(I ".1 tif /l r{ , []r::::,',,i, lr t") ii" i'4 , ioiri' /!

6{:1\ {-,j

.' ")

Jean Baudrill ard

Pop - An Art of Consumption?

Three Flags,l958,encaustic, x I15.6x 12.7cm Jasper Johns, 76.5

As we have seen,r the logic of consumption can be defined as a manipulationof signs.The symbolic relation of interiority, the symbolic relationsof creation are absentfrom it: it is all exteriority. The object loses its objectivefinality, its function, and becomes the term of a much wider combinatory, of groups of objects where its value is one of relation.Furthermore, it loses its symbolic meaning, its age-old anthropomorphicstatus,and tends to dissipatein a discourse of connotations,which are themselves also relative to one another within the framework of a totalitarian cultural system, that is to say, one which is able to integrate significationsfrom anywhere. We have taken as our basis the analysisof ever)'dav objects. But there is another discourse on the object, that of art. A history of the evolution of the status of objectsand their representationin art and literature would be revealingon its own. After having traditionally played a wholly symbolic and decorativerole in art, objects in the 20th century have ceased to be tied to moral or psychological values, they have ceased to live by proxy in the to shadow of man and have be-eun assumean extraordinary importance as autonomouselem e n t s i n a n a n a l y s i so f s p a c e ( C u b i s m ,e t c ) . Thus they have dispersed,to the very point of abstraction.Having feted their parodic resurrection in Dada and Surrealism,destructured a n d v o l a t i l i s e db y t h e A b s t r a c t ,n o w t h e y a r e w r a p p a r e n t l y e c o n c i l e d i t h t h e i r i m a g ei n N o u v e l l e F i g u r a t i o na n d P o p A r t . I t i s h e r et h a t t h e i q u e s t i o no f t h e i r c o n t e m p o r a r y t a t u s s r a i s e d : s it is further brought to our attention by this s u d d e nr i s e o f o b j e c t s t o t h e z e n i t h o f a r t i s t i c figuration. a In a word: is Pop Art the contemporary rt form of that logic of signs and of their conw d o s u m p t i o n h i c h i s b e i n gd i s c u s s eh e r e , r i s i t

only an effect of fashion and thus purely an object of consumption itself? The two are not contradictory. One can grant that Pop Art an transposes object-world while quite accepting that it also results (according to its own logic) in objects pure and simple. Advertising sharesthe same ambiguity. Let us formulate the question another way: the logic of consumptioneliminates the traditional sublime statusof artistic representation. Quite litbrally, there is no longer any privileging of the object over the image in essenceor si_snification. One is no longer the truth of the other: they coexist in extenso and in the very 'act' samelogical space,where they equally as signs2(in their differential, reversible, combinatory relation). Whereas all art up to Pop was basedon a vision of the world 'in depth',' Pop itself claims to be homogeneous with that immanentorder of signs- homogeneouswith their industrial and serial production, and thus with the artificial, manufacturedcharacter of the whole environment - homogeneouswith the in extenso saturationas much as culturalised abstractionof this new order of things. 'rendering' Does it succeedin this system'rendering' atic secularisationof objects, in this new descriptive environment in all its exteriority - such that nothing remains of the ' i n n e r l i g h t ' w h i c h g a v e p r e s t i g et o a l l e a r l i e r art? Is itan art of the non-sacred,thatis to say, I a n a r t o f p u r e m a n i p u l a t i o n ?s i t i t s e l f a n o n sacred arJ, that is to say productive and not creativeof objects? S o m e w i l l s a y ( a n d P o p a r t i s t st h e m s e l v e s ) that things are rather more simple. They do the thin-sbecausethey are taken with it; after all, they're having a good time, they look around and paint what they see - it's spontaneous r e a l i s m ,e t c . T h i s i s f a l s e :P o p s i g n i f i e st h e e n d , o f p e r s p e c t i v et,h e e n d o f e v o c a t i o n t h e e n d o f

