This is a poignant (and religious) painting by Andy Warhol at the Tate Modern.
Mass production is an old story. For centuries, religious icons were mass-produced (woodcuts etc.) as a “window” to Heaven or towards some spiritual or meaningful connection. Warhol tried to flip this. By treating Marilyn as a religious diptych, he is suggesting, in our modern times, that we have traded spiritual transcendence for the “religion” of the celebrity icon.
I don’t agree with the religious thesis of Warhol, but I think he’s right about the grotesque commercialisation of art in our times.
Warhol wanted his art to be as recognizable as a Coca-Cola bottle. So, if you see a Marilyn, you don’t have to wonder who painted it. The “brand recognition” would be instantaneous. One might argue that The Dutch Golden was the moment in history when art moved away from God and religion into a commodity for the middle class, but the Dutch created “meaningful” art with incredible detail and moral/meaningful overtones and symbols. Warhol took that same “commodity” art concept and stripped away the detail and the meaning.
Why so some many paintings (which were originally painted for ordinary people) fetch enormous sums at auction houses? Last year, an ugly portrait by Gustav Klimt sold for $236 million. Why? Because of the “hype” about him as an artist (i.e. the artist’s persona as a product). Warhol knew that once the artist becomes a “brand”, the art becomes secondary.
I like how you’ve connected Warhol’s work to the idea of celebrity as a kind of modern icon, it gives the piece a whole different weight. Your perspective on art becoming more about the artist than the work itself is especially interesting. www.melodyjacob.com
ReplyDelete