Pop art references pop culture and ironies within it but also takes advantage of and incorporates mechanical processes of mass production and materials stolen from commercial art and advertising. Thanks for the pop art love!
Pop art reintroduced ‘realism’ back into the Post World War culture. After 1973 this pop culture joined with neo-liberal economics. Andy Warhol is a pro typical exponent of art is business. So the ethos of this culture (not a style) is to borrow from business visual production. The ‘realism’ of pop art is the so-called ‘mechanical’ type persons like Walter Benjamin theorized out of a Marxist milieu. That was not a Marxist Realism because it subtracted human agency from doing art. Benjamin would admit to that of course. I wonder how many artist you list identify themselves as Pop artists? Warhol successfully extolled he was entirely a shallow person. He did have some interest in philosophy, and some of his movies especially are about a traditional realism. These currents in Warhol are not ‘pop’ art. The central problem in Pop art is human agency. If their inspiration comes from commercial art how do they deal with the capitalist cruelty and wealth is the only measure of the likes of the reprehensible Jeff Koons? At best contemporary Pop is anything goes. That’s an Anti-Realism ethos but philosophy is so far outside their culture that that connection is absurd. Like the capitalist culture around them they are stagnated outside realism looking in on a realism that excludes everyone who doesn’t have money or power.
Pop art had an ambiguous relationship with meaning. You're never quite sure if the artist is celebrating or criticising. The wholsale endorsement of commercial aesthetics as a way of denying judgements of taste by the cultural elite seems passe at this point. On the other hand the non-critical spectacle is queasy making. Internalising the objectives of Capital risks the annihilation of independent subjectivity through a capitulation to group think. I would say most of the artists you've shown, especially the younger ones, are about surface. An impenetrable veneer of immediate appeal that sort circuits access to meaning through association. That means the mind, thoughts, don't go anywhere, they don't stray from the literal. In that sense it feels as if something is being masked by a declamatory insistence on shallowness. Not as a pejorative but more as an expression of anxiety. That thinking too much will inevitably bring you closer to a reality that is unbearable.
I see some of that too --- formalist versus nostalgic approaches to Pop Art. I would classify those who mask something "by a declamatory insistence on shallowness" as formalists.
@@ArtHistorywithAlder Here is an article discussing Da Corte's approach to Pop. It's a variation on "negative dialectics" (Adorno): www.frieze.com/article/alex-da-corte-helter-shelter-review-2020
off the top of my head I would add... Richard Prince - Instagram portraits Alex Israel - anything he's ever done Wade Guyton - any inkjet painting I've never understood why people like Gina Beavers paintings. They look terrible. They remind me of an art you'd see in secondary schools made by 15 yr old girls out of paper-mache in detention class who never wanted to be making them in the first place.
@@simonlinke1 I think you can challenge a slick atheistic within the context of "Pop Art" in the 21 century without just making dreadful paintings though. I'm all for a "Home Brew Aesthetic" - in terms of Pop Art classics - Peter Blake - Rauschenberg - Johns etc. Katherine Bernhardt would be a contemporary who also falls into this category - seeing the artist hand if you like, & to great effect. If Gina Beavers painting were to be a critique on say Art tutorials on UA-cam they would be kinda genius (still ugly though) - but I think they probably lack any sense of irony or distance within them for this to be the case.
I'm so happy I found your channel. Your overviews and gallery tours are so refreshing and relatable and educational for me without all the academia language bindings. Your pure love of art shows through every video. Thank you.
I don't think one could call anything done today "Contempo Pop Art" any more than one could call something "Contempo Medieval Art", or "Contempo Cave Art." These are all convenient labels that critics, curators and and journalists heap on artists to describe some general style of their work, or to identify them in some kind of artistic movement. Picasso was a cubist, but he transcended that style as all great artists do. Really great artists create genres unto themselves. Warhol might be well known as a *Pop Artist* but he did so much more than silkscreen images of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell's Soup Cans. His movies like Chelsea Girls, Blow Job, Empire have nothing to do with Pop Art. Same for his erotic drawings, piss paintings, polaroids and photographs. He was brilliant writer as well. Only Andy would promote a band like the Velvet Underground which was the complete antithesis of all the peace and love hippie shit that was the order of the day at that time in the 1960s.