witnessing,the end of the creativegestureand. not leastof all. the end of the subversionof the world and of the maledictionof art. Nor only is its aim the immanenceof the 'civilised' world, but its total integration in this world. Here there is an insaneambition: that of abolishin_e the annals (and the foundations) of a whole culture, that of transcendence. Perhaps there is also quite simply an ideology. Let us clear 'It away two objections: is an American art' in its object material (including the obsession with tstars and stripes') in its empirical pragmatic, optimistic practice,in the incontestably chauvinist infatuation of certain patrons and 'taken collectors who are in' by it, etc. Even though this objection is tendentious, let us reply objectively: if all this is Americanism, Pop artistscan only adopt it according to their 'speak own logic. If manufactured objects American', it is becausethey have no other truth than this mythology which overwhelms them - and the only logical course is to integrate this mythological discourseand to be integratedin it oneself.If the consumersociety is caught up in its own mythology, if it has no critical perspective on itself, and if this is precisely its definition,a then no contemporary art can exist which, in its very existenceand practice, is not compromisedby, party to this opaque obviousnessof things. Indeed, this is to why Pop artistspaint objectsaccordin-g their since it is only thus, as ready' real appearance, 'freshfrom ntade signs, the assemhly Iine' , that theyfunction mythologically. This is why they preferably paint the initials, marks, slogans borne by these objects and why, ultimately' they can paint only that (Robert Indiana). No 'realism" a s a g a m eo r a s b u t a r e c o g n i t i o no , the obvious fact of consumersociety: namely that the truth of objects and products is thei' 'Americanism'. t h e nA m e r i c a n m a r k . I f t h a ti s

5
i.-tg.

