Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • - We're looking at one of the single canvases

  • from a series of canvases of the "Campbell's Soup Cans"

  • by Andy Warhol from 1962 at the Museum of Modern Art.

  • One of the really important questions that comes up

  • especially about modern art, is:

  • -When you ask me that,

  • a bunch of things surface in my brain.

  • It does evoke something in me,

  • so I'm inclined to say yes,

  • but then there's a bunch of other things

  • that say if I didn't see this in a museum;

  • if I just saw this in the marketing department of Cambell's Soup,

  • would you be viewing it differently?

  • - Because it's advertising then. (Yes)

  • But in the context of the museum,

  • or in the context of Andy Warhol's studio,

  • it's not quite advertising, right?

  • -Even if it's the exact same thing? (Yeah!)

  • And the idea here is, by putting it in the museum

  • and saying "look at this in a different way"?

  • -Well that's right. It really does relocate it.

  • It does change the meaning. It does transform it.

  • That's really one of the central ideas of modern art

  • is that you can take something

  • that's not necessarily based in technical skill

  • - because I don't think you would say that this is beautifully rendered -

  • but it relocates it and makes us think about it in a different way.

  • -So, I guess, he would get credit

  • for taking something that was very, almost mundane,

  • something you see in everyone's cupboard,

  • and making it a focal point.

  • Like, you should pay attention to this thing.

  • -I think that's exactly right.

  • And I think that he's doing it about a subject

  • that was about as low a subject as one could go.

  • I mean, cheap advertising art was so far away

  • from fine art, from the great masters,

  • and then to focus on something as lowly

  • as a can of soup

  • -- and cream of chicken, no less --

  • -And a lot of it is: if he did it 50 years earlier,

  • people would have thought this guy is a quack

  • and if he did it now,

  • people would think he's just derivative

  • and I mean it was really just that time where people

  • happened to think this was art.

  • -Well I think that that's right.

  • In 1962, what Warhol is doing is, he is saying:

  • It was about mass production, it was about factory,

  • he in a sense said: "Let's not be looking at nature..."

  • "...as if we were still an agrarian culture."...

  • ..."We are now an industrial culture."...

  • "...What is the stuff of our visual world now?"

  • -I think I'm 80% there.

  • I remember in college

  • there was a little student-run art exhibit

  • and as a prank,

  • a student actually put a little podium there

  • and put his lunch tray.

  • He put a little plaquard next to it

  • "Lunch Tray on Saturday" or something

  • is what he called it. So he did it as a prank

  • and everyone thought it was really funny,

  • But to some degree it's kind of sounding like

  • maybe what he did was art?

  • -Well I think that's why it was so funny

  • because it was so close.

  • -And to some degree, when someone took a lunch tray,

  • and gave it proper lighting

  • and gave it a podium to look at

  • and wrote a whole description about it,

  • I did view the lunch tray in a different way.

  • That is kind of the same idea.

  • Something that is such a mundane thing, but you use it every day.

  • What would you say to that?

  • Is it a prank, or is it art?

  • -Well I think it is a prank,

  • but it is also very close to some important art

  • that had been made earlier in the century.

  • He had license to do that because of

  • somebody named Marcel Duchamp.

  • In fact, Warhol had, in a sense, the same kind of license,

  • to not focus on the making of something

  • not focus on the brushwork,

  • not focus on the composition,

  • not focus on the color,

  • but focus on the re-focusing of ideas.

  • -And the reason why we talk about Warhol

  • or Duchamp or any of these people

  • is that, as you said,

  • it's not like they did something technically profound.

  • Obviously Campbell's Soup's marketing department

  • had already done something as equally as profound,

  • it's more that they were the people

  • who looked at the world in a slightly different way

  • and highlighted that?

  • -I think that that's right.

  • Warhol was also very conciously working towards

  • asking the same questions

  • the prankster at your school was asking.

  • He's saying, "Can this be art?"

  • and in fact, he's really pushing it.

  • Look at the painting closely for a moment.

  • This is one of the last paintings

  • that he has actually painted.

  • He's really defined the calligraphy of this Campbell's.

  • He's really sort of rendered the reflection of the tin at the top.

  • But then he stopped.

  • He said, "I don't want to paint the fleur-de-lis."

  • You see those little fleur-de-lis down at the bottom?

  • He said, "I don't want to paint those."

  • So he actually had a little rubber stamp made of them

  • and placed them down mechanically.

  • What does that mean for an artist, then,

  • to say "I don't even want to bother to paint these..."

  • "... I'm just going to find a mechanical process to make this easier."?

  • Warhol is doing something which I think is important

  • which is reflecting the way we manufacture,

  • the way we construct our world.

  • Think about the things we surround ourselves with.

  • Almost everything was made in a factory.

  • Almost nothing is singular in the world anymore.

  • It's not a world where we would normally find beautiful.

  • -I don't know, sometimes I feel,

  • and correct me if I'm wrong,

  • that a decision was made that Warhol

  • was interesting or great,

  • and people will interpret his stuff to justify his greatness.

  • That, 'oh, look, he used a printer instead of drawing it'

  • which shows he was reflecting the industrial whatever

  • but then if he'd done the other way,

  • if he'd hand-drawn it, or hand-drawn it with his elbow

  • or you know, finger painted it or something

  • people would say "isn't this tremendous?"

  • ..."You would normally see this thing printed by a machine..."

  • but now he did it with his hands!"

  • How much do you think that is the case?

  • Or do you think I'm just being cynical?

  • -Well, no, I think there's value in a certain degree of cynicism

  • and I think that in some ways,

  • what we're really talking about here is:

  • "what does it mean to be an Avant-Garde artist?"

  • What does it mean to change the language of art

  • and try to find ways that art relates to our historical moment

  • in some direct and authentic way?

  • -Maybe it's easy for me to say this

  • because I remember looking at this when I took 5th grade art class;

  • Andy Warhol and all that so now it seems almost not that unique.

  • But in '62 what I'm hearing is

  • that Warhol was really noteworthy

  • because he really did push people's thinking.

  • -I think that Warhol was looking for,

  • in 1962, a kind of subject matter

  • that was completely outside of the scope

  • that we could consider fine art.

  • One of his contemporaries, Roy Lichtenstein,

  • was asked what Pop Art was.

  • He said, "Well, we were looking for subject matter..."

  • "...that was so despicable, that was so low..."

  • "... that nobody could possibly believe..."

  • "... that it was really art."

  • And I think you are right.

  • I think now we look at it

  • and it's so much a part of our visual culture

  • that we immediatley accept it.

  • I think it's interesting to retrieve

  • just how shocking and radical that was.

  • -This is fascinating.

  • It seems like there is a lot of potential there.

  • That stuff that is pseudo-art made for other purposes,

  • for commerical purposes,

  • but if you kind of shine a light on it

  • in the way that a light has been shown on this, it does --

  • in your mind would that cross the barrier into being art?

  • --Well, you mentioned before

  • that if somebody was doing this now,

  • it would feel very derivative.

  • I think that that's right.

  • I think it underscores just how hard

  • it is to find in our culture now,

  • ways of making us see the world in new ways.

  • -Fascinating.

- We're looking at one of the single canvases

字幕と単語

動画の操作 ここで「動画」の調整と「字幕」の表示を設定することができます

B1 中級

アンディ・ウォーホルのスープ缶。なぜこれがアートなのか? (Andy Warhol's Soup Cans: Why Is This Art?)

  • 213 15
    Sofi に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語