".
1 lrtif t") ii" i'4 ioiri'
/l r{ , []r::::,',,i
Jean Baudrill ard
Johns,ThreeFlags,l958,encaustic,
Jasper
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 objectivefinal-
ity, 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 an-
thropomorphicstatus,and tends to dissipatein
a discourse of connotations,which are them-
selves 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 dis-
course 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
shadow of man and have be-eunto assumean
extraordinary importance as autonomousele-
m 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 resur-
rection 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
a p p a r e n t l yr e c o n c i l e dw 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
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 ys t a t u si s r a i s e d :
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.
I n a w o r d : i s P o p A r t t h e c o n t e m p o r a r ya r t
form of that logic of signs and of their con-
s u m p t i o nw h i c h i s b e i n gd i s c u s s ehde r e ,o r i s i t
(I
, , /!
Pop - An Art of Consumption?
76.5x I15.6x 12.7cm
only an effect of fashion and thus purely an
object of consumption itself? The two are not
contradictory. One can grant that Pop Art
transposesan object-world while quite accept-
ing 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 tradi-
tional sublime statusof artistic representation.
Quite litbrally, there is no longer any privileg-
ing 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, combi-
natory 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 cultural-
ised 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,
a n a r t o f p u r e m a n i p u l a t i o n ?I 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
6{:1\ {-,j
.' ")
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 prag-
matic, 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 inte-
grate this mythological discourseand to be in-
tegratedin 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
why Pop artistspaint objectsaccordin-gto their
real appearance,since it is only thus, as ready'
'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'.
m a r k . I f t h a ti s t h e nA m e r i c a n
 5
i.-tg.

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 rcyu l t u r e . 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

