UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

I Think Everybody Should Be Like Everybody

The Hidden Significance of the Andy Warhol Do It Yourself Series of 1962

A thesis submitted to

the Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Department of Art History of the College of Design, Art, Architecture, and Planning

by

Meredith A. Schiff BA Vanderbilt University, May 2002

May 2008

Committee Chair: Dr. Kimberly Paice

Abstract

As one of the mot widely recognized artists of the 20th century, Andy Warhol (1928-

1987) and his art have been heavily debated and analyzed. His strict dedication to the Pop Art

movement is manifested in several forms: his formalist stance, his enthusiasm for modernity and

American consumerism, and his wide range of subject matter, including advertisement appropriations, cartoon replications, and serialized portrayals of celebrities. Because his oeuvre is so far-reaching and diverse, it is feasible that scholars and art historians may neglect some of it. An example of such an instance is with Warhol’s Do It Yourself series of 1962, a reproduction of the popular Venus Paradise paint by numbers kits. Although small in number, this series marks a turning point in Warhol’s career as a result of its inherent involvement of spectator participation. In addition to a discussion of specific aspects of the Pop Art movement and how Warhol fits into it, the first chapter concentrates on the formal aspects of the DIY works and how they warrant such spectator contribution. Next, the second chapter examines Warhol’s artworks prior to the DIY series, and how the former are more limited when it comes to an active viewing experience. Finally, the third chapter recognizes the DIY series as a distinct turning point for Warhol. This is achieved by means of analyzing his art, technique, and lifestyle after the series’ completion in the summer of 1962.

iii Acknowledgements

For years, I have been a fan of the Pop Art movement, specifically, of Andy Warhol and his art. Upon choosing to pursue my Masters degree in Art History, I knew that I would eventually have to write a thesis. As I sat trying to decide what would be the most fitting and interesting topic for myself, my mind kept returning to Warhol. However, recognizing the wide range of literature pertaining to this artist already available, it seemed as though there would be little for me to contribute. Dr. Kimberly Paice, my thesis chair, changed all of that. When I explained to her my research ideals, she responded, “I would love to see you write about

Warhol’s Do It Yourself series.” The idea was a success. I found that there was very little literature that even mentioned these works, let alone concentrated upon them. Thus, from that point on, I began researching possible arguments, and established the following. Despite the lack of scholarly dedication to the DIY series, I would like to recognize Benjamin Buchloh.

Without his remarkable essay, “Andy Warhol’s One-Dimensional Art: 1956-1966,” I may never have found my area of focus. His assertions about the DIY works and their inherent “aspirations toward a new aesthetic of participation,”1 inspired me to research how and why such involvement is significant to Warhol and his entire artistic career.

Next, I would like to extend my great thanks to the faculty and staff of the College of

Design, Art, Architecture, and Planning. Specifically, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Kristi

Nelson and Jane Carlin, instructors of the Research Seminar that I took during my first year of my candidacy. Without their aid and expertise in the areas of research databases, citation, writing skills, and thesis format, this writing process would have been more difficult, confusing, and stressful. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Mikiko Hirayama and Dr. Theresa

1 Benjamin Buchloh, “Andy Warhol’s One-Dimensional Art : 1956-1966,” in Andy Warhol: A Retrospective, ed. Kynaston McShine (Boston: Bullfinch Press/Little Brown & Company, 1989), 45.

iv Leininger-Miller, instructors of the Thesis Colloquium, which took place at the beginning of my second year of candidacy. Without their patience, precise scheduling, and advice, I doubt that my thesis would be nearly as successful.

Additionally, I am grateful to my entire thesis committee. First, I would like to extend my greatest gratitude to my thesis chair, Dr. Kimberly Paice. No matter what was my question or issue, Dr. Paice was always ready and willing to help me in any way possible. Her incredible intellect, sense of humor, and interest in my topic never went unnoticed. Additionally, I am so grateful for her creative and clever ideas that always proved to increase the success of my argument and analysis. She was always accommodating, considerate, precise, and enthusiastic.

