I don‘t think it was that one piece by Warhol that‘s considered revolutionary but the whole movement of Pop Art of which it is a part and for which it became emblematic. Pop Art in general was very interested in the vernacular, the everyday objects, and what happens when you put these objects in an art context. Just by hanging them on a gallery wall you look at them differently, maybe even discover a beauty you didn‘t notice when they are in their usual environments of supermarkets, tabloids and comics. Although Duchamp explored similar themes earlier, it was quite shocking back then. Google Pop Arts predecessor Abstract Expressionism to get a glimpse of how unusual it was back then to make everyday objects the focus of your art.
Previous commenters make statements on the time of production. I think you can’t see in what way it is art without making an intensive study of the 1960s and the art movements that preceded the soup cans. And that means that even though it’s called “pop art,” it is unusually abstruse and obscure art.
There’s also the very nature of the work. It’s a subject that was previously considered not worthy of high art, it’s a mass produced commercial product. But Warhol’s art was ALSO mass produced. He found a way that he didn’t have to make a single painting he could sell once, he could screen print soup cans endlessly, experimenting with colour combinations and just by the nature of them being screen printed, each one is individually unique because there is human error in the screen printing process.
So he made it possible for literally thousands of people to own an original Andy Warhol without it having to be prohibitively expensive because it’s not a traditional “painting” which by its nature is on of a kind. The very idea of art being something that can be mass produced and sold like the consumer product that is being depicted (campbells soup, coca-cola, Hollywood celebrities which become brands themselves, etc)
He took a regular massed produced object, something most Americans would see everyday, and reproduced it as “art” on a canvas in a way that could be mass produced. They were created with silkscreens. Each painting was only 20 inches tall and at their first exhibition they were lined up across a wall, each on a little shelf, just like you would see at a grocery store. This was part of phase he worked on of basically everyday art. The first attempt was painting of US currency, which never became as popular as the soup cans.
He did 3 different series of these paintings, the original 32 in their standard colors, 32 distressed ones (torn labels, dented cans) and a series of inverted and random colors. He also did groups of cans, including the 100 cans print.
An interesting fact is that Warhol may have been autistic. Around the time the art was produced someone went into his apartment, opened a cabinet, and it was filled with Campbell’s tomato soup. Apparently he had a can of tomato soup for lunch for years. The story goes that someone told him to paint something he sees everyday.
It also can’t be understated that a not-insignificant portion of art appreciation is in not wanting to seem as if you’re the only person who DOESN’T “get it”. If you’re standing in a room full of hoity-toities and viewing an art instalation by THE premier artist of the day, the last thing you want to do is be the only one who can’t see the Emperor’s new robes.
Latest Answers