@JAIME IGNACIO VIVEROS GARAY - To clarify my point: That is, that labels often barely scratch the surface of what visual artists do and are often just a marketing tool (for dealers, journalists, or billionaire collectors). In facts words, in my view, are very often insufficient to describe or explain visual art. We all know what Jazz, Country and Western, Disco, or Punk Rock sound like (for the most part). However, most really great visual artists are multi-disciplinary. They work in painting, sculpture, photography, video, performance, etc and the lines become blurred when attempting to define their unique practice. Even during the heyday of Pop Art there were artists who were making art that had nothing at all to do with the Pop idiom at that time. For example, Andy Warhol's roommate , Philip Pearlstein, would become well known for his realistic nude paintings. There was no Pop Art *manifesto* defining some sort of art movement that everybody followed. My core point is that great artists, in all mediums, create their own unique genre that can't be defined by journalists or curators or press release babble.
Alex da Corte, good , Alex dodge Christine wang, Daniel Arkham, David shrigley, Eric yahnkers, Gina beavers, Jeff koons, Jonas wood, Katherine Bernhardt, , kaws, nick doyle, takashi murakami are good, ,you want more you ask me to flip u some of my Instagram shit!!!
I tend to think it's all pop(ular), unless the artist has curatorial support. Then, its Pop, with a capital "P". How many of these artists have exceptional curatorial support? Jeff Koons, Alex Da Corte, Shrigley, Wood, and Murakami... I suppose one could include Kaws, but his curatorial reception has not been universal.
I highly recommend Avelina Lesper's youtube videos. She's based in Mexico City, but surveys the international art scene with a sharp eye and a caustic tongue.
12 months later…New to and very much enjoying your vids. My suggestions is Mark Flood. The late Michal Majuras made fabulous paintings in his short life. And if you’re including Koons and Kaws, Banksy is a shoe in. Probably the biggest reach (awareness of and influenced by) of the lot. Also love Vernon Fisher’s work tho’ possibly too old/neo Dada for your criteria.
Speaking of Jeff Koons, even though Koons is still both abundantly productive and producing some of the best pop-cultural works of today, she hesitated to include him "because of his age" 😂😂🤣🤣 how's that for being an istist
@@MaryLynn_Buchanan I would highly recommend for some quality post war American art history documentary film ehhh thing lol. There is a copy of it on UA-cam actually 😎🏫
Gina Beavers is my fav pop artist. As grotesque and fetishistic as her work is, I love it. Beavers gets at the "soul" of a certain yet unexplored aspect of our culture...right in my face. And as a balloon artist, I really like your balloon dog reference on intro page. What is fun, with your list seen all together, I see this deep, dark and ab"soul"lutely clear path of art informed by pop art history.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on these great artists. I love your list of 13 contemporary pop artists :D What did you mean by approved by the fineart world? Why are Mr. Brainwash, Alec Monopoly and others not approved in your opinion? :)
While I don't know Mary's reason for saying that those artists aren't necessarily approved by the world, I can think of one possible reason why. The modern-day art world seems to be flooded with new artists that use the same popular iconography over and over again, and a lot of their styles are very similar. And while a lot of this type of art sells, it seems like it is usually "new money" that is buying it to "be cool" and show off their status on Instagram instead of buying the artwork because they like it or appreciate the art of the piece.
Thanks everyone for jumping in! those are all definitely reasons why the traditional art world may not necessarily "approve" of those artists. I look at a lot of channels like Big 4 auctions, art fairs, museum acquisitions and you don't see Mr. Brainwash or Alec Monopoly in a lot of those (or at least at a regular cadence like other artists I cover) so that's where that comment came from! Hope that helps
@@MaryLynn_Buchanan thank you Mary :) That`s very interesting! Now I understand your point and surely I will look from another perspective at this topic. I own a couple of artworks from the contemporary/pop-art but I want to lern more and dig into this art world. Your YT channel helps me a lot :D
I think it has to do with the fact that they did, and try to do their own promotion instead of going through the gallery system. They made themselves through the internet and a lot of their work comes across as too commercial, they are trying to cash in as much as they can and real collectors and see through that.
Question. Do people who are art critics and who are art lovers, do they know more about art then artists themselves? Sometimes I get a kick out of art lovers talking about art vs a artists. Art lovers and art critics only talk about the top of the painting and what it means to them. You never see a art critic or art lover knowing how to tell if a painting is too bright. Because they don’t understand those things. Or nor do you hear them talking about the guts of a painting or artists starts.