Despite her personal workload, she always gave me the time I needed to sort out my writing.

Next, I would like to thank Dr. Mikiko Hirayama and Dr. Kristi Nelson. Both of them were extremely helpful in providing feedback, fixing grammatical issues, and in explaining to me what additions or subtractions could best improve my paper. I am so appreciative of their unyielding patience, their willingness to be a part of my committee, and their excellent guidance.

Finally, I would like to recognize the incredible support of all of my friends and family.

Without them, I may never have gotten through this difficult and turbulent journey. Both of my parents were always eager to read each bit of my thesis as I finished. Furthermore, they were always willing to give me feedback, and to help me edit my work. My mother was always on the lookout for new and interesting books about Andy Warhol, and was willing to do anything she could to help me write an intriguing and persuasive paper. On the whole, I truly cannot imagine this journey without the guidance and support of each recognized individual. Thank you so deeply to all!

v

vi

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations viii

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: A Distinct Approach to Pop Art: The Do It Yourself Series of 1962 7

Chapter 2: The Path to the Ultimate Spectator Role: Techniques and Subject Matter in Andy Warhol’s Early Career, 1950-1962 20

Chapter 3: The Do It Yourself Series as an Integral Turning Point for Warhol: Spectator Participation in his Art from 1962-Death 32

Conclusion 41

Bibliography 47

Illustrations 50

vii

List of Illustrations

1. Andy Warhol, Do It Yourself (Seascape), 1962, Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas, 54½” x 6’, Collection Dr. Marx, Berlin.

2. Andy Warhol, Do It Yourself (Sailboats), 1962, Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas, 6’ x 8’ 4”, Daros Collection, Switzerland.

3. Andy Warhol, Do It Yourself (Landscape), 1962, Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas, 70 x 54”, Museum Ludwig, Cologne.

4. Andy Warhol, Do It Yourself (Violin), 1962, Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas, 54” x 6’, Private Collection.

5. Andy Warhol, Do It Yourself (Flowers), 1962, Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas, 69 x 59”, Courtesy Thomas Ammann, Zurich.

6. Andy Warhol, Do It Yourself (Flowers), 1962, Colored crayon on paper, 25 x 18”, The Sonnabend Collection.

7. Andy Warhol, Do It Yourself (Narcissus), 1962, Pencil and colored pencil on paper, 23 x 18”, Oeffentliche Kunstsammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett Karl August Burckhardt-Koechlin Fonds.

8. Andy Warhol, Popeye, 1961, Synthetic polymer paint on canvas, 68¼ “ x 58½”, Collection of Mr. and Mrs. S.I. Newhouse, Jr.

9. Andy Warhol, Superman, 1960, Synthetic polymer paint and crayon on canvas, 67 x 52”, Collection Gunter Sacks.

10. Andy Warhol, Dick Tracy, 1960, Synthetic polymer paint on canvas, 6’7” x 45”, Collection Mr. and Mrs. S. I. Newhouse, Jr.

11. Andy Warhol, Coca Cola, 1960, Oil and wax crayon on canvas, 6’ x 54”, Dia Art Foundation, New York.

12. Andy Warhol, Large Coca Cola, 1962, Synthetic polymer paint on canvas, 6’10” x 57”, Collection of Elizabeth and Michael Rea.

13. Andy Warhol, Campbell’s Soup Cans, 1962, Synthetic polymer paint on canvas, thirty-two works, each 20 x 16”, Collection of Irving Blum, New York.

