Lynn El-Roeiy

Professor Irvine

CCT 711

12/20/15

The Semiotics of Pop Art

Signs, Signals and Social Growth

In the current era, most people would not consider a can of Campbell’s Soup to have the potential to be an artistic masterpiece that sparked social change and intellectual growth. Granted, the flash of red color and cursive writing is aesthetically appealing and enticing, yet it does not necessarily warrant the same admiration that one feels when viewing Vincent Van Gogh’s, “The Starry Night,” or Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica.” Yet in 1962, Andy Warhol’s artistic adaptation of “Campbell’s Soup Cans” transformed the mundane image of a staple grocery store item into a wildly popular and lauded icon of Pop Art. During the 1950s and 1960s, Pop Art emerged as a stark contrast to previous art forms, exploring the boundary between art and pop culture and how the two ironically yet earnestly intersect. Typical subjects of this art movement included common products such as groceries, elements of advertisement and objects that were usually presented as being removed from a background or underlying setting that provided context and an inherent purpose. This paper will examine the key semiotic features of Pop Art as both a form of artistic expression and critical part of 20th century art, as well as dissect what exactly is the signifier and signified in such an artistic genre.

Writer Carl I. Belz explains that Pop Art possesses, “A distinct self-consciousness” (105). This is a highly accurate and observant statement that transcends the place Pop Art had during its initial debut into modern society. Pop Art does not attempt to trigger a different reaction in its viewers that the one it clearly presents; it is an entirely straightforward and aesthetically obvious in its content. Aprime feature of the artistic genre is that it defied the intentional ambiguity of recent movements such as abstract painting, which Belz characterized as, “a phenomenon that somehow lost touch with reality,” and left, “spectators of the twentieth century art,” craving, “the return of recognizable subject matter” (105). Although these descriptions are easily gained from simply viewing an example of Pop Art, it is in these seemingly obvious details that Pop Art has such power and ability in its delivery. Pop Art lacks the suggested or even guided message of the artist behind a particular piece; it is a raw, nearly comical interpretation of an object in its plainest form. However, in the plainness of its seemingly indifferent artistic representation, it makes the viewer question whether objects are actually superficial and their appearance somewhat superficial or if those images are actually a reflection of deep and complex themes in reality. Constructing a Semiotic narrative of Pop Art, specifically art works created by artist Andy Warhol, could lead to potential answers for such a question.

In the text, Handbook of Semiotics, author Winfried Noth articulates pivotal ways to understand how the objects depicted in Pop Art act as both a signifier, or the concrete form of a sign, and the signified, or what the sign is referencing. Prior to exploring how Pop Art fits into semiotics on a whole, it is crucial to study how an object is even converted into a work of art that in turn becomes a manipulated representation of reality and society. Noth provides valuable insight into the more basic steps of studying signifiers and what they actually signify in his explanation of “Semiotics of Objects: State of the Art” (440). In this selection, he probes different levels of objects, such as “Aesthetic Objects,” or “Objects of Cultural Praxis,” in terms of how they are converted from mundane samples of ordinary life into part of a social commentary.

In his discussion of “Aesthetic Objects,” Noth pinpoints a major theme within the semiotic breakdown of Pop Art: Specialization. The author explains that, “Specialization refers to the fact that language is exclusively or at least primarily communicative in its function. Speech production requires little energetic effort, and man is free to perform other activities while speaking. Object languages are not specialized in this sense” (Noth, 441). Art does have its own form of communication in its presentation of signifiers, yet it is not a “language” that was specifically designed to communicate. When objects are used as referents and signifiers, Noth explains that a subtle yet important distinction emerges within a semiotic perspective of art. He notes that, “Objects of signs raise the semiotic question of the difference between sign vehicle (signifier or representamen) and its referent (denotatum)” (Noth, 443). In Pop Art, there seems to be multiple dimensions of signs that all coalesce to form a singular message. In the example of Andy Warhol’s “Campbell’s Soup Cans,” the painting’s subject could be seen as an ironic representamen of modern society’s fixation on materialism and superficial elements of appearance. Additionally, in a more metaphysical sense, the painting could be seen as society itself, as it is a shrine to a consumer good, which mimics the huge value we place on material objects.

Winfried Noth’s explanation of Specialization also provides valuable insight into the power that language (specifically, titles and captions) can have in helping to decode the meaning of an art genre as subjective as Pop Art. Conversely, it also demonstrates how little information a title can divulge about the more abstract, more symbolic meaning of an artwork. Andy Warhol’s most iconic paintings were labeled in simple phrases that usually only stated the brand or object that was being depicted. His lauded painting of Campbell’s soup cans, for example, was aptly titled, “Campbell’s Soup Cans.” Even his more notional pieces, such as a colorful depiction of Marilyn Monroe’s head floating without a body or physical background against a gold backdrop, were titled with similarly simplistic phrases such as, “Gold Marilyn Monroe.” Andy Warhol, in a quite conscious decision, chose to reveal the same amount of information about his artworks in both visual and linguistic forms. This enhanced the object or subject of the painting being the only form of communication between his artwork and the viewer. There is no verbal expansion or explanation of a deeper meaning to guide the viewer in how to interpret the message behind a specific painting. Additionally, the lack of an expressive title further accentuates the reflexive nature of Warhol’s work; as explained earlier, the viewer could interpret the depiction of an object as a sign of social materialism or as social materialism itself.