I'd say it's more about different audiences. I prefer to talk about things that may be opaque to an 'outsider' like myself or to help people discover new artists or topics, or frankly to kick off discussion so that I learn myself. I'm sure an art professor could more adequately talk about the physical creation aspect of artwork (in addition to the artist themselves), but that's not what I'm personally inclined to talk about.
@@MaryLynn_Buchanan do you even know what you are talking about? You put the Lynn in your name to sound cool. You just repeat to me something you’ve heard some where’s else. This is what you sound like. “ well, the understanding of the art is necessity of the soul. It’s what binds us in the conclusion of the understanding of the culture that we know and love today.” Thats what you sound like. All of you guys sound the same. You sound like you’ve been watching way tooo many Jeff Koons interviews. Why don’t you go give “ the journal of Eugene delacroix” a read and you will come to the understanding why I think you are a idiot! You feed yourself from the wrong people. I can smell it!
Pop art references pop culture and ironies within it but also takes advantage of and incorporates mechanical processes of mass production and materials stolen from commercial art and advertising. Thanks for the pop art love!
Pop art reintroduced ‘realism’ back into the Post World War culture. After 1973 this pop culture joined with neo-liberal economics. Andy Warhol is a pro typical exponent of art is business. So the ethos of this culture (not a style) is to borrow from business visual production. The ‘realism’ of pop art is the so-called ‘mechanical’ type persons like Walter Benjamin theorized out of a Marxist milieu. That was not a Marxist Realism because it subtracted human agency from doing art. Benjamin would admit to that of course. I wonder how many artist you list identify themselves as Pop artists? Warhol successfully extolled he was entirely a shallow person. He did have some interest in philosophy, and some of his movies especially are about a traditional realism. These currents in Warhol are not ‘pop’ art. The central problem in Pop art is human agency. If their inspiration comes from commercial art how do they deal with the capitalist cruelty and wealth is the only measure of the likes of the reprehensible Jeff Koons? At best contemporary Pop is anything goes. That’s an Anti-Realism ethos but philosophy is so far outside their culture that that connection is absurd. Like the capitalist culture around them they are stagnated outside realism looking in on a realism that excludes everyone who doesn’t have money or power.
Pop art had an ambiguous relationship with meaning. You're never quite sure if the artist is celebrating or criticising. The wholsale endorsement of commercial aesthetics as a way of denying judgements of taste by the cultural elite seems passe at this point. On the other hand the non-critical spectacle is queasy making. Internalising the objectives of Capital risks the annihilation of independent subjectivity through a capitulation to group think. I would say most of the artists you've shown, especially the younger ones, are about surface. An impenetrable veneer of immediate appeal that sort circuits access to meaning through association. That means the mind, thoughts, don't go anywhere, they don't stray from the literal. In that sense it feels as if something is being masked by a declamatory insistence on shallowness. Not as a pejorative but more as an expression of anxiety. That thinking too much will inevitably bring you closer to a reality that is unbearable.
I see some of that too --- formalist versus nostalgic approaches to Pop Art. I would classify those who mask something "by a declamatory insistence on shallowness" as formalists.
Interesting thoughts!
@@ArtHistorywithAlder Here is an article discussing Da Corte's approach to Pop. It's a variation on "negative dialectics" (Adorno):
www.frieze.com/article/alex-da-corte-helter-shelter-review-2020
@@LDVTennis Thank you, taking a look!
off the top of my head I would add...
Richard Prince - Instagram portraits
Alex Israel - anything he's ever done
Wade Guyton - any inkjet painting
I've never understood why people like Gina Beavers paintings. They look terrible. They remind me of an art you'd see in secondary schools made by 15 yr old girls out of paper-mache in detention class who never wanted to be making them in the first place.
Omg how could I forget Alex Israel 😭😭😭
@@simonlinke1 I think you can challenge a slick atheistic within the context of "Pop Art" in the 21 century without just making dreadful paintings though. I'm all for a "Home Brew Aesthetic" - in terms of Pop Art classics - Peter Blake - Rauschenberg - Johns etc. Katherine Bernhardt would be a contemporary who also falls into this category - seeing the artist hand if you like, & to great effect. If Gina Beavers painting were to be a critique on say Art tutorials on UA-cam they would be kinda genius (still ugly though) - but I think they probably lack any sense of irony or distance within them for this to be the case.