14. Andy Warhol, Campbell’s Soup Cans (Chicken with Rice, Bean with Bacon), 1962, Synthetic polymer paint on canvas, two panels, each 20 x 16”, Stadtisches Museum Abteiberg, Monchengladback.

viii

15. Andy Warhol, Dance Diagram, 1962, Synthetic polymer paint on canvas, 6’ x 54”, The Estate of Andy Warhol.

16. Andy Warhol, Dance Diagram (Tango), 1962, Synthetic polymer paint on canvas, 71¼” x 52”, The Estate of Andy Warhol.

ix

Introduction The Hidden Significance of the Andy Warhol Do It Yourself Series of 1962: Spectator Participation and Relationship to his Career

“That Warhol borrowed his images from others, from photographs, ads, food labels and developed a technique by which they were serially mass-produced by anonymous Factory hands remains one of the most contentious issues in criticism. By erasing himself from his creations, minimizing the artist’s responsibility, the significance of talent, and the value of originality, Warhol challenged presumptions about what art is supposed to be and how one is to experience it.”2 -Alan R. Pratt, 1997

“Whether his subject is soup, a HANDLE WITH CARE- GLASS- THANK YOU label, S & H Green Stamps, dollar bills, or do-it-yourself paint-by-number kits, each canvas asks: Do you desire me? Will you destroy me? Will you participate in my ritual? Each image, while hoping to repel its death, engineers its erotic arrival.”3 -Wayne Koestenbaum, 2001

As one of the most widely recognized artists of the 20th century, Andy Warhol (1928-

1987) and his art have been heavily debated and criticized. His oeuvre has ranged from the replication of modern consumerist products to the appropriation of comic books and cartoons, to

the serialized images of movie stars and celebrities. Despite the abundance of theories on the

supposed deeper, internal implications of Warhol’s artwork, it is important to note that Warhol

himself claimed, ”If you want to know about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my

paintings and my films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind it.”4 Thus, I have

chosen to search for the significance of his work not by way of possible intended messages or

potential underlying meanings, but instead through its unique subject matter and medium.

Therefore, this study will examine the importance of a series of works by Warhol that has yet to

be thoroughly analyzed, the Do It Yourself series of 1962. This series, consisting of five acrylic

paintings and two pencil drawings, is taken directly from the actual Venus Paradise paint-by-

2 Alan R. Pratt, ed., The Critical Response to Andy Warhol (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1997), xxii. 3 Wayne Koestenbaum, Andy Warhol (New York: Penguin Group, 2001), 55. 4 Andy Warhol, “Andy Warhol: My True Story,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith (New York: Carroll & Grad Publishers, 2004), 90.

1 numbers product. This series has been so greatly overlooked by scholars and critics, yet it indicates a key moment, even a turning point in Warhol’s ever-changing career. Additionally, this series may be considered to offer a new level of kitsch within the Pop art movement itself.

Kitsch as defined by noted art theorist, Clement Greenberg, is mass-produced and distributed items of cultural entertainment.5 Often, it is representative of a product, advertisement, or equally familiar image appropriated from popular culture. It is seemingly more definitive of the decorative arts, and for this reason, is able to blur the lines between high and low art, or fine and decorative, mass-produced art.

Unlike anything else in Warhol’s oeuvre, the Do It Yourself series warrants a certain level of spectator participation and involvement, as if the works addresses viewers, and as if their role is to complete them. Because of their subject matter and the fact that the majority of the series appears unfinished, as a result of unpainted areas of canvas, Warhol seems to have suggested that any individual, no matter their artistic talent or education, would be suited to complete them just as well as could Warhol himself. The Do It Yourself series straddles the line between fine art and commercial art, not just because of its strict adherence to the original Venus Paradise product, but also because the works in the series allude to how the masses are able play the role of artist. In other words, not only has the hierarchy of art, high versus low, been questioned, so has that of the artist. As a result of such concentrated audience participation and active spectatorship, this series is not only unique to Warhol’s preceding career, which focused on works possessing only surface value definitive of the Pop art movement, but it is also the foundation for a turning point for his succeeding work with silk screens and, particularly, the works he made within the Factory.