C a - e e':W e m u s t s e t a b o u t d i s c o v e r i n ga m e a n s a s s u c h ( t h e c h a i r i s o l a t e do n t h e c a n v a s = t h e t o l e t s o L r n db e t h e m s e l v e s ' - w h i c h a s s u n - l e s r e a l c h a i r ) . I m m a n e n c ea n d t r a n s c e n d e n ca r e s e a n e s s e n c e f t h e o b j e c t , a l e v e l o f a b s o l u t e e q u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e :t h e y a r e t w o s i d e s o f t h e o r e a l i t y w h i c h i s n e v e r t h a t o f t h e e v e r y d a y s a m ed r e a m . w e n v i r o n m e n ta n d r . v h i c h i t h r e g a r dt o i t c o n . I n s h o r t ,t h e r ei s n o e s s e n c e f t h e e v e r y d a y , o q s t i t u t e s u i t e f r a n k l y a s u r r e a l i t y .W e s s e l m a n n of the ordinary, and thus no art of the every'superreality' t h u ss p e a k s f t h e o o f a n o r d i n a r y d a y : t h i s i s a m y s t i c a l a p o r i a .I f W a r h o l ( a n d kitchen. o t h e r s ) e l i e v ei n i t , t h i s i s b e c a u s eh e y d e l u d e b t I n b r i e f , w e a r e i n t o t a l c o n f u s i o n . a n d w e themselves with regard to the very statusof art find ourselvesbefore a kind of behaviourism a n d o f t h e a r t i s t i ca c t - w h i c h i s n o t a t a l l r a r e a r i s i n g f r o m a j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f v i s i b l e t h i n g s among artists. Moreover, with regard to the ( s o m e t h i n gi k e a n i m p r e s s i o n i s m f c o n s u m e r mystical nostal_eia the very level of the act, l o at s o c i e t y )c o u p l e dw i t h a v a g u eZ e n o r B u d d h i s t of the productive gesture: 'I want to be a mystiqueof stripping down the E-eoa1d S uper- m a c h i n e , 's a y sW a r h o l , w h o p a i n t si n e f f e c t b y 'Id' world. There stenciling,screen-printin_e, Now, for art to ego to the of the surroundin,e etc. pose as machine-like is the worst kind of i s a l s o A m e r i c a n i s mi n t h i s c u r i o u s m i x t u r e ! But above all there is a grave equivocation vanity, and for whoever enjoys - willin-ely or and inconsistency.For by not presentin,e the not - the statusof creatorto dedicatehimself to w s u r r o u n d i n g o r l d f o r w h a t i t i s , t h a t i s t o s a y , serial automatism is the greatest affectation. primarily an artificial field of manipulable Yet it is difficult to accuseeitherWarhol or the signs,a total cultural artifact where what comes Pop artists of bad faith: their exacting logic i n t o p l a y i s n o t s e n s a t i o n o r v i s i o n , b u t a collides with a certain sociologicaland cultural differential perception and a tactical game of statusof art, about which they can do nothing. significations - by presenting it as revealed It is this powerlessness which their ideology Pop has a double connota- conveys. When they try to desacralisetheir Yet this logical enterprise, whose extreme nature, as essence, consequences one would not but applaudwere tion: first, as the ideology of an integrated practice, society sacralises them all the more. they to contravene our traditional moral aes- society (contemporary society=n4ture=ideal Added to which is the fact that their attempt thetic, is coupled with an ideology into which s o c i e t y- b u t w e ' v e s e e n t h a t t h i s c o l l u s i o n i s however radical it mi-ehtbe - to seculariseart, it is not far from sinkin-e. An ideology of part of its logic); and on the other hand, it in its themes and its practice, leads to an N a t u r e ,o f a n A w a k e n i n g ( ' W a k e U p ' ) a n d o f reinstates the whole sac'red process of art, exaltationand an unprecedented manifestation a u t h e n t i c i t y .w h i c h e v o k e s t h e b e s t m o m e n t s which destroysits basic objective. of the sacred in art. Quite simply, Pop artists Pop wants to be the art of the commonplace forget that for the picture not to become a of bourgeois spontaneity. T h i s ' r a d i c a l e m p i r i c i s m ' , ' u n c o m p r o m i s i n - e (this is the very reason it calls itself Popular sacredsuper-sign(a unique object,a signature, (M p b s i t i v i s m ' , ' a n t i t e l e o l o - 9 i s m ' a r i o A m a y a , A r t ) : b u t w h a t