Why Is It Surprising That Steven Vincent Was Stopped By The Guggenheim Museum?
ATIVE ANALYSIS PART TWO
It is not surprising that Steven Vincent was stopped by Oldenburg’s Store sculptures because the Guggenheim museum is one of the last places you would expect to find his objects, especially those that were originally intended for his storefront in the Lower Eastside of Manhattan. The irony of ‘the commodity object as art versus the art object as commodity’ set much of the stage for Oldenburg’s Store because he, like Allan Kaprow, understood that art changes accordingly to the thoughts, attitudes, and environmental factors of its audience (94). With this in mind, Vincent’s criticism of Oldenburg’s work not only makes sense, but can be expected. Of course he would appropriate different meanings to the symbols and objects …show more content…
Whereas the objects found in Oldenburg’s store once symbolized the mystique of the Kennedy era, they now are more representational of American poverty and incompetence, at least in Vincent’s comparative analysis and criticisms. This is, no doubt, what Oldenburg hoped to accomplish with his comical, yet contemplative interpretations of mass-produced consumer goods and products.
Take for example, Pepsi-Cola Sign (1961). Painted in the same red, white and blue as the American flag, painted expressively with industrial enamel that could be bought in a hardware store; a practice he attributes to Jackson Pollock’s use of “direct - real paint” (152).There is a level of patriotism behind his imitation that he both affectionately portrays and mocks. With one symbol, he effectively exposes the contradictions and ambiguities of our modern society. This is reflected not only by the supply and demand of soda pop, but by the buying and selling of art itself. His choice in materials are intentional, by making high-art out of low-material he challenges the spectator by challenging
It is not surprising that Steven Vincent was stopped by Oldenburg’s Store sculptures because the Guggenheim museum is one of the last places you would expect to find his objects, especially those that were originally intended for his storefront in the Lower Eastside of Manhattan. The irony of ‘the commodity object as art versus the art object as commodity’ set much of the stage for Oldenburg’s Store because he, like Allan Kaprow, understood that art changes accordingly to the thoughts, attitudes, and environmental factors of its audience (94). With this in mind, Vincent’s criticism of Oldenburg’s work not only makes sense, but can be expected. Of course he would appropriate different meanings to the symbols and objects …show more content…
Whereas the objects found in Oldenburg’s store once symbolized the mystique of the Kennedy era, they now are more representational of American poverty and incompetence, at least in Vincent’s comparative analysis and criticisms. This is, no doubt, what Oldenburg hoped to accomplish with his comical, yet contemplative interpretations of mass-produced consumer goods and products.
Take for example, Pepsi-Cola Sign (1961). Painted in the same red, white and blue as the American flag, painted expressively with industrial enamel that could be bought in a hardware store; a practice he attributes to Jackson Pollock’s use of “direct - real paint” (152).There is a level of patriotism behind his imitation that he both affectionately portrays and mocks. With one symbol, he effectively exposes the contradictions and ambiguities of our modern society. This is reflected not only by the supply and demand of soda pop, but by the buying and selling of art itself. His choice in materials are intentional, by making high-art out of low-material he challenges the spectator by challenging