5 Clement Greenberg, “Avant Garde and Kitsch,” in Pollock and After: The Critical Debate, ed. Francis Frascina (London & New York: Routledge, 2000), 50.

2 As a result of the formal interest of Andy Warhol’s Do it Yourself series and of the

American Pop art movement in general, it is logical to employ a methods that prominent art scholar, Yve Alain-Bois has described as “materialist formalism.”6 Via this approach, I hold that an art’s value can be determined via its form or its visual aspects. Specifically, even though the work is realistic and representative of the American consumerist world, there is nothing deeper to the work. Context and content are completely subordinate to such physical qualities as the canvas, the image, and the texture. Moreover, the series will successfully demonstrate how the series involves a certain level of participation, both because of its subject matter and its reference to a modern consumerist product. Additionally, it will support the argument that up until this point in his career, Warhol’s other artworks were not as formally similar to this series as the naked eye would assume, especially in terms of active spectatorship. Finally, it will help to explain how, in terms of subject matter, this series not only reflects Warhol’s ceaselessly shifting career, but also its direct relationship with the Factory.

In the first chapter of the study, the important formal aspects of the Do It Yourself series will be discussed at length. Moreover, the particular way in which these works warrant spectator participation will be analyzed and explained. A chapter dedicated to these works and their relation to the Pop art movement in America is crucial to proving their uniqueness and status as a turning point in Warhol’s career. First, there will be a brief discussion of American Pop art, followed by an explanation of how Warhol and his art fit into it. Next, the specific works in this series will be analyzed formally with a focus on those elements that give them a kind of singular stature. Finally, there will be an in-depth focus on the series’ distinct demand for spectator participation, an element that has yet to be investigated in Warhol’s work. This section includes

6 Yve-Alain Bois, Painting as Model (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993), xi.

3 expert testimony by scholars and writers, including Benjamin Buchloh and Klaus Honnef, who

broach spectator participation, but never really explore it at length or in terms of Warhol’s other

artworks. In this discussion, the uniqueness of the Do It Yourself series will become evident.

One essential reason is that it may be of particular interest to those striving to become artists, but may lack the talent or formal education to become successful. This stems from the fact that, because the majority of the works in the series is unfinished, there is the suggestion that anyone has the ability to play the role of fine artist and finish them as well as could Andy Warhol

himself. Again, instead of simply challenging the value of art itself, this series challenges that of

artist as well.

The second chapter of this study will center on Warhol’s oeuvre in the years preceding the Do It Yourself series. Specifically, it will examine how this series is related to his artistic career and lifestyle of the 1960s by comparing it to several of his other important, and more heavily analyzed works. These include his replications of famous comics like Dick Tracy (1961) and Popeye (1961), and his numerous incarnations of Campbell’s soup cans (1962), and Coca

Cola bottles (1960 and 1962). These series all reflect a level of consumerism comparable to that

expressed in the Do It Yourself series. However, despite these similarities, these works possess

surface value only, and they do not call for an active sort of spectator participation. Therefore,

they may be considered a completely different level of kitsch. The subject matter and seemingly

identical replication of the comics, soup cans, and Coke bottles challenge their fine art value, yet

none of them contest the role of the artist. Furthermore, they reflect a product that demands

active participation, however, the images themselves do not. This chapter will be essential proving that not even the similar works from Warhol’s preceding career come close to touching upon the unique inherencies of the Do It Yourself series.

4 The final chapter of this study will discuss the way in which the Do It Yourself series

represents a vital turning within Warhol’s career. Additionally, it will prove that after the

completion of this series, Warhol succeeding oeuvre mirrors its unique qualities. First, there will

be an analysis of the Dance Diagram series, one that is quite similar to the Do It Yourself works.