i s t h e c o m m o n p l a c e i f n o t a an object of noble and magical commerce),the a a cate-eory, modern version of the author's content or intentions are not enou-eh: Pop as Arr) sometimesassumes dan-eerously metaphysical 'I initiatic aspect.Oldenburg: drove aroundthe category of the sublime? The object is only it is the structuresof culture production which city one day with Jimmy Dine. By chancewe commonplacein its use, at the moment when it are decisive.In the end, only rationalising.like t drove through Orchard Street, both sides of i s u s e d( W e s s e l m a n n ' sr a n s i s t o r ' t h a tw a l k s ' ) . any manufacturer, the market for painting which are packed with small stores. As we The object ceases to be commonplace the could desacraliseit and return the Dicture to 'The moment it s i g n i f i e s : a s w e h a v e s e e n , t h e everydayobjects.s drove I remember having a vision of Perhaps this is neitherthinki n m y m i n d ' s e y e , a c o m p l e t e 'truth' of the contemporaryobject is no longer able nor possible nor even desirable - who Store'. I saw; e n v i r o n m e n t b a s e d o n t h i s t h e m e . A g a i n i t to be useful for something, but to si-enify;no knows? In any event, it is a borderline situseemed to me that I had discovered a new longer to be manipulatedas an instrument,but ation: once there either you stop paintin-eor world, I began wandering throu-eh stores- all as a sign. And the successof Pop, in the best you continue at the cost of re-eressin-e the into is kinds and all over- as though they were muse- instances, that it shows it to us as such. traditional mythology of artistic creation.And u m s . I s a w o b j e c t sd i s p l a y e di n w i n d o w s a n d Andy Warhol, whose approach is the most t h r o u g ht h i s s l i d i n g ,t h e c l a s s i c a p i c t o r i a l v a l l on counters as precious works of art.' Rosen- radical, is also the one who best epitomisesthe u e s a r e r e t r i e v e d :O l d e n b u r g ' s ' e x p r e s s i o n i s t ' q u i s t : ' T h e n s u d d e n l y , t h e i d e a s s e e m e d t o theoretical contradictionsin the practiceof this treatment, Wesselmann's fauvist and Matisflow towards me throu-eh window. All I had painting, and the difficulties the latter has in s i a n o n e , L i c h t e n s t e i n ' s ' a r t n o u v e a u ' a n d the 'The to do was seize them on the wing and start envisa-eing true object. He says: its can- Japanese calligraphy, etc. What have we to do painting. Everything spontaneouslyfell into vas is an entirely ordinary object, as much as with these legendary resonances? What have p l a c e- t h e i d e a , t h e c o m p o s i t i o n ,t h e i m a g e s , t h i s c h a i r o r t h i s p o s t e r ' ( a l r v a y st h a t w i l l t o we to do with theseeffects which say 'It's still the colours, everything started to work on its absorb,to reabsorbart, revealin-e both Ameri- a l l t h e s a m e p a i n t i n g ? ' T h e l o g i c o f P o p i s 'Inspirao w n . ' I t a p p e a r s h a t , o n t h e t h e m eo f t can pra-gmatism- terrorism of the useful, e l s e w h e r en o t i n a n a e s t h e t i c o m p u t a t i o n r a , o n tion', Pop artists are in no way inferior fo b l a c k m a i lo f i n t e - e r a t i o- a n d s o m e t h i n gl i k e metaphysics the object. of e a r l i e r- q e n e r a t i o n s .h i s t h e m e i m p l i e s , s i n c e a n e c h o o f t h e m y s t i q u eo f s a c r i f i c e ) . e a d d s : T H Pop could be defined as a game, and a 'Reality Werther, the ideality of a Nature to which it n e e d sn o i n t e r m e d i a r yo n e s i m p l y h a s m a n i p u l a t i o n ,o f d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f m e n t a l , ;uffices to be faithful in order that it be true. It to isolate it from its surroundin-es and put it p e r c e p t i o n :a k i n d o f m e n t a l c u b i s m w h i c h i s s i m p l y n e c e s s a r yo a w a k e ni t , r e v e a li t . W e d o w n o n t h e c a n v a s . ' N o w t h a t i s t h e w h o l e seeks to diffract objects not according to a t r e a d i n J o h n C a g e , m u s i c i a n a n d t h e o r i s t - q u e s t i o ni n p o i n t : f o r t h e o r d i n a r i n e s s f t h i s s p a t i a