Talk:Pop art

REF LINKS NOT WORKING

don´t know where else to put this so I´m gonna leave this here: nr. 23 of the ref links is a 404. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirilliz (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rauschenberg & Johns ???

These artists, while preeminent influences on pop artists, should not be considered pop artists. The majority of their most controversial and well known work, such as Johns Flag and Target series and Rauscheberg's Combines were made during and before Richard Hamilton's first collage was considered to be Pop Art (Just What Is IT That Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing) at the time when Lichtenstein and Warhol had just begun to dabble with painting images from Dick Tracy and other comic strips. However, more importantly, formally neither of them can be considered to fall into the Pop mold; they are far too painterly, expressionistic, and anarchic in style and content. I believe they should be discussed herein but they do not belong under the category of Pop art.

BRITISH CULTURE

• pop art not is from USA!!!.
• pop art is 100% British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.239 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop art had two parallel developments, one was British and the other was USA. I am not sure if it is correct to say that the British origins were "academic" since the ICA lot were certainly conscious of being "non academic" in their artistic approach. This comes out in the ICA member's writings and statments about being non academic. Later on Pop art may have perhaps become more academic in the UK.Ottex (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ottex

Why do so many British people bring some kind of nationalist slant to every single Wikipedia article they click on? Pop Art is a loosely defined genre and some how the British invented it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.205.29 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The British people invented many things... other countries just claim they invented them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.59.35 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This would tend to have bearing on this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason it may appear that British people "bring some kind of nationalist slant to every single Wikipedia article they click on" is because Wikipedia is widely known to sometimes have a (factually inaccurate) American bias. Subsequently British people recurrently find the incorrect information here rather irritating. The received wisdom is not only that many Wikipedia articles contain U.S. favouritism (or simply ignorance in terms of language), but also that errors and distortions are abundant here. There's no smoke without fire. Even this very article subtly plays down the fact that pop art emerged in Britain first, by sort of skimming over it and strangely implying that (although it emerged in Britain first) the two strands of pop art somehow developed simultaneously. For example, in this sentence, "The origins of pop art in North America and Great Britain developed differently" the fact that the origins of pop art are actually in Britain is simply discarded.
The British invented hundreds of very useful things: however, admittedly Wikipedia is an American "invention". It's therefore a pity that it's inherently flawed. To be fair, many users here are probably American: they should be mindful, however, that this site is international. The fact that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans have no passport (so they can’t even fly to Canada) is of course rather worrying: this makes it all the more important that American Wikipedia editors work extra hard in order not let their "side" down.
And I'll take a rough guess and suggest that the (minority of) Americans who do complain about British people drawing attention to mistakes here imaginably have an inferiority complex.
So if the poster above (it was a while ago, but this point still stands) has developed the impression that cantankerous British people are seemingly always complaining about mistakes (or the partisan American slant) here, there's a simple solution: just get it right next time.
86.174.150.210 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese and German Pop Art

Were there any Japanese Pop artists in the 1950s or 60s? There were five or six German artists strongly influenced by Pop-Art (Gerhard Richter, Polke, Alverman, Gaul and others), even if most of them were too critical of evil "capitalism" (or simply anti-american chauvinists) to call themself pop-artists.--Radh (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sentence I can't understand

What does this mean (in the lead section), and can I remove this sentence:

"The concept of pop art refers not as much to the art itself as to the attitudes that led to it."

It is referenced to an off-line source but I don't have access to that source. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Too many Warhols

I found too many examples in the lede with reference to Warhol. This makes it seem biased. Bod (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I simply don't agree...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You are free to disagree. I would hope you would say why. I read the lede to this article and it contains mention of one (1) artist (Warhol) and names three (3) of his artworks as examples. He was not the only player in the pop art movement. Bod (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I see 2 mentions of Warhol in the lede - the box and the soup can - enormously influential; sorry if you don't agree but he blew the lid wide open in the NY artworld with the boxes and the soupcans...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

His work in '62 more than Rauschenberg, more than Johns, more than Lichtenstein, put the notion of Pop Art front and center especially by his essentially being so derivative of those commercial products. More than anyone else he embodied Dada and Duchamp's anti-art innovations...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to remove that one reference to his "brillo" piece. Because I see a picture of Hamilton's work, if someone could work him in, it might make the whole thing seem more international and unbiased. I don't know enough about "pop art" to say whether Warhol deserves to be the only artist in the lede, but it just came off that way when I read it. Bod (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a Warhol individual Campbell's Soup Can should be illustrated at the top of the article. This one might be good. Richard Hamilton's collage is of an earlier date but it is a composite of many images deriving from popular culture. The individual soup can is more important because it does not rely on the relationship between component parts. It is an affront to good taste because it substitutes the least likely imagery for artistic purposes in much the same way as Duchamp offensively substitutes a urinal for what is generally thought of as a sculpture. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You are going in the wrong direction; that would further Warhol-ize the article. I would like to see a Campbell Soup Can up top. I think the Paolozzi Bunk! piece should be first, as the beginning of the movement and then the soup can. I would also like to see Paolozzi or Hamilton mentioned in the lede. Bod (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other works of Pop art that use single images? The Campbell Soup Can is the only instance I know of. This work by Paolozzi is good. I'm not questioning its quality. But it brings together the images from many sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Section "Early Exhibitions" (of the United States)

This section needs improvement. It reads like a list of names and dates currently. While the article benefits from having a list of pop art artists, it needs to focus more on the pop art movement of the United States. Bod (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)