1963): 85."Art Establishment: Centers of Power." Esquire, v. 63, n. 1 (Jan. 1965):44-45."Art Pops In." Life. v. 57, n. 2 (July 10, 1964): 65-68."At Home With Henry." Time, v. 83, n. 8 (Feb. 21, 1964): 40-45."At Sears, art conquers." Business Week (Dec. 1, 1962), p. 28-29.Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1984.Bal, Mieke and Norman Bryson. "Semiotics and Art History." ArtBulletin, v. 73, n. 2 (June 1991): 174-208.Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang, 1972.Bell, Daniel. The End of Ideology. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe,1960.Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. London: Jonathan Cape Limited, 1970.Bennett, Tony, et al., eds. Popular Culture and Social Resistance.Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986.Berry, Joseph P. John F. Kennedy and the Media: The First Television President. Lanham, N.J.: University Press of America, 1987."Boxing Match." Time, v. 83, n. 20 (May 15, 1964): 56.109Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1984."Bread and Circuses." Newsweek, v. 64 (Nov. 16, 1964): 105-106.Breitenfeld, Frederick. "Who Says I'm Uncultured?" Saturday EveningPost, v. 235, n. 27 (July 14-21, 1962): 10.Brooks, John. The Great Leap. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.Buhule, Paul, ed. Popular Culture in America. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1987.Burger, Peter. Theory of the Avant-Garde. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1984.Caute, David. The Year of the Barricades. New York: Harper and Row,1988.Centre for Contemporary Studies, University of Birmingham. Culture. Media. Language. London: Hutchinson, 1980.Chartier, Roger. "Texts, Printing, Readings." In Lynn Hunt, ed. The NewCultural History. Berkeley; University of California Press, 1989.Clark, T.J. The Painting of Modern Life. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1984.Collins, Bradford R. "Life . Magazine and the Abstract Expressionists,1958-51: A Historiographic Study of a Late Bohemian Enterprise."Art Bulletin, v. 73, n. 2 (June 1991): 283-308."The Culture Business." Newsweek, v. 60 (Dec. 3, 1962): 62.Dale, Edwin L. "Affluence' Begins to Effect Europe." New York TimesMagazine, (Jan. 28, 1962), pp. 12, 52.Darton, Robert. The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in FrenchCultural History. New York: Vintage, 1985.De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1984.110Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Detroit: Black and Red, 1983.Definitive Statements. Providence: Brown University, 1986.Dervin, Brenda, et al., eds. Rethinking Communication. v. 1 and 2.London: Sage Publications, 1989.Dickinson, William B., ed. Cultural Life and Leisure in America.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1969.Donaldson, Scott. The Suburban Myth. New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1969.du Plessix Gray, Francine. "The House that Pop Art Built." House and Garden, v. 127, n. 5 (May 1965): 158-164, 216.Eco, Umberto. Travels in HyperReality. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich, 1986."The Economy: New and Exuberant," Time, v. 81 (May 31, 1963): 56.Ehrenreich, Barbara. Fear of Falling. New York: Harper Perennial, 1990.Elkoff, Marvin. "The American Painter as a Blue Chip." Esquire, v. 63, n.1 (Jan. 1965): 37-42, 112."Far-out Refrigerators." Life, v. 58, n. 8 (Feb. 26, 1965): 55-56.Ferreira, Jim. "Cultural Conservatism and Mass Culture." Journal ofAmerican Culture, v. 13, n. 1 (Spring 1990): 1-10.Fish, Stanley. Is there a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1980. Fiske, John. Understanding Popular Culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman,1989."For more than art's