Talk:Pop art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

REF LINKS NOT WORKING[edit]

don´t know where else to put this so I´m gonna leave this here: nr. 23 of the ref links is a 404. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirilliz (talkcontribs) 13:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


Rauschenberg & Johns ???[edit]

These artists, while preeminent influences on pop artists, should not be considered pop artists. The majority of their most controversial and well known work, such as Johns Flag and Target series and Rauscheberg's Combines were made during and before Richard Hamilton's first collage was considered to be Pop Art (Just What Is IT That Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing) at the time when Lichtenstein and Warhol had just begun to dabble with painting images from Dick Tracy and other comic strips. However, more importantly, formally neither of them can be considered to fall into the Pop mold; they are far too painterly, expressionistic, and anarchic in style and content. I believe they should be discussed herein but they do not belong under the category of Pop art.

ANDY WARHOL??[edit]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Andy Warhol and BIG part of USA Pop Art? Why aren't any of his pieces pictured in this article? --71.253.146.15 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • haha, yeah i felt the same way. whole bloody article and he's only mentioned in the spain section! the usa section needs expanding and must include mr. warhol ;) 24.60.66.216 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole Poop Art section is a disgrace. Not only no Warhol, but no British Pop Art... They Started It?! Apparently here it began in Spain.....--Nnevillem (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

??[edit]

Nick Gabrichidze an unordinary man and bright personality. The creative work of Nick always are marked by his energy and inspiration, of his daring thought, original solution, feeling of refined tastes, his impeccable artistry. Elle20 14 : 17 pm, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

i just deleted that OT shit about balkan pop musicians

Weren't the poop artists really celebrating corporate mass culture?Jfitzg

As I see it it's more about making making a satire of it.

I always assumed the point was that you couldn't tell either way. That is, to bring up the question without providing a prepackaged answer. --Bảo 20:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Gabrichidze's self-promotion, sock puppets[edit]

User User:Gabrichidze has a long history of attempts to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, repeatedly inserting his art in articles such as Mermaid. He often uses a sockpuppet, Elle20, and his vanity article recently lost a vfd. I've been deleting some of his spam today, in articles like this one and Surrealism, but he's been reinserting it. I don't want to violate the 3RR, so I hope others will keep an eye on the situation.--Bcrowell 7 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

I've also noticed this; I live in Amsterdam and he's hardly famous here. If you look on the 'Net you'll see heaps of his self-promotional antics. Bizarre. (from a reader who rarely uses this site.)

What are the main ideas of popart and who are the main atists that worked in this way from sophie

examples?[edit]

Anyone want to submit some examples of good pop art to show on the page?

Its tricky. Almost by definition, all Pop Art is still in copyright. The classic example would be a Roy Lichtenstein. We can easily claim {FairUse} on the artists own page, and it may be possible to use one here. The pop art era has mostly passed, so any current artists who might license more freely are probably derivative and most likely self promotional. The best approach would be to include some inline external links to representative examples. -- Solipsist 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

target broad audience?[edit]

While some pop art targets a broad audience, and even more claims to, most in reality is in fact as recondite and academic as the avante-garde periods that preceded it. For example, pop art influenced literature often utilizes disjunctive narrative technique to reflect montage in film and advertizing on the television. This likely makes for uncomfortable reading for "broad audiences" more used to conventional narrative styles. User:Havardj

Lichtenstein's House I: Op Art, not Pop Art?[edit]

It seems to me that although executed in a technique more typical of Pop Art, the image in the article shows an example of Op Art as defined in Op Art. Can someone who knows more than me please look into this, or make the distinction between the two intelligible (assuming that I am wrong)? - Samsara contrib talk 23:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I second this, it definitely seems to be more op art than pop art. Tigger89 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's something revolutionary: it may be both! ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Article structure[edit]

As there seems to be odd activity on this page right now I am going to hold of. To improve the structure my suggestion would be to have a section on Pop Art in England with Hamilton/Alloway etc and its roots in the Independent Group and then a section on Rauschenberg and John's interest coming out of Duchamp. The two sides tie up in 1961/2 when Hamilton and Alloway are both in the US.Piersmasterson 16:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Balkan Pop?[edit]

I think a misguided user has wrongly misinterpreted Pop Art with Pop music as in some Balkan countries the word "art" is primarily associated with music. Balkan Pop singers do not belong in this category because Pop Art is a visual form of art, then what's the point of it staying there? Linus 16:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed it... again. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed it......again. Freshacconci