"Top contemorary appropriation artists" .... except Jeff Koons, he's a corporation and doesnt really make anything himself.
Almost every artist appropriates whether consciously or not. Cheers 🍷
I'm so happy I found your channel. Your overviews and gallery tours are so refreshing and relatable and educational for me without all the academia language bindings. Your pure love of art shows through every video. Thank you.
2021 and still no one can defeat Andy Warhol. ... I love your videos
I don't think one could call anything done today "Contempo Pop Art" any more than one could call something "Contempo Medieval Art", or "Contempo Cave Art." These are all convenient labels that critics, curators and and journalists heap on artists to describe some general style of their work, or to identify them in some kind of artistic movement. Picasso was a cubist, but he transcended that style as all great artists do. Really great artists create genres unto themselves. Warhol might be well known as a *Pop Artist* but he did so much more than silkscreen images of Marilyn Monroe and Campbell's Soup Cans. His movies like Chelsea Girls, Blow Job, Empire have nothing to do with Pop Art. Same for his erotic drawings, piss paintings, polaroids and photographs. He was brilliant writer as well. Only Andy would promote a band like the Velvet Underground which was the complete antithesis of all the peace and love hippie shit that was the order of the day at that time in the 1960s.
@JAIME IGNACIO VIVEROS GARAY - To clarify my point: That is, that labels often barely scratch the surface of what visual artists do
and are often just a marketing tool (for dealers, journalists, or billionaire collectors). In facts words, in my view, are very often insufficient to describe or explain visual art. We all know what Jazz, Country and Western, Disco, or Punk Rock sound like (for the most part). However, most really great visual artists are multi-disciplinary. They work in painting, sculpture, photography, video, performance, etc and the lines become blurred when attempting to define their unique practice. Even during the heyday of Pop Art there were artists who were making art that had nothing at all to do with the Pop idiom at that time. For example, Andy Warhol's roommate , Philip Pearlstein, would become well known for his realistic nude paintings. There was no Pop Art *manifesto* defining some sort of art movement that everybody followed. My core point is that great artists, in all mediums, create their own unique genre that can't be defined by journalists or curators or press release babble.
This is why high art is ridiculed
Alex da Corte, good , Alex dodge Christine wang, Daniel Arkham, David shrigley, Eric yahnkers, Gina beavers, Jeff koons, Jonas wood, Katherine Bernhardt, , kaws, nick doyle, takashi murakami are good,
,you want more you ask me to flip u some of my Instagram shit!!!
I'm skipping through vids looking to see what you think about Malika Favre
Great information, wish the artworks were visually more important. Such small size images.
I tend to think it's all pop(ular), unless the artist has curatorial support. Then, its Pop, with a capital "P". How many of these artists have exceptional curatorial support? Jeff Koons, Alex Da Corte, Shrigley, Wood, and Murakami... I suppose one could include Kaws, but his curatorial reception has not been universal.
Interesting. And here Amy Winehouse Basquiat etc expressive and pop art 🎨👌
Im thee greatest living artist.
Thanks for the list. Another great video. I always finds you posts very informative.
Some of my favourite current artists are people like: Mark Tansey, Neo Rauch, John Wentz, Eric Robataille (Canadian).
Ooh thanks for the suggestions! I’ll check them out
I highly recommend Avelina Lesper's youtube videos. She's based in Mexico City, but surveys the international art scene with a sharp eye and a caustic tongue.
Thank you!
Rose Wylie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Love Pop Art 💖
12 months later…New to and very much enjoying your vids. My suggestions is Mark Flood. The late Michal Majuras made fabulous paintings in his short life. And if you’re including Koons and Kaws, Banksy is a shoe in. Probably the biggest reach (awareness of and influenced by) of the lot. Also love Vernon Fisher’s work tho’ possibly too old/neo Dada for your criteria.
Speaking of Jeff Koons, even though Koons is still both abundantly productive and producing some of the best pop-cultural works of today, she hesitated to include him "because of his age"
😂😂🤣🤣 how's that for being an istist
Love your list. Sadly she passed away one of my favs is Joyce Pensato work. Another great post 👍🏻
Good one! I always enjoyed seeing her works.
Yes! so true, she's wonderful
Good Morning, have you watched the The Cool School .............
No I haven’t!