sake." Business Week (May 15, 1965), p. 151.Ford, James L. Magazines for the Millions. Carbondale, II.: SouthernIllinois University Press, 1969.111Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth. "Between Individualism and Fragmentation."American Quarterly, v. 42, n. 1 (March 1990): 7-34."Free-Spending Consumer." Time. v. 82 (Aug. 23, 1963): 61.Frith, Simon and Howard Home. Art into Pop. London: Methuen, 1987.Frith Simon. Sound Effects: Youth. leisure. and the politics of rock. London: Constable, 1983.Galbraith, John. The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958.Gans, Herbert J. Popular Culture and High Culture. New York: BasicBooks, 1974.Geist, Christopher D. and Jack Nachbar, eds. The Popular CultureReader. Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press,1983.Geldzahler, Henry. New York Painting and Sculpture. New York: E.P.Dutton and Co. Inc., 1969.Genauer, Emily. "Can This Be Art?" Ladies Home Journal, v. 81 (March1964):^151-155.Giddens, Anthony and David Held, eds. Classes. Power and Conflict.Hampshire: MacMillan Press, 1982."The Good Life." Life, v. 47, n. 26 (Dec. 28, 1959): 2."Goodbye Paris, Hello New York," Time, v. 84, n. 3 (July 17, 1964): 38.Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Quentin Hoareand Geoffrey Nowell Smith, ed. and trans. New York:International Publishers, 1971."Great Shopping Spree." Time, v. 85 (Jan. 8, 1965): 46-50.^Gruneau, Richard, ed.^Popular Cultures and Political Practices.Toronto: Garamond, 1988.Haden-Guest, Anthony. "The Celebrity Syndrome." New York /WorldJournal Tribune (March 26, 1967), p. 28.112Harrington, Michael. The Other America. New York: MacMillan Company,1962.Hartshorne, Thomas L. The Distorted Image: Changing Conceptions ofthe American Character Since Turner. Cleveland: Cleveland StateUniversity,1968.Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1989.Hebdige, Dick. in Poor Taste: Notes on Pop." Block 8 (1983), pp. 54-68.Hess, Thomas B. "Editorial: Pop and Public." Art News. v. 62, n. 7(November 1963): 23.hooks, bell. Yearning:^race. gender. and cultural politics. Toronto;Between the Lines, 1990.Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. NewYork: Herder and Herder, 1972.Hughes, Robert. "Upstairs and Downstairs at MOMA." Time (Oct. 22,1990): 94-95.Hunter, Sam. The Harry N. Abrams Family Collection. New York: JewishMuseum, 1966.Huyssen, Andreas. After the Great Divide. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press, 1986.. "Introduction to Adorno." New German Critique. n. 6(Fall 1975): pp. 3-11."Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" Life, v. 56, n. 5 (Jan. 31, 1964):79-83.Jacobs, Norman, ed. Culture for the Millions? Boston: Beacon Press,1959.Jacobs, Norman. "Mass Culture and Mass Media." Daedalus, v. 89, n. 2(Spring: 1960): 272-285.113Jameson, Frederic. "Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of LateCapital," New Left Review. n. 146 (July-August 1984): pp. 53-93..^"Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture."^Social Text, n. 1 (1979), pp. 130-148.Jumonville, Neil. Critical Crossings: The New York Intellectuals in Postwar America. Berkeley: University of California Press,1991.Kaprow, Allan. "Should the Artist Be a Man of the World?" Art News(Oct. 1964): 34-36.Klapper, Joseph T. The Effects of the Mass Media. New York: Bureau ofApplied Social Research, Columbia University, 1949.Kozloff, Max. "Pop on the Meadow." Nation, v. 199, n. 1 (July 13, 1964):74-75.Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissim. New York: W.W. Nortonand Co., Inc.,1978.Lears, T.J. Jackson. "The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems andPossibilities." American Historical Review, v. 90, n. 3 (June 1985): 91-125 .Lederer, William J. and Eugene Burdick. The Ugly American. New York:W.W. Norton and Company, 1958."Leisure could mean Better Civilization." Oa, v. 47, n. 26 (Dec. 28,1959): 62.Leuchtenburg, William E. A Troubled Feast: American Society Since1945. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1983.Levy, Alan. The Culture Vultures. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1968."The Life-Enriched Consumer," Time, v. 82 (August 7, 1964): 55.Lipsitz, George. Class and Culture in Cold War America. New York:Praeger, 1981.Lynes, Russell. "How do you rate in the new leisure?" Life. v. 47, n. 26(Dec. 28, 1959): 85-89.114Lynn, Kenneth S., ed. The American Society. New York: GeorgeBraziller, 1963.Lynton, Norbert. The Story of Modern Art. Oxford: Phaidon, 1989.MacCabe, Colin, ed. High Theory/Low Practice. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press, 1986.MacDonald, Dwight. Masscult and Midcult. New York: Partisan Review,1961.McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.McMullen, Roy. Art. Affluence. and Alienation. New York: Frederick A.Prager, 1968.McShine, Kynaston. Andy Warhol: A Retrospective. New York: MOMA,1989.Mahsun, Carol Anne. Pop Art and the Critics. Ann Arbor: UMI ResearchPress, 1987.Mahsun, Carol Anne, ed. Pop Art: The Critical Dialogue. Ann Arbor: UMIResearch Press, 1989.Maltby, Richard. Harmless Entertainment. Metuchen, N.J.: ScarecrowPress, Inc,1983.Mandel, Ernest. Late Capitalism. London: NLB, 1975.Mannes, Marya. "Art on TV." Art in America. v. 53, n. 6 (Dec.-Jan. 1965-66): 56-58.. "They're Cultural, But are They Cultured?" New YorkTimes Magazine (July 9, 1961), p. 12+.Martineau, Pierre. "Social Classes and Spending Behavior." Journal ofMarketing, v. 23 (Oct. 1958): 121-130.Matusow, Allen J. The Unraveling of America. New York: Harper andRow, 1984.115May, Elaine Tyler. Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold WarEm. New York: Basic Books, 1988.Meyer, Karl E. "Kulturvac 112B: You Can't Lick it. It Joins You."Newsweek, v. 61(Jan. 28, 1963): 26.Mills, C.Wright. The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1956."Modern Plaster Master." Life, v. 56, n. 25 (June 19, 1964): 103-107.Monahan, Laurie Jean. The New Frontier Goes to Venice. MastersThesis, University of British Columbia, 1985.Morley, David. "Where the global meets the local: notes from thesitting room." Screen, v. 32, n. 1 (Spring 1991): 1-11..^Family Television:^Cultural Power and DomesticLeisure. London: Comedia Publishing Group, 1986."The National Purpose." Life ,, v. 48 (May 23, 1960): 23+.Nava, Mica. "Consumerism and Its Contradictions." Cultural Studies, v.1, n. 2 (May 1987): 204-210.^ . "Consumerism Reconsidered: Buying and Power." CulturalStudies, v. 5, n. 2 (May 1991): 157-171."The Noble Consumer." Time, v. 81 (Feb. 22, 1963): 67.0' Doherty, Brian. Top Goes the New Art." New York Times (Nov. 4,1962), p. 23.^ . "Vanity Fair: The New York Art Scene." Newsweek, v.65 (Jan. 2, 1965): 54-59.Oakley, Ronald J. God's Country: America in the Fifties. New York:Dembner Books, 1986.Packard, Vance. The Hidden Persuaders. New York: David McKay, 1957.^ . The Status Seekers. New York: David McKay, 1959116Plumb, J.P. "A Nose for Treasure and a Taste for Profit," New YorkTimes Book Review (Feb. 15, 1982), p. 11."Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace." Time, v. 81, n. 18 (May 3, 1963):65-68."Pop Goes the Biennale." Time, v. 84 (July 3, 1964): 54."Pop Pop." Time, v. 82 (Aug. 30, 1963): 40.Reisman, David. "Listening to Popular Music." American Quarterly, v. 2,n. 4 (Winter 1950): 370-371.Remembering the Future: The New York World's Fair from1939 to1964.New York: Rizzoli, 1989.Rose, Barbara. "Pop Art at the Guggenheim." Art International, v. 7, n. 5(May 25, 1963): 20-22..