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 df o r t o l e t s o L r n dbs 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 caer e
r n a k i n gi t e v i d e r t t . a n e s s e n c eo 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
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 df o r 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 .
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 e n v i r o n m e n ta . n d r . v h i c hw i t h r e g a r d t 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 eo f t h e e v e r y d a y ,
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 s t i t u t e sq 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'
thr-rsreinvesred with a sacred function. It is t h u s s p e a k so f t h e 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
lo-eical for an art that does not oppose the kitchen. o t h e r s )b e l i e v ei n i t , t h i s i s b e c a u s et h e y d e l u d e
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 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 themselveswith regard to the very statusof art
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 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 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 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
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 ( s o m e t h i n gl i k e a n i m p r e s s i o n i s mo f c o n s u m e r mystical nostal_eia at the very level of the act,
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 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
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 - 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'
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 na n d ego to the of the surroundin,eworld. There stenciling,screen-printin_e, etc. Now, for art to
t h i s s h a m e l e s so p p o r t u n i s mt o a h i g h e rp l a n e ) , 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 ! pose as machine-like is the worst kind of
Pop artists reconcile the object of paintin-eand But above all there is a grave equivocation vanity, and for whoever enjoys - willin-ely or
the painting-object. Coherence or paradox? and inconsistency.For by not presentin,ethe not - the statusof creatorto dedicatehimself to
Through its predilection for objects, through s u r r o u n d i n gw 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.
'marked' primarily an artificial field of manipulable Yet it is difficult to accuseeitherWarhol or the
t h i s i n f i n i t e f i g u r a t i o no f o b j e c t sa n d
material consumables, and through its com- signs,a total cultural artifact where what comes Pop artists of bad faith: their exacting logic
mercial success,Pop Art is the first to explore 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
'signed' and differential perception and a tactical game of statusof art, about which they can do nothing.
the status of its owp art-object as
'consumed'. significations - by presenting it as revealed It is this powerlessnesswhich their ideology
Yet this logical enterprise, whose extreme nature, as essence,Pop has a double connota- conveys. When they try to desacralisetheir
consequencesone would not but applaudwere tion: first, as the ideology of an integrated practice, society sacralisesthem 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
of bourgeois spontaneity. Pop wants to be the art of the commonplace forget that for the picture not to become a
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,
pbsitivism','antiteleolo-9ism ( 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
Pop as Arr) sometimesassumesa dan-eerously metaphysicalcate-eory, a modern version of the author's content or intentions are not enou-eh:
'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
drove through Orchard Street, both sides of i s u s e d( W e s s e l m a n n ' st r 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
drove I remember having a vision of 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.sPerhapsthis is neitherthink-
Store'. I saw; i n m y mind'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
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 situ-
seemed 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-ehstores- all as a sign. And the successof Pop, in the best you continue at the cost of re-eressin-e into the
kinds and all over- as though they were muse- instances,is 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 pl i c t o r i a l v a 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 theoreticalcontradictionsin the practiceof this treatment, Wesselmann's fauvist and Matis-
flow towards me throu-ehthe 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
to do was seize them on the wing and start envisa-eingits true object. He says: can- Japanesecalligraphy, 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-eboth 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
'Inspira-
o w n . ' I t a p p e a r st h a t , o n t h e t h e m eo f 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 no r a
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-n a n d s o m e t h i n gl i k e metaphysicsof the object.
e a r l i e r- q e n e r a t i o n sT.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 ) .H e a d d s : Pop could be defined as a game, and a
Werther, the ideality of a Nature to which it 'Reality
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-esand 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 yt o 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
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 so 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 gt o m o d a l i t i e so f
inspiratorof Rauschenber-e and JasperJohns: ' c h a i r ( o r h a m b u r - e e rc,a r f i n o r p i n - u p f a c e ) i s perceptionelaboratedthrou-qhoutthe centuries
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 yd i s s i m i l a rc h a i r s , a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a al p p a r a t u s o: b j e c t i v er e a l i t y
, t ' u k i n gr ,p 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 si s 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, figuration by drawing, tech-
s s o e x c e l l e n t ,o n c e o n e - q e t so n e ' s m i n d a n d B y i s o l a t i n gt 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 ts c h e -
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 , nd, at the same time, 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 ,e t c . O n
) r v n a c c o r d . ' T h i s a c q u i e s c e n c teo 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 ra 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
r r d e r- t h e u n i v e r s eo 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
u r e d o b j e c t ss h i n i n - gt h 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 dt 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 ,
- 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 ei 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 st e l l o f t h e P r i m i -
' 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
; i r n p l ya n u m b e r '( J a s p eJr 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
 t h e r , v o r l d i s t u r n e c l L r p s i d ed o w n ) . i n t h e s e s c r i b e s( o n c ea - 9 a i ni .n i t s a m b i t i o n . orf i g o u r )i s 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 _
'aesthetic
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 s e n s i b i l i t y . 'P o p i s a 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
' c o o l ' a r t : i t r e q u i r e sn e i t h e ra e s t h e t i c
c f a r h c t o r i t ' o f d e s i g r t a t i o i l .o f r e c o - u n i t i o n . ecstasy 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
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 s m i l e w h i c h b e c o n r e sa w i l l i n g a c c o m p l i c e :
w o r k s o n t h e d i f f e r e n c e sb 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 - '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
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 no f m e n t o r i n s t r u m e n t a cl u r i o s i t y . R e t a i n i n ga 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
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 to 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 - 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 _
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 to f d i s c o v e r y- a n d w h y n o t ? - P o p 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 .
t h i s l y n c h i n gt r a n s m u t e d i n 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 - 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 .
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,or as a Book of Hours of consumption, In all logic it has norhing to do with subver_
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 - s i v e , a g - e r e s s i vheu m o u r , w i t h t h e t e l e s c o p i n - e
s c r e e n p r i n t i n - eT.h e s a m e p h o t o r e p e a t e dp 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 - 9e,t c , o f s u r r e a l i s to b j e c t s .I t i s n o t a t a l l c o n c e r n e dt o
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 . short-circuit objects in their function, but ro
t h e r e a l b e i n - ew h o s er e f l e c t i o ni t i s : m o r e o v e r , 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 . 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 _
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 tions. This move is not terrorist;7rather, at the
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 tpsr e c i s e l yo n a n u n a m b i - s u o urse a l - very most, it conveys effects derived from
combination. ism, on linear narration (and not on repetition cultural isolation. In fact, it is a question of
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-qoryand the somethingelse. Let us not forget, by taking us
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 back to the system described, that a ,ceriain
'something'
space - the only space is that of the canvas, categoriesrefer back to essential), smile' is one of the obligatoryt signs of con-
that of the juxtaposition of different elements/ and on emotiVe participation linked to the sumption: it no longer indicates a humour, a
s i , e n sa n d o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s ;n e i t h e ri s t h e r ea n y moral of life's uncertainties.6It is. only on a critical distance,but only recalls that transcen-
real time - the only time is that of the reading, rudimentary level that Pop Art can be under- dent .critical value materialised today in a
'figurative'
that of the differgntial perceptionof the object stood as a art: a coloured imagery, knowing wink. This false distance is everv_
and its image, of such an image and the same a naive chronicle of consumersociety,etc. It is where, in spy films, with Godard, in modern
repeated,etc, the time necessaryfor a ntental true that Pop artists are also happy to claim advertising which continually uses it as a
correctiott, for an accomnndation to the im- this. Their candour is immense. as is their cultural allusion, etc. Ultimately, in this .cool'
age, to the artifact in its relation to the real ambiguity. With regard.to their humour, or to smile, you can no longer distinguish between
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 the smile of humor and that of commercial
but of the perceptionof a loc'al,Iogic'aldiffer- unstableground. It would be instructive,in this complicity. This is what also happens in pop
ence). Neither is this readin-qsearchingfor an re,9ard,to register the reactions of viewers. Art - after all, irs smile epitomizes its whole
articulation or a coherence,but a covera-eein With many, the works provoke a laughter(or at 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 -
e-ytenso. a statementof successiveorder. least the inclination to a laughter) which is fance,it is the smile of collusion.
It can be seen that the activity Pop pre- moral and obscene(thesecanvasesare obscene

Notes

This text is taken from Jean Baudrillard, La banality,recallingthe lost essence and an order galleryof painting.
'Popular'
Soc'idtdde consontntation: ses ntythes, sesstruc- of authenticityevokedby the absurd.Pon-se: his 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 -
t 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 seizinguponthenakedandconcrete objectis still ways primarily to man and his exploits. It would
'La a poeticconsciousness or perceptionin action.In not paint a delicatessenor the American flag, but
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. brief,all art 'withoutwhichthingswouldonly be a-man-eatingor a-man-saluting-the-American-
'essence' what they are' feeds(beforePop) on transcen-
The Cubists: again, it is the of space flag.
'secret
which they seek, an unveiling of the dence. In fact, we often read this 'terrorist' humour into
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 of Consuntptiott. 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 .
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 thetruthof Popconcerns theearning
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 capacityandpromotion,not the contractandthe

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

63