la n a l y s i s b u t a c c o r d i n g o m o d a l i t i e so f o , t inspiratorof Rauschenber-e JasperJohns: ' and c c h a i r ( o r h a m b u r - e e r ,a r f i n o r p i n - u p f a c e ) i s perceptionelaboratedthrou-qhout centuries the a r t s h o u l d b e a n a f f i r m a t i o n - n o t a n e x a c t l y i t s c o n t e x t .a n d m a i n l y t h e s e r i a l c o n - o n t h e b a s i s o f a w h o l e c u l t u r e ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l i t t e m p t t o b r i n g o r d e r . . . b u t s i m p l y a w a y o f t e x t o f a l l s i m i l a r o r s l i _ e h t l y i s s i m i l a r c h a i r s , a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a a p p a r a t u s o b j e c t i v er e a l i t y d l : , t ' u k i n g , t o t h e v e r y l i f e w e a r e l i v i n _ ew h i c h e t c . O r d i n a r i n e s ss t h e d i f f e r e n c ei n r e p e t i t i o n . ima_se-reflection, rp , i figuration by drawing, techs s o e x c e l l e n t ,o n c e o n e - q e t s n e ' s m i n d a n d B y i s o l a t i n g h e c h a i r o n t h e c a n v a s ,I r e l i e v ei t n o l o g i c a lf i g u r a t i o n( t h e p h o t o ) ,a b s t r a c t c h e o t s r n e ' s d e s i r e so u t o f t h e w a y a n d l e t s i t a c t o f i t s o f a l l o r d i n a r i n e s s a n d , a t t h e s a m e t i m e , I , m a t i s a t i o n ,t h e d i s c u r s l v e u t t e r a n c e , t c . O n e ) r v n a c c o r d . ' T h i s a c q u i e s c e n c t o a r e v e a l e d r e l i e v et h e c a n v a so f i t s w h o l e c h a r a c t e r s a n t h e o t h e rh a n d .t h e u s eo f t h e p h o n e t i ca l p h a b e t e a r r d e r- t h e u n i v e r s e f i m a g e sa n d o f m a n u f a c - e v e r y d a vo b j e c t ( b y w h i c h , a c c o r d i n gt o W a r - a n d i n d u s t r i a l t e c h n i q u e s h a v e i m p o s e d o u r e d o b j e c t ss h i n i n - gh r o u g ht o a b a s i ct t o t u r e h o l . i t s h o u l d h a v e a b s o l u t e l yr e s e n r b l e d h e s c h e m e s o f d i v i s i o n , d o u b l i n g , a b s t r a c t i o n , t t - l e a d s t o p r o f e s s i o n so f a m y s t i c o - r e a l i s t c h a i r ) .S u c ha n i m p a s s e s w e l l k n o w n : a r t c a n r e p e t i t i o n ( e t h n o g r a p h e r s e l l o f t h e P r i m i i t ' a i t h : ' A f l a - 9w a s j u s t a f l a _ 9 a , n u m b e r w a s n o m o r e b e a b s o r b e d i n t h e e v e r y d a y t i v e s ' b e w i l d e r m e n tu p o n d i s c o v e r i n gs e v e r a l r ; i r n p l ya n u m b e r '( J a s p eJ o h n s ) o r a g a i nJ o h n ( c a n v a s = c h a i rt)h a n i t c a n g r a s p t h e e v e r y d a y b o o k s a b s o l u t e l ya l i k e : t h e i r w h o l e v i s i o n o f , y i s r n i s t h e v e r y l o , e i co f c o n t e n ' l p o r a rc u l t u r e . f a n d P o p a r t i s t sc o u l d h a r d l y b e r e p r o a c h e do r r n a k i n gi t e v i d e r t t . f N o m o r e t h a n t h e y c o u l d b e r e p r o a c h e do r , t h e i r c o m m e r c i a l s u c c e s s a n d f o r a c c e p t i n gi t w i t h o u t s h a m e . E v e n w o r s e , c o n d e m n e da n d reinvesred with a sacred function. It is thr-rs lo-eical for an art that does not oppose the w o r l d o f o b j e c t s b u t e x p l o r e s i t s s y s t e m ,t o e n t e ri t s e l f i n t o t h e s y s t e m .I t i s e v e n t h e e n d o f a c e r t a i n h y p o c r i s y a n d r a d i c a l i l l o g i c a l i t y .I n c o n t r a s tw i t h e a r l i e r p a i n t i n g ( s i n c et h e e n d o f t h e l 9 t h c e n t u r y ) ,s i g n e c la n d c o m m e r c i a l i s e d i n t e r m s o f t h e s i g n a t u r e( t h e A b s t r a c tE x p r e s a s i o n i s t sc a r r i e d t h i s t r i u m p h a n ti n s p i r a t i o n n d o t h i s s h a m e l e s s p p o r t u n i s mt o a h i g h e rp l a n e ) , and Pop artists reconcile the object of paintin-e the painting-object. Coherence or paradox? Through its predilection for objects, through 'marked' o b j e c t sa n d t h i s i n f i n i t e f i g u r a t i o no f material consumables, and through its commercial success,Pop Art is the first to explore 'signed' and the status of its owp art-object as 'consumed'.