Deletion[edit]

I added some detail about Pop Art's development in Britain but someone deleted it a while back. So we have a large section on Spanish Pop Art but nothing on the origin. Why?Piersmasterson 15:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of vandalism about Andy Warhol. 68.161.64.63 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Duchamp-Johns-Warhol[edit]

I added a fact tag to the statement about the influence of Duchamp on Johns and Warhol because there's no definitive statement in the articles about either of them that Duchamp influenced them. And I suppose because I'm highly sceptical of the claim that he influenced Warhol in any important way. If evidence can be supplied, though, I'll be glad to have improved my understanding of the genre. John FitzGerald 14:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In his biography of Duchamp, Tompkins tells that Johns, Duchamp, John Cage and Rauschenberg "...enjoyed each one another's company so much that they met frequently after that..." There's more, but I didn't look up all the references in the biography. (Tomkins, Calvin: Duchamp: A Biography, page 411. Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1996. ISBN 0-8050-5789-7) --sparkitTALK 00:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The unsent letter[edit]

Is there any evidence, by the way, of the authenticity of Richard Hamilton's unsent letter? Specifically, what evidence is there that it was actually written in 1956? Just asking. John FitzGerald 14:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

John McHale vs. Richard Hamilton[edit]

A user, Rory55, has made some oddball changes to formatting and is attempting to articulate a controversy about the origins of pop art. If there is any merit to this, there are ways to include this information without changing the format of the article. Freshacconci 13:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Any discussion about what belongs in the article should be addressed in this forum and not in the main article. The article should contain verifiable facts. The origins of pop art have a number of histories, many contradictory, but the main article isn't for posting grievances. If hsitory needs to be corrected, find the sources and include the new information, but with citations. Freshacconci 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, there's been a bit of a POV push in other articles involving McHale and attribution. Sources don't appear to be forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Check Hunt-7 internet article for confirmation stating it is now recognised that John McHale designed the Just What collage. You are just ignoring the facts, since you do not have expertise in the subject. Ottex3/3/07

Because you are the only "expert" on the subject? Which link are you referring to? Freshacconci 13:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question proves my point, you are like some of the other cyber pals that are clowning around changing wiki text without being current on the recent academic debate: see Jeremy Hunt article This is Tomorrow, on internet Hunt-7. Ottex 3.3.07

It must be lonely being the only one who's "right" all the time, isn't it? Again, and I'll go slowly for you here: what is "internet Hunt-7"? Is it a link? It's not in the current version of the Pop Art article, which of course has no citations. Please, help me be "current" with the "academic" debate. (Or is it just an interview with McHale's crackpot son, which would make it a bit suspicious and hardly academic). But you're the "expert", help me out here. (You wouldn't be evading the question would you, Junior?). Freshacconci 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Try internet search: "jeremy hunt this is tomorrow hunt-7" and you should be able to access the article.all the best.ottex3/3/07

Thank you! That was helpful. Freshacconci 15:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite reliable sources[edit]

I have removed a large amount of unreferenced information from this article following a complaint (OTRS ticket # 2006110910007418). Please cite reliable sources for all information in this and any other article in accordance with the Verifiability policy and Reliable sources guidelines. If possible, please use the footnote syntax to clearly designate which source supports a particular piece of information. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Why not Category:Visual arts? Category:Visual arts is basically a category holding categories of the major visual arts topics. >>sparkit|TALK<< 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick note on edit wars[edit]

To all other editors, before I get too carried away with some battle with McHale's son, or whoever he is, I'd like to say (although it may be satisfying), I'm stepping away from the fray and focus on improving the article, which I'm hoping everyone would agree is why we're here. Further comments from me will be editorial in focus and I prefer to stay away from the other nonsense. Happy editing! Freshacconci 15:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Images in article[edit]

Can we remove the Aya Takano image? Since there are plenty of wikilinks, an actual image may not be necessary (just click to find example of Japanese Pop). As there are no other examples (no Spanish Pop, no iconic Warhols, etc.), this seems oddly selective. I think just the image of the Richard Hamilton is enough for the general article. Freshacconci 14:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I mainly bring this up because of the edits DennisCaddy is currently working on. The image seems to get in the way of the columns (which I think work well). Freshacconci 14:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the image. If someone wants to see an example, they can click through to another page. Freshacconci 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Warhol on the list[edit]

why is andy warhol's name in the list of notable pop artists twice? just trying to help if this was a manual error