^"Pop in Perspective." Encounter, v. 25 (August 1965):59-63.Rosenberg, Bernard and David Manning White, eds. Mass Culture. NewYork: Free Press, 1957.Ross, Andrew. No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture. NewYork: Routledge, 1989.Rosten, Leo. "Pop Art, Shmop Art, Leave Me Alone." Reader's Digest, v.87, n. 524 (Dec. 1965): 174-177.Rublowsky, John. Pop Art. New York: Basic Books, 1965.Rudikoff, Sonya. "New Realists in New York." Art1 (Jan. 25, 1963): 40.Russell, John and Suzi Gablik. Pop Art Redefined. Hudson, 1969.Saarinen, Aline B. "Explosion of Pop Art." Vogue. 1963): 86- 87+.International, v. 7, n.London: Thames andv. 141, n. 8 (April 15,Sandler, Irving. American Art of the Sixties.  New York: Harper andRow, 1988.117Schonberg, Harod. "The Cultural Explosion is Phony." Saturday EveningPost, v. 236, n. 26 (July 13 -20, 1963): 10-14.Schuman, William. "Have We Culture? Yes--and no." New York TimesMagazine (Sept. 22, 1963), p. 21+.Selz, Peter, ed. "A Symposium on Pop Art." Arts Magazine, v. 37, n. 7(April 1963): 36-44.Soby, James Thrall. "Art on TV." Saturday Review, v. 40 (April 13,1957): 29-30."Sold-Out Art." Life, v. 55, n. 12 (Sept. 20, 1963): 125-129.Solomon, Alan. "The New Art." Art International, v. 7, n. 7 (Sept. 25,1963): 37."Something New Is Cooking." Life, v. 52, n. 24 (June 15, 1962): 115-120 .Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation. New York: Farrar, Straus,Giroux, 1966.Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Explanation and Culture: Marginalia." InRussell Ferguson, et al., eds. Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures. New York: MIT Press, 1990.Stich, Sidra. Made in USA. An Americanization in Modern Art. Berkeley:University of California Press, 1987."Styles too are pushed further out by pop." Life, v. 58, n. 8 (Feb. 26,1965): 59-64.Swingewood, Alan. The Myth of Mass Culture. London: MacMillan Press,1977.Taylor, Paul. Post-Pop Art. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989.Tebbel, John. The American Magazine. New York: Hawthorn Books Inc.,1969."They Paint, You Recognize." Time, v. 83, n. 14 (April 13, 1964): 44-47.118Toffler, Alvin. The Culture Consumers. New York: St. Martin's Press,1964.. "A Quantity of Culture." Fortune, v. 64, n. 5 (Nov. 1961):125-127, 166+.Vardenoe, Kirk and Adam Gopnik. High and Low: Modern Art and PopularCulture. New York: MOMA, 1990.^, eds.^Modern Art and Popular Culture.New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1990.Wainwright, Loudon. The Great American Magazine. New York: Knopf,1986.Wallis, Brian. "Absolute Warhol." Art in America, v. 7, n. 3 (March1989): 27.Willard, Charlotte. "Dealer's Eye View." Art in America, v. 52, n. 2(April 1964):^127-130.Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1977.Wolfe, Tom. The Painted Word. New York: Bantam, 1975.Wolseley, Roland E. The Changing Magazine: Trends in Readership andManagement. New York: Hastings House, 1973.Wood, James Playstead. Magazines in the United States. 2nd ed. NewYork: Ronald Press Co., 1956.Wood, Robert C. Suburbia: Its People and their Politics. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co., 1958."You Bought It, Now Live With It." Life, v. 59, n. 3 (July 16, 1965): 56-61."You Think This is a Supermarket?" Life, v. 57, n. 21 (Nov. 20, 1964):138-144.119APPENDIX 1: POP ART IN MASS-MARKET MAGAZINES 1962-65"Art Pops In." LA2, v. 57, n. 2 (July 10, 1964): 65-68."At Home With Henry." Time, v. 83, n. 8 (Feb. 21, 1964): 40-45."Boxing Match." Tirrte, v. 83, n. 20 (May 15, 1964): 56.du Plessix Gray, Francine. "The House that Pop Art Built." House and Garden,^v. 127, n. 5 (May 1965): 158-164, 216."Far-out Refrigerators." Life, v. 58, n. 8 (Feb. 26, 1965): 55-56.Genauer, Emily. "Can This Be Art?" Ladies Home Journal, v. 81 (March1964):^151-155."Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?" Ufa, v. 56, n. 5 (Jan. 31, 1964):79-83."Modern Plaster Master." Life, v. 56, n. 25 (June 19, 1964): 103-107.0' Doherty, Brian. "Pop Goes the New Art." New York Times (Nov. 4,1962), p. 23."Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace." Time, v. 81, n. 18 (May 3, 1963):65-68."Pop Goes the Biennale." Time, v. 84 (July 3, 1964): 54."Pop Pop." Time, v. 82 (Aug. 30, 1963): 40.Rosten, Leo. "Pop Art, Shmop Art, Leave Me Alone." Reader's Digest, v.87, n. 524 (Dec. 1965): 174-177.Saarinen, Aline B. "Explosion of Pop Art." Vogue. v. 141, n. 8 (April 15,1963): 86-87+."Something New Is Cooking." Life, v. 52, n. 24 (June 15, 1962): 115-120."Styles too are pushed further out by pop." Life, v. 58, n. 8 (Feb. 26,1965): 59-64.120"They Paint, You Recognize." Time, v. 83, n. 14 (April 13, 1964): 44-47."You Bought It, Now Live With It." Life, v. 59, n. 3 (July 16, 1965): 56-61."You Think This is a Supermarket?" Life, v. 57, n. 21 (Nov. 20, 1964):138-144.121Ar•*St' 4..47 aIn cafeterias, billboards and comic strips,^ ARTartists , find prosaic ingredients for provocative paintingsSomething New Is Cooking.1,n1,it^ulI II,^ /I'. III ,^I/I ■It it Ill.I71 , 1 ,•■•••111^1,11•-t 1,11111 . .cry,' ulI II% '.1■1111 .^painter-. 111.111re■Ithe%1.■11 1111.111v^1111111 ,2,^their^, ,111 1 \^ frHn1,1111.,,nd 1,8101 , - and 11.11111I 1■I' 1 1.;11111- H this^ It^hrand,^,lit 11,1k r1■4,11 Innilfed ti^gc1)1■•1" under k,111 ,, il , 1111 11 ^Ctir;11111)1H-1•,irmwd11%. the \c„ \ un•rn an l trearTter-.. But caell arti , 1,h.■ehTed independenth..^ill- nI Hlter ^nnirihutur. Inthe - 111111 enient. ^A\ id ^1;aintei ,^Nes, Vnrk andJerfv have Gfr well nn imago. 1111111 eornmercial art (plltmV. ay III' '116.•bawl in ralifnrnia has cnneenirated nn allteriti nnlhr. . A ,,enthly^td-.. pies and rakes march aer. ,,hi-^Glaringly illuminated. Thiehatidsdo , serts seem'■rled. untuti•hed h• human hand..the 12-‘ear-nld^hi, Fainting- are 111th •-ritici-qn andI•elehratiHi. - Ile i. niTerided by the impersnnal sameness that re-ulu  di , playing thing• - in great gn11 , . - But he is attractedLc the . 1/1 • AIIIV I■f- the fluffy Ines.• and also their ta=le. "I eat,'Imtulate fay. - he eHilesses, -and enjoy than---sornetitnes. -[fig. 1] "Something New is Cooking," Life, v. 52, n. 24 (June 15, 1962):115.122TOY HOUSE approved TOYS areplay tested ..by children. They're care- Ifully chosen for safety and sustain- •ed play-interest^. inexpensive too! ILook for the famous TOY HOUSElabel in food'and drug storesand many oth-er places.ANSI/ OF( ,1 0 ntl Li r coke ohPoo cPpalElloffRrEpoxyGLUEMIRACULOUS EPDXY CLUEDOeswhat Rep. glassno^brnkon toesother pptsand panstieAttachbathroom fixturescannoel 1,1k5 in ropesdo^reegtass framesm^thorn! RepairIto ro^h^t.-^Epoxy Glue. Repair- it I niiii china, marble,ti of.- r,:tro^ t hard plastic-skitat^ nt nprrous surfed-sitro-1 it- on. H A^o V rrianontty thryno^ That's becauseElm•r's Epoxy 1- co ordinary glum To actisvitt r tt- [bop, rtics, just tnixt hi' tit, tub,- And itrply xxi.11 handy at-photo or. A gluing miracle happens! Themolt-cub, of t tic pox:. foto with '1te molt--cutest of the -urf1010 doing 'Chi bondis lasting rift or and tron-diarynt W•ather-proof. Strong,-r than m Sr jrni••hing breaks, ,crack., or chips^rrs-plats/It -^r t., /I^Dti it -aith Ettntin'titEpoxy (;111, Pick up a handy blister packinlay. A product of Tho liord•n Ch•rnicalCompany,111.,0 Ali- oh- son Ant-nut-, New York17, Note, York^Available in Canada.)ART CONTIMUElnGiant cartoons,$400 to $1,200l',1-ein.11,1 l.. 1 0-11111-11 . \ tocrit nn.i. I6n i i, litert-Iris n-ed to paint^\\ ^ Hie 1)ela,,Ire and AA^r-t'..