( in d t h e r , v o r l d i s t u r n e c l L r p s i d e o w n ) . i n t h e s e s c r i b e s o n c ea - 9 a i n . i t s a m b i t i o n . orf i g o u r )i s 'aesthetic s e n s i b i l i t y . 'P o p i s a v a r i o u s n r o d e so n e c a n s e e t h e r n y r i a df i g u r e s f a r f r o n r o L r r ' c o o l ' a r t : i t r e q u i r e s e i t h e ra e s t h e t i c n o cf a rhctorit' of desigrtatioil. f reco-unition. ecstasy A n d t h i s i s w h e r e P o p c o r r e s i n t o p l a y : i t n o r a f f e c t i v eo r s y n t b o l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n( ' d e e p b w o r k s o n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s e t w e e nt h e s ed i f f e r - i n v o l v e m e n t ' )b u t a k i n d o f a b s t r a c it n v o l v e . l o e n t l e v e l s o r n r o d e s ,a n d o n t h e p e r c e p t i o n f m e n t o r i n s t r u m e n t a c u r i o s i t y . R e t a i n i n ga o t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s .T h u s t h e s c r e e n p r i n t f a l i t t l e o f t h a t c h i l d - l i k e c u r i o s i t y o r n a i v e e n o I y n c h i n - ei s n o t a n e v o c a t i o n : i t p r e s u p p o s e s c h a n t m e n t f d i s c o v e r y- a n d w h y n o t ? - P o p i t h i s l y n c h i n gt r a n s m u t e dn t o a n e w si t e m ,i n t o c a n a l s o b e s e e n a s c o m i c - b o o k r e l i g i o u s i m or a j o u r n a l i s t i cs i g n b y v i r t u eo f m a s sc o m m u n i - a-ges, as a Book of Hours of consumption, c a t i o n s - a s i g n t a k e n t o y e t a n o t h e rl e v e l b y b u t w h i c h a b o v e a l l b r i n g s i n t o p l a y i n t e l l e c p T e s c r e e n p r i n t i n - e .h e s a m e p h o t o r e p e a t e d r e - t u a l r e f l e x e so f d e c o d i n g ,o f d e c i p h e r i n - 9 ,t c , s u p p o s e st h e u n i q u e p h o t o . a n d . b e y o n d t h a t , t h o s eo f w h i c h w e w i l l c o m e t o s p e a k . w I n c o n c l u s i o n ,P o p A r t i s n o t a p o p u l a r a r t . t h e r e a l b e i n - e h o s er e f l e c t i o ni t i s : m o r e o v e r , t h i s r e a l b e i n gc o u l d f i g u r e i n t h ew o r k w i t h o u t F o r t h e p o p u l a r c u l t u r e e t h o s ( i f t h a t i n d e e d s e d e s t r o y i n , gi t - i t w o u l d o n l y b e o n e m o r e e x i s t s ) . r e s tp r e c i s e l yo n a n u n a m b i - s u o urs a l ism, on linear narration (and not on repetition combination. and the J u s t a s t h e r ei s n o o r d e r o f r e a l i t yi n P o p A r t , or the diffraction of levels),on alle-qory ( b u t l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a t i o n , t h e r e i s n o r e a l d e c o r a t i v e t h i s i s n o t P o p A r t , s i n c et h e s et w o 'something' refer back to essential), space - the only space is that of the canvas, categories that of the juxtaposition of different elements/ and on emotiVe participation linked to the n It a s i , e n s n d o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s ; e i t h e ri s t h e r ea n y moral of life's uncertainties.6 is. only on a real time - the only time is that of the reading, rudimentary level that Pop Art can be under'figurative' art: a coloured imagery, that of the differgntial perceptionof the object stood as a and its image, of such an image and the same a naive chronicle of consumersociety,etc. It is for a ntental true that Pop artists are also happy to claim repeated,etc, the time necessary correctiott, for an accomnndation to the im- this. Their candour is immense. as is their to age, to the artifact in its relation to the real ambiguity. With regard. their humour, or to o b j e c t ( i t i s n o t a q u e s t i o no f a r e m i n i s c e n c e , that attributed to them, here again we are on ground. It would be instructive,in this but of the perceptionof a loc'al,Iogic'aldiffer- unstable searchingfor an re,9ard,to register the reactions of viewers. ence). Neither is this readin-q in With many, the works provoke a laughter(or at articulation or a coherence,but a covera-ee least the inclination to a laughter) which is order. a e-ytenso. statementof successive are It can be seen that the activity Pop pre- moral and obscene(thesecanvases obscene Notes recalling lost essence an order the banality, and evokedby the absurd. Pon-se: his of authenticity and seizing uponthenaked concrete object still is a poetic consciousnessperception action. or in In brief,all art 'withoutwhichthingswouldonly be what they are' feeds(beforePop) on transcendence. g e o m e t r y , ' e t c . D a d a o r D u c h a m p o r t h e S u r r e a l - 4 c/below: The Consumptiott Consuntptiott. of the the i s t s : h e r e o b j e c t sa r e s t r i p p e do f t h e i r ( b o u r g e o i s ) 5 In thissense truthof Popconcerns earning and not and capacity promotion, the contract the f u n c t i o n a n d m a d e t o s t a n do u t i n t h e i r s u b v e r s i v e
This text is taken from Jean Baudrillard, La Soc'idtdde consontntation: ses ntythes, sesstruct u r e s , P a r i s , G a l l i m a r d , 1 9 7 0 ,p p 1 7 4 - 1 8 5- f r o m 'La t h e s e c t i o ne n t i t l e d c u l t u r em a s s - m 6 d i a t i q u e . ' cl'Boorstin, The Inutge. 'essence' of space The Cubists: again, it is the 'secret which they seek, an unveiling of the