@@MaryLynn_Buchanan Good ! Its a must, connecting the dots. Andy W. and Roy L. 1st show, in L.A. and many more. Enjoy !
@@MaryLynn_Buchanan I would highly recommend for some quality post war American art history documentary film ehhh thing lol. There is a copy of it on UA-cam actually 😎🏫
Thanks for that tip. Just found that on UA-cam.
Please do a video about more pop artists that are creating today. Even if they are not famous or that popular. Very interesting to see.
Gina Beavers is my fav pop artist. As grotesque and fetishistic as her work is, I love it. Beavers gets at the "soul" of a certain yet unexplored aspect of our culture...right in my face. And as a balloon artist, I really like your balloon dog reference on intro page. What is fun, with your list seen all together, I see this deep, dark and ab"soul"lutely clear path of art informed by pop art history.
I'm interested in what you have seen in Mexico City... by that I mean Mexican artists.
I love your voice, video very good!
Thank you so much♡
I am korean 감사해요!
Interesting list. You can use different editing techniques If you are nervous about facing camera. Just a suggestion.
Thankyou for this video ❤️👍🏽
How did you get that unabashed tan?
You should write a book about this topic.
Fun video and pretty good list. Thanks for sharing!
Glad you enjoyed!
Love Love Love This One ! Thank You MLB (:
Good video but this only scratches the surface of what's going on today . I would add Jordan Wolfson
Agreed!
Thank you, Dear Mary
Thank you
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on these great artists. I love your list of 13 contemporary pop artists :D What did you mean by approved by the fineart world? Why are Mr. Brainwash, Alec Monopoly and others not approved in your opinion? :)
While I don't know Mary's reason for saying that those artists aren't necessarily approved by the world, I can think of one possible reason why. The modern-day art world seems to be flooded with new artists that use the same popular iconography over and over again, and a lot of their styles are very similar. And while a lot of this type of art sells, it seems like it is usually "new money" that is buying it to "be cool" and show off their status on Instagram instead of buying the artwork because they like it or appreciate the art of the piece.
@@whoistroythomas sounds reasonable :)
Thanks everyone for jumping in! those are all definitely reasons why the traditional art world may not necessarily "approve" of those artists. I look at a lot of channels like Big 4 auctions, art fairs, museum acquisitions and you don't see Mr. Brainwash or Alec Monopoly in a lot of those (or at least at a regular cadence like other artists I cover) so that's where that comment came from! Hope that helps
@@MaryLynn_Buchanan thank you Mary :) That`s very interesting! Now I understand your point and surely I will look from another perspective at this topic. I own a couple of artworks from the contemporary/pop-art but I want to lern more and dig into this art world. Your YT channel helps me a lot :D
I think it has to do with the fact that they did, and try to do their own promotion instead of going through the gallery system. They made themselves through the internet and a lot of their work comes across as too commercial, they are trying to cash in as much as they can and real collectors and see through that.
Thank you for sharing this🙌🏾
Thanks for watching!
@@MaryLynn_Buchanan Always as you’re inspiring anytime I take a break from painting or meetings to see your world through your lens☺️🌹
Exceptionally well-finessed commentary on Koons.
Question. Do people who are art critics and who are art lovers, do they know more about art then artists themselves? Sometimes I get a kick out of art lovers talking about art vs a artists. Art lovers and art critics only talk about the top of the painting and what it means to them. You never see a art critic or art lover knowing how to tell if a painting is too bright. Because they don’t understand those things. Or nor do you hear them talking about the guts of a painting or artists starts.
I'd say it's more about different audiences. I prefer to talk about things that may be opaque to an 'outsider' like myself or to help people discover new artists or topics, or frankly to kick off discussion so that I learn myself. I'm sure an art professor could more adequately talk about the physical creation aspect of artwork (in addition to the artist themselves), but that's not what I'm personally inclined to talk about.
@@MaryLynn_Buchanan do you even know what you are talking about? You put the Lynn in your name to sound cool. You just repeat to me something you’ve heard some where’s else. This is what you sound like. “ well, the understanding of the art is necessity of the soul. It’s what binds us in the conclusion of the understanding of the culture that we know and love today.” Thats what you sound like. All of you guys sound the same. You sound like you’ve been watching way tooo many Jeff Koons interviews. Why don’t you go give “ the journal of Eugene delacroix” a read and you will come to the understanding why I think you are a idiot! You feed yourself from the wrong people. I can smell it!