`. , dici11114 -... Ilesneaked .1 C.111,n , r1 (dial - deter 1111,1;111^11,1 , 1,1 nit'^1.,1,11,Ier.,i.^ ;111,1a 1^1?,„1 , 1. .le.t ,' , 11 , .e..1..... 11:Z.C1-^111\ lid) 111, 01111 lie like^I1,1111,-11 11/-i^,1,i,i• t h e rein i t . \1,411,,Z, ■(.ith pnrtrait•^lent-ellnIll gadget- Ill.:0-Wit. 1 an.. Old% tt, rr rreent l t ■•\1111 , liell in \ i elk ‘I^1.11,40•1\ at prna ,  ham' ".■101) In .:e'1,21111.^t ilt^tune enrtirataal^ figure, nth the111,. 11;1,1 Drench^Fenti.111,1^/liters sat■01 the lentt. riutok mg 1 lir lit iti-ebtibi glob, Awl;2,1 , Is 111,11 e. Arid ,11 the . ;( 1'n e lirnr cietvinr 111,1111..1111,\d-111111 - ,111 , .11.11111,111,1,1,ilider.111 IHet - ,e‘11-1.,a1 ■•,n hew- and ad- and le,Itat^planted tit tIn.ilul 11. t.^lie - hid^111ing- around a 11(1 In get a «loret'-cited,• 1.11e.a. At ant rate files hang^ mitt 111 ,eat•ralfa.% eyed i).- hilmtings and1r/■,, o,ro.'rod gimemoftiasth 1■41 -;::::::::-/. r:e^. A- ^whir. A..i .;^Jr:a#*44'; :v 4, 1,71(S „i ore be !NA ,^• f - WON T ^,„^,^, ., ,,3F:f;11•110 'I .L.■:..%•sid. Eiirldliffeci:**1 ;a.....r.ot.- 0,81.1.A.!... r.,!.""r!"- - f"'t,i,..,,,-!•44,0d1,91INISs U444"; 011144e^-.., WNW WIZ - 41114sipsi Orsispla'A _..(74 , ,-. ,•''7',/r what§ so different 1'about^•[fig. 2] "Something New is Cooking," 120.123ARTSIOUEIROS^DANCER 0963)COW s TORS ETHEL 8. ROBERT SCULLEoughtng /1 up.till lapaaat,^,ontsattrot.tt,^all . the11" 11 itts'^Itt , stk^s,ndyhue ey,ein^for^,IniKes of modern \lies and antesJams. sestets in the ,.eittet mui the 1, , 111 ,fu 111.1ke tor panttllt ,... I sliScull s eldest on Jonathan 1'the^still ^01^his^Ir,sn1^ssitholleGUOn mug i 1 "`' , "/ , ` 1^-rPopIlls^.iltots_uise^t he^, 1111 .111 tIC11 , td 11,11 1^Itall^■11,1111,11 \^ .111,1^I^ht.It lc .1111..1^hisA.T. & T. on the Walls.^01horn kolsert^iiaidthrtitigh mite seals^I .^,.Ir-ks^pa1111111'.!^1,111 III ,■IC , 11.211^111111^1111,■11.2.11 the^Iv'OR^IIhis^Rite^1111d,^, 111. , 111^t trnt , mu.ls^s'ail'sSIttkc.^meth tit^oinatoom :lat^testblocks trunl the Ntitscion 01Art and regarded its paintings as" NC,11- 1\ all tut our elm:Hamlin! ,Aaa. hell111 the pCittilttli , CIC1111111 , 0.,^I burn Scull a,- ,itttrekt a Agee01^1.1A1 ,:titt‘.^some^rail^ani.1started making rintillt).Breaking the bars.Paintings from Prison^I he Sculls, i nantost respects a^ .1^no m l.^Ills firs(^11 .10.11111/61 , 11 it „is a ‘itilf^unpretentious. tipper itddle-class Amer-^tdrillo, bought at auction tot \ 2 ts.^I^Nleytio's patriarehal painter, Ihts id^icon tails. use suit Pop, sleep ss oh^telt as Iht , u h I had hotiihr all 01Altar() SI ,..411e1/01, tound guilty of Loin-^it, eat with n. redx ssith Ii, and lose it^A. I .^,^he fek:all, Al hen he 1,',.11111:ntimist ri,bitle rousing duting some l9b0^I hes arc not, hosseser. hitter cultural^,mare that it \sat. a 'thous^hi -itl,1riots. Is 'Cr \^his burgh l ear nt prison,^rebels. reaLly to ohs ihintite the (^last — tor iii prom. He ,h...0,1,,rirAtt,.1with^1,0^It111 locking up^an columns sit the Met^At least \let^that to^.'...11111 , 1e^1111tICIllahk kt,Sispietros in a cell its Nfe.ico^Director James^does 1101 111111k^thentie contemporai ie. Noss ,idas s.Black Palace 0. 1 , 011,10e, not ineau lock- 1 so, He emits, going to the Synth,' for^Setill,^spend Sintdass ;mass ling NItug tip his energ ,, ( •itr‘nitg tint an old 1 dinner ;it'd landing out boss itsant .1^Dios. the tipper sluties of thit shale^leambition. he has organized a baschall !, garde t...111 ;get^ buildings. the hack tiles. of Wooteam. %kith hintsell at first base, sshich^Plost4red Pulse. Among Runnier'.^tenements I ,Ipit . t ple.tinie to knotpaint, little pictures that sell at SI,5110^Its^plaster cast of one of the^I simpl■ bus is hat I tee! I ssant to osplass in the prison said. And^steadily^,pecial hicks^eticounterine in the loll -^great stork 01 iirt trout a so-soapiece.. This month Ntanhattan's New curators, Fleur} i.aeldzahler. made^and I live ssith these things^IAn Center ()alters is showing 16 SI.