i n t h e c l a s s i c a lv i e w ; ) .T h e n , a s m i l e o f d e r i _ s i o n , b u t w h e t h e ri t j u d g e s t h e o b j e c t s p a i n t e c l o r t h e p a i n t i n gi r s e l f i t i s c l i f f i c u l t t o k n o w . A smile which beconres willing accomplice: a 'That c a n ' t b e s e r i o u s ,b u t w e a r e n o t g o i n g t o b e s c a n d a l i s e da n d a f t e r a l l p e r h a p s. . . ' A l l , m o r e o r l e s st w i s t e du p i n t h e s h a m e f u ld e s o l a _ t i o n o f n o t k n o w i n - eh o w t o t a k e i t . T h a t s a i c l . P o p i s a t o n c ef u l l o f h u m o u ra n d h u m o u r l e s s . In all logic it has norhing to do with subver_ s i v e , a g - e r e s s i vh u m o u r , w i t h t h e t e l e s c o p i n - e e ofsurrealist bjects.t is not at all concernedo o I t short-circuit objects in their function, but ro j u x t a p o s et h e m i n o r d e r t o a n a l y s e t h e i r r e l a _ tions. This move is not terrorist;7 rather, at the very most, it conveys effects derived from cultural isolation. In fact, it is a question of somethingelse. Let us not forget, by taking us back to the system described, that a ,ceriain smile' is one of the obligatoryt signs of consumption: it no longer indicates a humour, a critical distance,but only recalls that transcendent .critical value materialised today in a knowing wink. This false distance is everv_ where, in spy films, with Godard, in modern advertising which continually uses it as a cultural allusion, etc. Ultimately, in this .cool' smile, you can no longer distinguish between the smile of humor and that of commercial complicity. This is what also happens in pop Art - after all, irs smile epitomizes its whole a m b i g u i t y :i t i s n o t t h e s m i l e o f c r i t i c a l d i s fance,it is the smile of collusion.

galleryof painting. 'Popular' a r t i s n o t a t t a c h e dt o o b j e c r s , b u t a l ways primarily to man and his exploits. It would not paint a delicatessenor the American flag, but a-man-eatingor a-man-saluting-the-Americanflag. In fact, we often read this 'terrorist' humour into i t . B u t t h r o u g h a c r i t i c a l n o s t a l g i ac i n o u r p a r t .

R t J a m e s o s e n q u i sF, - l l l

( p a r t i a v i e w ) , 1 9 6 5 , i l o n c a n v a s v i t ha l u m i n i u m , 2 5 . 4 2 1 8 . 4c m l r x o

63