The duplicate name has been removed. Thanks. Freshacconci 20:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?[edit]

i replaced this image at the top because it i liked it, it fit the fair use criterion, and couldnt find any rationale on the talk page as to why it had been removed. i replaced the the artist credit in the caption (since it is disputed) with the year of origin and an explanation that it was one of the first recognized pop works. —PopeFauveXXIII 00:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I restored all of the deleted eight paintings and sculpture, it's my feeling they greatly improve any understanding of Pop Art, they improve the text and demonstrate the period and time frame from which this movement emerged, it helps place the article in context. I also returned the list of notable artists. Modernist 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


ANDY WARHOL??[edit]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Andy Warhol and BIG part of USA Pop Art? Why aren't any of his pieces pictured in this article?


[[[[hi i got pop art for a subject i dont realy get it i no this is for you to put in your ideas and this is mine

please make it easier for children to understand just an idea you can ignore it or use it to your advantage.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Andy Warhol[edit]

Warhol is a Pop artist. He is very spectacular and does amazing work. He also made a Campbell Soup lable. He also made a seven hour long film of the Empire State Building. The people called him a mirror of his age. Warhol can be viewed as a perfect embodiment of the American Dream. He became a millionaire. His personalities personalifies a new type of star, once creator, producer, actor, and business man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.103.24 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead Image[edit]

  • Please discuss any changes, and lets achieve consensus before you place a new lead image unilateraly...Modernist (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
OK...I left mthe following POV on your talk page earlier ---- Before we engage in a 're-formatting contest', let's have a dialogue on the importance of the 1947 Paolozzi collage and its relative image position in the "Pop Art" article. having equal prominence with Hamiltion is justified given that the importance of the Paolozzi piece is well-documented from many credible art historian sources. Whereas it may not be as well recognized publicly as the Hamilton work, that is precisely the point of the Paolozzi work being placed in a justifiably prominent position -- to make people aware of the work and its historic significance. Therefore, its position in the article should be equal to Hamilton, not appear subservient. Please clarify why you feel it should be "secondary" to the work of Richard Hamilton. FYI - Richard Hamilton was in the audience of Paolozzi's 1952 Independent Group "Bunk!" presentation. Dezignr (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? has a recognizable reputation and is documented in numerous art history books...and the Paolozzi is not as well known.Modernist (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Frankly I like the Paolozzi and I saw your note on my talk page too, - I want some other editors to weigh in their opinions. Please don't be impatient, thanks...Modernist (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I would add that the Paolozzi 1947 work is in fact well known to art historians, art critics, museum curators and major Pop artists. Richard Hamilton and Peter Blake, among others, have referenced Paolozzi's early 'found object' collage influence. The Paolozzi work is also well documented in numerous history books and collected by major international museums. (See Tate Collection: London -- http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1738&page=1
This particular collage was one of numerous such 'found object' collages that were part of a significantly influential presentation given by Paolozzi as the first Independent Group meeting in 1952. Paolozzi's presentation, titled 'Bunk!', is well documented as initiating the British Pop Art movement and predating the American Pop Art movement by several years. Both Paolozzi and Hamilton were founding members of the Independent Group and in fact were friends.
I agree that Hamilton's piece is also very significant and well-known publicly in the history of Pop Art. However, not any more significant, influential and scholarly than Paolozzi's work. As you know, the pupose of encylopedic content is to be scholarly, to communicate and to educate. Therefore, in my view, the work of both Hamilton and Paolozzi should equally be lead images for the article -- located on either side at the top. Which one is on the left or the right is a coin toss. Dezignr (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the format of the article. I'm actually leaning toward simply reversing them with Paolozzi first, - as they are. Left and right results in a very awkward looking article..lets see if anybody else weighs in an opinion...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Continued[edit]