^hi Sculptor (,gorge Segal, For the^lose themqueiros paintings. len of then, done in 1 SCUIh, the plastored Henri (1,71 pit nirr^ I he Sculls hose commissioned I "t nest.his^5-tt. by 7-It. home.^' port') has become a household^paintings during the past tell sears,!hough he sass that his' escsight h 4.1/0. Seidl likes do feel Henn:, pulse^eluding seseral tats lls portraits Andsgrowing weaker its his thin cell, Signet-^Ftuss pale soil look. - he murmurs^\Varttol, w hen asked, to do^portrait 01 •-•ros still ss'ields a dancing, brush that tlitce hos'. chat ■111h Henn and^f thel, put her in .iii automaticel cedes images somersaulting and ssy'irl-^u.e him^talkinan tut goo,l Rick tot^shot studio in I lines Square and tealing tar from a prison courtarst. His^t: heap, of quarter, mio it^\o,^1 ititt( er wi,hlulli st raps^,...:111e^11 c suI1ithe loser the \salts are .1 sir-^smiling and talking.^said^the artist.01 .ittatonts alt. 1 11111.1^pule. 1111tinceittl. Lasender-coloted 1L.rlrr r tins/sots the sssas •11a,10Y, 01 .1inad,tittat into a poiltite of tick:dom. In1.c,ttng t■ith Inc site of his 1111,1111, 111,7p..,1111111.:`, aft,' Ihellth.ii the great t lent_ has tug hectiui :L e ,00lct, h Itoi,211Nantaltcle,. the \■■11 I. senses SI , ItICI•It..^1,11 , t , C^51s painting Isiss - 11 111,1 td a Ili,. 111,1112 he sets.^I ernits painting is IH.ii Di^man inL as I Heat. ms^hats Hs painting,^andAt Home with HenryI 1111i^11,11i^\lafl -1,11,11^NIc11,$1.■111,11^\111,11i11t.1^11111t .11. tcJ all^1'^a h“(111 , 11^(Li^ii,sscsiIs^1h,^,t1,11111i 111^it14,1 ,C11 (.^Sc ull^the ss„i f,lc■olIcLi■■■ of^i i i t ail or.^ 11 Is nu'iekk l all 1 Ill[fig. 3] "At Home with Henry," Time, v. 83, n. 8 (Feb. 21, 1963): 40.124OCDa1*.**CDcoC1<C)Harry Abrams is no patron-come•lately to the art world. He is agraduate of the Art Students League and president of a flourishing"firm which publishes more than 200 art beaks a year. It took popa while To wend its way thrOugh Abrams' apartment. It started inthe guest room, spilled out into the hall, jumped over to the libraryand finally crept into the living and dining rooms. Every potentialpop purchase now gets a tryout in the living room, where it hasto rub frames with such competition as Picasso, Chagall, Modi-gliani and Monet. "If it holds its own in this company for 10 daysor so," says Abrams, "I keep it."Ile finds that plenty of pop art does hold its own, including atiny, wheeled sculpture by Jean Tinguely that rolls around theguest room floor, and a painting in the hall which includes a realclock mounted sideways. "I've never been afraid of new things orafraid to change my mind," Mr. Abrams says. "I like to think ofmyself as collecting the great things of today. Someday, maybesome MU:-C11111 'AM he glad to have my collection. Who know.?''O ne of the thrill, of collectingcontemporary art, lIarry Abram,.being surrounded by'.art than. alive. -^daughter-.."11nle Abrams ((Mine),feel, that ,onit• pop art in jtett alittle too aliN finik slopin the iNliram, gums room,George.11i.6el and Al arlitorm (Sold sculp-t ure, (tilers, a trifle hi-lt& - Sometime.," he shudder-.w ake tip to the 'Mildly of thenight and there are all hoerjust there.• At left, AbramsNNatt'lleh a television net Nstlieltpart of a Tom A1cnsehnan corkcalled life tuith Lire 11 .- \11ietlier the TV is on or off, -suns .krauts, - the painting i-different every time I look at it.•(Pier his right shoulderby voting fin t isle popartist Gerald Laing. At rightmaid Cleo Johmon takes a Sidi .Na,s reading on a cheek Hlrich ipart of a painting by KoberThr dork7--‘Changing our idea of what taste is'iwtua 1. 