Michael Kelly, author of the book A Hunger for Aesthetics: Enacting the Demands of Art, also stresses the importance of Pop Art having a quality of self-consciousness or content awareness. He quotes Susan Sontag when explaining that, “Art today is a new kind of instrument, an instrument for...organizing new modes of sensibility,” and that, in turn, “artists have had to become self-conscious aestheticians: continually challenging their means, materials, and methods” (Kelly, 25). The new “self-conscious aesthetician” created an entirely new approach to pop culture and key social features. Rather than acting as a reflection of the outside world, as is usually seen in fine art subject matter, the paintings embodied the culture of the outside world itself while simultaneously acting as a critic of that world. Kelly also reveals that modern society was virtually required to have a reaction to Pop Art, whether it be positive or negative, curious or controversial. He explains that, “aesthetic theory needed to be substantially transformed if new facts incommensurate with existing theory demanded such transformation. So rejecting Pop was not an option, any more than rejecting new facts would be acceptable in the sciences” (28). Thus, Andy Warhol’s work essentially started an entirely new aesthetic, one that tested the boundaries of what could actually be labeled “art” in contemporary society.

It could be said that any non-documentary portrayal of reality (i.e. a painting, drawing, computer animation, etc.) is art, as it is expressing a visual message without being entirely accurate or obvious. This is an easy theory to apply to artists such as Jackson Pollock, whose work is so blatantly unrealistic that it cannot be categorized as a documentary recording of a subject, but rather the artist’s own interpretation of a subject. However, it develops a more complicated and nuanced meaning when applied to Pop Art, which is essentially a handmade, slightly manipulated version of a photograph or actual subject. The question arises of whether Andy Warhol’s painting of Campbell’s Soup Cans could even be considered art. Is the piece a work of subjective visual expression simply because it is displayed on a canvas and etched out in paint, which somehow distinguishes it from a photograph or exact depiction of reality? Michael Kelly explains that the key element that differentiates Pop Art from a concrete depiction of reality lays in context. When reviewing Pop Art, “The issue of aesthetic norms...is at heart an issue not merely of interpretation or taste, but of understanding, and thus it is an implicit invitation to aestheticians to participate in the discussion of 1960s art because their task is the critical understanding or art’s normativity” (Kelly, 32). Thus, as a signifier, a work of Pop Art could be considered “fine art” because it provokes a reaction in its viewer that is different than what another depiction of the same signifier (in a different context, such as a documentary photograph) would produce.

Another major theme in the semiotic analysis of Pop Art is Parallel Architecture, which is explained by author Ray Jackendoff in the excerpt, “The Parallel Architecture and its Place in Cognitive Science.” Although his discussion of this theory mostly apply to music or verbal expression, there are still many overlapping perspectives in how such an approach can be applied to visual mediums and, specifically, Pop Art. Jackendoff explains that Parallel Architecture can provide meaning in expressions when, “The relation between sound and meaning is mediated by a set of interface components, which establish optimal linkings among the various structures and their parts” (647). A major distinction in this explanation of an interface in this theory is that, “an interface is not a level of structure but rather a connection between two levels of structure” (Jackendoff, 647). In other genres of fine art, especially ones that very accurately depict scenes of reality, an interface, or a joining of multiple forms of communication or signs, can be its own component of how to process a work as a whole. In Pop Art, interfaces function more as links between sign systems than their own actors. There seems to be less need for transition between one sign and the other. In more abstract examples of fine art, viewers need to form connections between how the artist perceived the subject matter, how that subject matter was ultimately portrayed, what the subject matter could represent if it does not resemble its realistic inspiration, etc. In Pop Art, contrastingly, interfaces and transition between sign systems become more condensed because there is less of a need to process the subject matter that is being visually presented. The subject is usually clear and relatable to everyday life. Instead of a viewer transitioning from viewing the materials on the canvas to the canvas in social context to how the social context joins with their own personal context, etc., the depicted object is clear and readily recognized. The process of recognizing the signs becomes condensed and easier for the viewer, leaving more time for him or her to contextualize the significance of the piece in its social and cultural importance.