The above talk is hard to follow. Please use colons to indent talk with a new post. I've rearranged the content, but not changed it. The lead should be a summary of the main text. Dezignr's argument for Paolozzi as the lead image is the reason why it shouldn't be: "Whereas it may not be as well recognized publicly as the Hamilton work, that is precisely the point of the Paolozzi work being placed in a justifiably prominent position -- to make people aware of the work and its historic significance." We serve up the mainstream view and clearly Hamilton's work is the one that is most widely known as a pop art image. That is the reason for using it. Wikipedia is a derivative tertiary work, not an innovative primary or even secondary one. Its historic signifance can be perfectly well shown in the historical narrative. Ty 01:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I like this format..it makes good sense to me. Modernist (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Having a separate Independent Group section works well and puts Paolozzi's piece in a more focused context. I added more content to the Indepemndent Group section with inline citations and sources. Since the Pop Art page layout was very disjointed and visually bothersome with lots of white space between sections and around images, I took the liberty to fix it through a combination of adding more verifiable content (with inline citations and sources) to the United States section, rearranging some other content that was out of place and adjusting images so that they would still be located near their specific references, while enabling the text to better fill-in the former white space areas. the article now looks more unified and has more in-depth content. 74.166.46.48 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I prefer the Hamilton on the right, and the Lichtenstein at 200px per MoS. Modernist (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff, adding info and refs. This article could easily be five times the length. I've removed forced image size per previous WP:WPVA discussions. The thumb renders at 180 px anyway. I've moved Paolozzi to the right, as it's preferable to have text starting a section on the left, though not mandatory. A work in progress. Ty 12:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I just moved the Lichtenstein image to the left in order to eliminate the very large area of white space that was occuring between the "In the United States" heading and the associated U.S. text. This move enables the U.S. text to relocate up to the proper visual position directly under the heading....otherwise the article typographic layout appearance is very poor....which is rather inappropriate for a "visual arts" article. (Note: The purpose of the earlier image changes was to affect the overall typographic treatment of the article...not to change image positions/sizes for image appearance purposes). The current layout with the Lichtenstein on the left, achieves the original intent. Dezignr (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It was also necessary to slightly increase the Lichtenstein image size from 200px to 210px in order to avoid the wrapping of a text sentence fragment under the image Dezignr (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lichtenstein on the left is fine; the MoS is actually 180px..I left it at 200px before but generally I prefer 180px; with 300px as the lead image, and 180px for images in the articles seems to be working best...check your preference settings - (see above) under files, most thumbnails are set at 180px....Modernist (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Making the Lichtenstein image width 200px results in a single sentence fragment hanging under the image, creating a very poor appearance. By simply increasing the image width by only 5px to 205px, the typographic issue is solved and the visual image size increase is not discernable. Dezignr (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you use colons, you can indent talk and make it easier to follow. What you are saying is true only for the screen resolution you are using. It will render differently on different screens. If you force the image size, then you prevent user preferences from working. This is why it should not be done. Ty 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Larry Rivers[edit]

Larry Rivers was omitted from the text citing "The most important painters in the establishment of America's Pop Art vocabulary...." The verifiable reference source cited in the article (Arnason, H., History of Modern Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 1968.) describes (page 578) Larry Rivers as a "talented, brilliant eclectic whose paintings represent almost a history of American styles at mid-century" and who went against Abstract Expressionism and re-examined old master's paintings. However, the reference further asserts: "Rivers cannot be described exactly as a pop artist, but he shares the concern for the everyday image while differing in the degree of expressionistic commentary". Therefore, while being a significant artist and contributing work to the Pop Art movement in America, Rivers is not close to being as important to Pop Art as Johns and Rauschenberg. 74.166.46.48 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Rivers and a little original research perhaps - but long overdue commentary[edit]

Irving Sandler mentions Rivers along with Johns, Rauschenberg and others as an important antecedant of American Pop Art, and Sandler cites Washington Crossing The Deleware as an important influence on American painting in the late 1950s. I concede that most scholars put Rivers along the periphery while placing Johns and Rauschenberg squarely at the center as the two fathers of American Pop Art. However like Alex Katz who was initially described as a 1950s figurative painter and who clearly is now identified with Pop Art; Larry Rivers also was initially described as a 1950s figurative painter - (as a kind of anti-Abstract Expressionist painter), and that tag has obscured his importance as a link between Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art. Just as Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg were also initially associated with Abstract Expressionism and were later understood to be a link between Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art. Those artists by virtue of their use of imagery culled from Pop culture - clearly enabled what developed into Pop Art in the 1960s. Rivers actually did the same thing, at the same time, albeit more as a radical figurative artist of the 1950s, by eschewing abstraction altogether. His Camel cigarette paintings, or his 1965 gigantic History of the Russian Revolution construction belie the conventional view of Rivers. Along with Johns, Rauschenberg, Stuart Davis, Gerald Murphy, and Charles Demuth he was an important Pop Art antecedent....Modernist (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