8 it like to live with impart?It•s like trying to explain Why SO/I1CMIC116',+ tolire milt a C( ;zantle or a Renoir. Ion just cati• tevplain it. It's being involued in the excitement yfan art that's really contemporary—whether itspop. op, or the shaped rallIA,S.1711'sc yOungpainters (ire ,() f111,1 ttitIi t•itutity ■Imithey re 10Len things around us and addedsomething of their own. They're giring us a ne a ru - ay to look tit things, to notice what's aroundus. They may uteri he chrining our Khole idea ofwhat taste Ls. Before tic Anon. it, they'll be al('Uhl ((IncC and f:n I re on to .sornething,hat in tio, ta,awitac^opcn,1 oar eke,.*[fig. 5] James Rosenquist, The Lines Were Etched Deeply On The Map ofHer Face., 1962.1261 1 1 )1^11,11H^Hui-.LI,^\LOOK ICKEY,I'VE HOOKEDA BIG t ONLY«nd this ishow he does it\t^1 1 -^,^ul ,^I^ 1 11'^111[^.111,1^111.^1^111^n 111 , 11-1 ,^111 ,,I1L^111,^ril.:!(1.^,■^fltm^Am. i i^ H iti•^111,41,i \ ■ 1 1^11111,,114^^d^1 , 111111 1^1,^•1-^' 11, 1^hl•^111,111-t■^111110.11111^111 ,1 11 1 11, 11111-^III^1 11 ,,^1^11^11^-^1111111^1^Ill%^1-,^-11111^a , 1 11 1I^l', 111111^1^111111\^1 ,^J.,^I^I II^%‘1111^1^11 , 111^1111 111^1^\ 1'^'^'1 "Id^1111 , 1“ , 1^111 1^1 , , 11111\ rf“,■111,■u-li1 , 1tY goYOU ASK THAT?WHAT DO YOU KNOABOUT MY IMAGEDUPLICATORBILLBOARD ARTFOR If IF f iOklf,COLORFUL FARETO CHEW ON■^I^s [fig. 7] "Sold-Out Art, " Life, v. 55, n. 12 (Sept. 20, 1963): 128.128WEROSE UPSLOWLY.„ AS IFWE DIDN'TBELONGTO THEOUTSIDEWORLDANYLONGER.„LIKESWIMMERSIN ASHADOWYDREAMWHODIDN'TNEED TOBREATHE...[fig. 8] Roy Lichtenstein, We Rose Up Slowly, 1964.129[fig. 9] Andy Warhol, 100 Campbell Soup Cans, 1962.130/ I^tYou think lhis is aI^f jSUPERMARKET?CO a3"4)60CO0C555VJCCDCDN0OPOI' ■■TI I1 . 011 41111 bring the fir^Icoarse to dinnerMI Von r dress^I,--1.1^IL I^I,^II,d I, I^tivrr, li111 . •^11,1111^,t1^•-.t4^'tilt^II,MIERFOR ONLY 51495*ThiS small wonder has a reputation as big asall get-out. It's a pure and simple mechanicalmiracle – that reaches 80 with ease—in fact,ran non-stop Los Angeles to New York in arecord 46 hours, 45 minutes. What else isnew? Well, this is a sports sedan that seatsfour of you and then delivers the punch line:a rear seat that folds down to create a stationwagon with-'319.75 cubic feet of space. In fact,the or ^thing small about the Imp is its pintsize ennetite—tin to An milac 1n fkcsc I) dv.N)9'co ‘"4-<-*cri••a) —18-63CD0T1C-13CDOC•-sCT0r-01a)Krati,har^fir-t -mitten liy pi') art^',hill 1H.came^a liirthrightly^11(Hul^Ili-- that ii he ', antedto .re a hand^heIlut kraut-liar^}V141.•(1.^pr.I/II■tl!,'Arilectiiiii^tth^pH) triiat- a- I lie-Oldenburg', iiver,itell^rt• - t-on the (lining runt table, awl (;iiiirr.rea^rt of a jail.fu make r,,(1t^ l'\pall(1111.1 t11- L-C\ n-r viiithe nn^rninr," gayMr. I:rail-liar, - 1 ciim• into the^thri.ii ur Hui -cigaret,. I^at the 1 L turn I^they're Own ,- and that I hate thy lie-t and the^ the-ItoyrtioltiVis h■t a rrs from the wall(r,v) as Kratirthar hilly Itt-twattia gr aill'I‘ 4if ',ill-kilo, it IAduties..1/411 , 1y Z1 to- hol, Faintly frit-dids(tittote) t.tdtitittize Hitt (-racket- etItox. tt.r.dekt-r, J1,11 :III-Illrhr.“1-11artio-111 off1,011 (,111:10 1 1140 Ii^art i st rt.•ttlact-t1 tIm itt 't^.111-cr.-mg ownsKr-o-Mir^lip atI ^1111 Al^Ldt-ot^Itmrt•poll■•1^,I111^n.d^li l y.111 , 1^1.^ , 16et\^il;.:111, l l n^k4•met- tam act^tiCtl thrill,tt^t amid -dal Isct1 litillt, dolt,H ‘,\—a.C.4.)0CCOOCzcO(C)CD74:3;Irs:(.7.1CO[fig. 14] du Plessix Gray, Francine. "The House That Pop Built," Houseand Garden, v. 127, n. 5 (May 1965): 159.135IMF \^II .^ kJ■^I(Df^B^Jr-1[fig. 15] "Pop Art--Cult of the Commonplace," Time, V. 81, N. 18 (May3, 1963): 66.136


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items