Jackendoff’s rhetoric echoes what is described by both Winfried Noth and Michael Kelly when applied to Pop Art. He explains that,

“The visual system is known to contain numerous areas specialized to different aspects of visual perception: detection of motion, detection of color, several independent mechanisms for constructing the perception of depth, possible face perception, and many others. Each of them accounts for a relatively limited aspect of visual understanding; the totality of visual understanding arises from their combined efforts. In order for their efforts to combine, they must communicate, linking their respective r representation in an optimal fashion (Koch 2004)” (Jackendoff, 648).

Noth notes that visual works do not share a specific language or way of communicating. Similarly, Kelly explains that interfaces and connections between sign systems function differently in some forms of visual and musical expression. Jackendoff’s theory, in conjunction with the resounding sentiments of Noth and Kelly, explains that, “parallel derivation has no notion of logical sequence, as is essential in a syntactocentric derivation” (Jackendoff, 650). The lack of logical sequence in how a work of Pop Art communicates could actually be analogous to how viewers perceive Pop Art. The subjects of Pop Art are vivid and clear; there is little need to contemplate if the image is truly a can of soup or if it is a different object. However, the irony and symbolism that the object represents is extremely layered and complex, pushing the viewer to question whether an item such as a can of soup is actually a metaphor for concepts as grandiose and theoretical as social fixation on materialism.

Ray Jackendoff also explains that, within the field of Conceptual Semantics, the way viewers derive meaning from a work of art is a language in itself and again contributes to the overarching theoretical message that lays buried in the piece. He divides the definition of Conceptual Semantics into two components, Spatial Structure, in which, “shapes are encoded in a perspective-independent fashion, so that they can be recognized from any angle,” and, Conceptural Structure, or the, “algebraic structure built up in terms of discrete features and functions” (Jackendoff, 657). Although both are quite relevant to the study of fine arts, Spatial Structure seems more pertinent to analyzing the visual significance of works in the genre of Pop Art. Andy Warhol’s work definitely fits the mold of portraying an object in a universally recognizable fashion. The majority of his pieces feature objects and subjects that are extremely common and familiar, making them instantly relatable to the viewer. However, the objects also lack higher levels of depth and dimension, making the work of art appear the same from almost every angle. His paintings, for the most part, are also quite similar to one another. Warhol usually chooses to paint an image of a public figure or common object in duplicate forms outlined with dark shading and illuminated with bright, unnatural colors. Most of his works also lack backgrounds, drawing greater attention to the subject in place of creating a more cohesive and detailed landscape.

The connected features between Andy Warhol’s work allow his paintings to not only fit into the highly concentrated genre of Pop Art, but also adopt their own “specific” language that Noth explains most objects and visual works lack. By adhering to a certain trend and common style, Warhol’s style develops more easily discernible signs (such as duplication of one image possibly indicating the ubiquity of consumerism) that thread all of his works together in presenting a singular social commentary. However, as expressive and dynamic as Warhol’s Pop Art paintings are, they do lack what some art critics say is a traditional, possibly even essential component of artwork. Carl Belz, author of “Pop Art and the American Experience,” explains that Pop Art lacks, “the cult of the ugly man,” in which a, “man appears in a multitude of guises, all of which somehow stress his baser physical and psychological natures” (106). He expands this definition by saying that, “he is always unattractive as an individual,” but, “what usually redeems him...is that he has style, or at least is neatly ‘styled’ by his creator” (Belz, 106). This seems to be an especially pertinent statement when applied to Warhol’s creations. His pieces not only center on attractive and popular designs, but also usually enhance the positive features of the depicted subjects. For example, some of his most famous portraits feature highly desired celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe and Michael Jackson, their appealing faces highlighted and illuminated by loud colors and neon shades of light. One could say that a can of soup is unappealing in its ordinariness, but it is actually quite aesthetically presentable, combining bright blocks of primary colors and neatly positioned script to create a clean, fresh image.

Andy Warhollacks a distinct “ugliness” in his pieces, and rather they seem to be mostly focused on positive attributes and even lighthearted and cartoonish with their gaudy colors and multiple frames. It is possible that Warhol did this intentionally to draw more attention to the genre or premise of Pop Art rather than the work of art itself. Pop Art is a phenomenon that primarily focuses on the idea behind a subject or work of art instead of more basic systems of visual communication such as paint strokes, color choices, perspective and texture. Rather, the sign systems in Warhol’s paintings seem to be almost external from the works themselves, pushing the viewer to look at his or her own life in the context of central themes such as superficiality and materialism rather than how the work of art fits into the context of modern society. Upon further consideration, Warhol’s works may not even fit into the category of images, but rather be better defined as “icons.” Winfried Noth explains that, “Often a difference between icons and images is hardly discernible” (446). He notes that Peirce defines icons as a term that, “covers a broader class of signs by likeness which includes signs of non visual channels” (Noth, 442). Andy Warhol’s combined use of irony and unnaturally concentrated focus on beauty could be seen as his using of non visual channels, such as the viewers’ personal perception of themselves and society as a whole, to create a system of signs that exists outside of his subject matter or paintings.