John McHale[edit]

I've reverted the edit that credits him as co-author of Just What Is It That Makes Today’s Homes So Different, So Appealing?.[1] This is not the majority attribution required per WP:NPOV. It has not been established in the article about the artwork, and needs to be resolved there, before it is inserted into a general article. Please continue the discussion there, before reinserting here. Ty 23:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I support this. Hamilton is the creator of the image. Every art history textbook includes this important work, and names Hamilton as the sole author. To claim otherwise is ludicrous and makes a mockery of the encyclopedia.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not every art book nor do all contemporary art historians support the view that Hamilton was the exclusive author of the " Just what is it..?" collage work. Some more contemporary sources recognise it as a collaborative Hamilton and McHale work. The large panel of recent art experts that issued the modern encyclopaedic tome: "Art the Definitive Visual Guide" ISBN 978-155363-091-3 state on page 534 with a photo inset and text that: "The oversized American Tootsie lollipop has the word "Pop" accross its wrapper, a reference to John McHale who collaborated on the work, and invented the term Pop art in 1954."This fact should not be edited out, and should be highlighted in the main Pop art site particularly since the text on the site mentions the iconic image of POP.Ottex (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Every book that I have supports Hamilton as sole author. The above sounds ambiguous at best..in other words the above sounds as though Hamilton refered to McHale when he (Hamilton) placed the word Pop into his collage, and consequently consensus is still Hamilton as sole author....Modernist (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear, it states John McHale who collaborated on the work... not Hamilton referencing.Ottex (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah language the ambiguous wonder of language - The oversized American Tootsie lollipop has the word "Pop" accross its wrapper, a reference (bold mine) to John McHale who collaborated on the work, and invented the term Pop art in 1954. - sounds like referencing to me and thus the term collaboration is inserted. Modernist (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It was a deliberate design reference by McHale who coined the term Pop art and designed the collage, and it was Magda Cordell who accessed McHale files in his studio and provided Hamilton with McHale's measured design and the iconic Tootsie Pop along with all the other McHale iconic images for the cut out and paste up of the collage which was done by the Hamiltons and Magda Cordell in the McHale/Cordell atelier living room at 52 Cleveland Square. The Tootsie Pop was not listed on Hamilton's production list of interest, and therefore he was not the creative instigator of the image in the collage although he did paste it down. Furthermore, if you check the recent site: "Edinburgh's Festivals Users Guide to the Festival City Richard Hamilton: Protest Pictures" you will find that it is also states that: "Hamilton was responsible, along with John McHale, for what is generally considered to be the first piece of pop art, "Just What Is..?". No ambiguity, both McHale and Hamilton, a collaborative collage work. Ottex (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And Eduardo Paolozzi's work of the late 1940s was.........what, abstract expressionism? I appreciate your point of view but my understanding is that McHale was in the USA when Hamilton made the collage and the piece was made by Richard Hamilton, having interacted with McHale and worked with John Voelcker. Modernist (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion in one place, namely Just What Is It That Makes Today’s Homes So Different, So Appealing?. Ottex, you need to provide links and references, not just assertions, which we've all heard before. Ty 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ty for the reminder, you have been fair and even handed all along in these difficult editorial discussions. So we have some minimal agreement about the Ham/McH "interaction" on the "Just what is it..?" collage. In reply to the other matter of Paolozzi and the off-the-cuff Modernist comment. Paolozzi and McHale were both Scots artists and friends at the ICA/IG, when Paolozzi produced his great late 1940's early 1950s collage works which are well described on this site. But at the time they were created Paolozzi considered his own works Surrealist and refered to them as such. If you go carefully back through the 1940-1950's record you will find that Paolozzi scrupulously avoided McHale's initial concept devlopment and term pop art when applied to Paolozzi's works. It was only in the 1960's, after Alloway's pronouncements, that Paolozzi's earlier collage works began to be generally refered to as Pop art However, I will agree, like many agree, that in hindsight Paolozzi's 1940 and early 1950's collages are important works of proto Pop Art.Ottex (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fix up some appropriate references and it's all good for the article. Ty 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

