There is absolutely no reason why an artist shouldn’t be both a social critic and an active member of the community. At first glance it may seem like hypocrisy on the artist’s part because the artist is criticizing the very community he is an active member of, but if you take a second to actually think about it, you realize that there is no true hypocrisy and that the two facts don’t have to be contradicting.
If you say that a social critic cannot be an active member of society, then what is he supposed to do? Live in exile, cut off from all societal contact? No, of course not! No one actually expects that of an artist. Why can’t an artist try to improve society by actively helping out at soup kitchens and trying to end world hunger, while also raising awareness through social criticism? They could be seen as two different methods of getting the same result- two means to the same end.
Also, it’s highly unlikely that an artist would hate everything about his society (and if that were the case then he should probably move, like Gauguin)- it’s more likely that he approves of some aspects but not others, so in his criticism he will criticize the aspects he feels need improving, not the ones he is active in.
Andy Warhol is the perfect example of an artist who was both a social critic and an active member in society because he was both an artist and a big celebrity. In his self-portrait wig series, his head floats against different backgrounds and the description card said that the image depicted Andy as a “ghostly spectator rather than the star who prances around the city”. He has two sides- the public celebrity persona who is an active member of society AND the private “spectator” side of a social critic.
If anything, I think that being an active member of society actually HELPED Andy Warhol become a more powerful social critic. As a celebrity, Andy Warhol was very much involved in his society and used symbols and objects the public could relate to in his art. And his celebrity status also drew large crowds to come see his work.
I think Andy Warhol had the same goal as our Photojournal assignment. Both try to find the beauty in our daily lives. Things that we take for granted, that we see every day, such as a stop sign or a Campbell’s soup can, can be beautiful. We just need to stop and find the beauty.
Andy Warhol used such common items such as soda bottles, food labels and other objects in his artwork to show the beauty within them. Our photojournal assignment attempts to do the same thing- the assignment is to take at least one picture every day of something that strikes us. I think the purpose of this is to make sure that we take time to look at the world around us and see the art in everything.
For example, Marianna’s picture of a teapot seemed like just a plain teapot not worth a second thought, but once I saw the close-up picture of it, I started to really notice how beautiful its bright, shiny red color was. That photo turned a common household item into something beautiful.
I believe that Andy Warhol did the same thing by using common items in his art. He encouraged people to find their own art in their own homes and beauty in their own lives.
The exhibit we saw at the Brooklyn Museum did not feature only his Pop Art; there were also many abstract pieces such as his Egg Series and Oxidation Series. Andy Warhol’s egg series used ordinary kitchen ingredients (eggs, duh) and by organizing them into a specific arrangement and making them different colors, he turned them into a work of art.
In his Oxidation Series he tried to transform urine and metallic paint, two unexciting, even unsanitary things into a beautiful work of art with different patterns and color splotches. If Andy Warhol could turn something as gross as urine into a work of art, then anything can be turned into art! And I believe that was the message Andy Warhol was trying to send.
Life itself is art. Life is precious and we need to appreciate everything in it. Don’t take anything for granted. If you just look you can find the art in the world around you.