One reference on Paolozzi and his prevailing Surrealist orientation is in Lynne Cooke's article, "From the Independent Group: British and American Pop Art, A 'Palimpsestuous' Legacy", published in Modern Art and Culture edited by Vandedo and Gophic, MOMA 1990, where Lynn Cooke is cited: "Paolozzi's debts were more to Surrealism which he had studied in the forties and which he remained thereafter aligned". The title term 'palimpsestuous' was a McHale neologism. Incidentally, R. Hamilton originally was not recognised as a Pop artist until the 1960's when L. Alloway gave him a post hoc boost in his articles; and part of this factor is noted on one of the Yale University sites "Pop Art Reflections of the Mass Media" by Patricia Flynn in paragraph 13,with footnote 9 . Ottex /Oct 08

Any material that is verifiable from reputable sources is valid for inclusion, as long as WP:NPOV is followed, so that the majority view is given prominence and minority views are shown as such. See WP:UNDUE. That is general, not a specific observation on the point you have raised. Ty 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pop vs. Popular[edit]

Just checking -- this article links to Pop music. Should it instead link to Popular music?

The basic distinction is that Popular music is part of the 3-way Art/Traditional/Popular distinction that covers all genres. Pop music is a specific genre. For example, Rock & Roll is Popular music, but not Pop music.

Thoughts?

-- TimNelson (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This article is not about or related to music, popular or unpopular. It is about a movement in the Visual arts...Modernist (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but pop music is mentioned in the article, so it is apprarently related to music anyway, however distant. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The mention of pop music is a mistake, and has been removed..This article is about Visual Art not pop music...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pop music[edit]

Sorry but Pop music doesn't belong here...Modernist (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

BRITISH CULTURE[edit]

Pop art had two parallel developments, one was British and the other was USA. I am not sure if it is correct to say that the British origins were "academic" since the ICA lot were certainly conscious of being "non academic" in their artistic approach. This comes out in the ICA member's writings and statments about being non academic. Later on Pop art may have perhaps become more academic in the UK.Ottex (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC) ottex

Why do so many British people bring some kind of nationalist slant to every single Wikipedia article they click on? Pop Art is a loosely defined genre and some how the British invented it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.205.29 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The British people invented many things... other countries just claim they invented them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.59.35 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This would tend to have bearing on this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason it may appear that British people "bring some kind of nationalist slant to every single Wikipedia article they click on" is because Wikipedia is widely known to sometimes have a (factually inaccurate) American bias. Subsequently British people recurrently find the incorrect information here rather irritating. The received wisdom is not only that many Wikipedia articles contain U.S. favouritism (or simply ignorance in terms of language), but also that errors and distortions are abundant here. There's no smoke without fire. Even this very article subtly plays down the fact that pop art emerged in Britain first, by sort of skimming over it and strangely implying that (although it emerged in Britain first) the two strands of pop art somehow developed simultaneously. For example, in this sentence, "The origins of pop art in North America and Great Britain developed differently" the fact that the origins of pop art are actually in Britain is simply discarded.
The British invented hundreds of very useful things: however, admittedly Wikipedia is an American "invention". It's therefore a pity that it's inherently flawed. To be fair, many users here are probably American: they should be mindful, however, that this site is international. The fact that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans have no passport (so they can’t even fly to Canada) is of course rather worrying: this makes it all the more important that American Wikipedia editors work extra hard in order not let their "side" down.
And I'll take a rough guess and suggest that the (minority of) Americans who do complain about British people drawing attention to mistakes here imaginably have an inferiority complex.
So if the poster above (it was a while ago, but this point still stands) has developed the impression that cantankerous British people are seemingly always complaining about mistakes (or the partisan American slant) here, there's a simple solution: just get it right next time.
86.174.150.210 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese and German Pop Art[edit]

Were there any Japanese Pop artists in the 1950s or 60s? There were five or six German artists strongly influenced by Pop-Art (Gerhard Richter, Polke, Alverman, Gaul and others), even if most of them were too critical of evil "capitalism" (or simply anti-american chauvinists) to call themself pop-artists.--Radh (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sentence I can't understand[edit]

What does this mean (in the lead section), and can I remove this sentence:

"The concept of pop art refers not as much to the art itself as to the attitudes that led to it."

It is referenced to an off-line source but I don't have access to that source. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)