Next, there will be a discussion about Warhol’s preference for the silkscreen process, and how

after opting for such a medium, he basically ended his painting career. Warhol’s famous silk

screens are quite similar the Do It Yourself series, for they also involve a level of human

participation from individuals other than the artist. For example, Warhol had various members

of his Factory work on and contribute to a number of them. Such outputting in gross numbers was a major purpose behind the Factory, which is the final topic of examination. It will focus

upon what the Factory was, who was involved in it, why it was developed, and how it

contributed to Warhol’s career. Such an analysis will further support the theory that the Do It

Yourself works represent a defining moment for Warhol and his art. Overall, the way in which

the Factory and its artistic tendencies emerged from artworks, such as the Do it Yourself series,

will be demonstrated.

Despite the vast number of essays, articles, reviews, criticisms, and exhibition catalogues

on the art of Andy Warhol, few scholars take any notice of his Do it Yourself series. No one has

yet grasped the significance of this series, and for that reason, there are many lacunae in the

available literature at this time. The most important source of information on the series is the

The Andy Warhol Catalogue Raisonne, which was edited by Georg Frei and Neil Printz.

Specifically, it provides reproductions of each image in the series, discusses where they can be

found, lists their medium and size, and even explains the ideas behind reproducing these paint-

by-numbers. Because the Do it Yourself works have so little written on them, this kind of

5 information is essential to becoming acquainted with the series, and in devising arguments about

them.

Another vital source is Andy Warhol: A Retrospective from the Museum of Modern art in

New York, edited by Senior Curator, Kynaston McShine. This retrospective catalogue includes

several insightful and important essays written by scholars including, Robert Rosenblum,

Benjamin Buchloh, and McShine himself, scholars who will be referred to throughout this study.

Of these texts, Buchloh’s essay “Andy Warhol’s One-Dimensional Art: 1956-1966” distinctly

mentions and even discusses the Do it Yourself series.7 It explains spectator participation and

even how these works inherently relate to advertisement and consumerism in the 1960s.

Although valuable, none of these sources thoroughly analyzes or discusses the series in relation

to Warhol’s lengthy career. They do not afford due attention to the uniqueness of the series or of

its inherent potential for active spectator participation, a quality that changes Warhol’s

succeeding career path. Thus, this study will fill those holes, and make one’s comprehension of

the Do It Yourself series whole.

Andy Warhol’s Do it Yourself Series of 1962 is not only a milestone in Warhol’s

repertoire, but it also reflects a significant element of his practice, namely his ability to make the

everyday suddenly seem intriguing and new. Unlike any of his other works to date, the Do it

Yourself series involves a great deal of spectator participation, allowing anyone no matter their

talent or formal education to finish it. As a result, not only is the fine art status of the series subverted, but also so is that of the artist himself. Additionally, this implicates a direct relationship with the purpose behind the Factory and Warhol’s numerous silk screens.

7 Benjamin Buchloh, “Andy Warhol’s One-Dimensional Art : 1956-1966,” in Andy Warhol: A Retrospective, ed. Kynaston McShine , 39.

6

Chapter 1 A Distinctive Approach to Pop Art: The Do It Yourself Series of 1962

“Pop Art is for everyone. I don’t think art should be only for the select few, I think it should be for the mass of American people and they usually accept art anyway. I think Pop Art is a legitimate form of art like any other, Impressionism, etc. It’s not just a put-on, I’m not the High Priest of Pop Art, I’m just one of the workers in it.”8 -Andy Warhol, 1966

“If someone fakes my art, I couldn’t identify it.”9 -Andy Warhol, 1962

The Pop Art movement emerged in the middle to late 1950s as a reaction against Abstract

Expressionism in the United States.10 Its first major showings in New York occurred in 1959,

but it was not commonly accepted as an artistic style until the 1960s.11 Its participants included

such modern artistic masters as Roy Lichtenstein, Tom Wesselmann, Jeff Koons, and of course,

Andy Warhol. These men, among others, opposed the Abstract Expressionists’ embrace of originality and authorship.12 Moreover, they made it their business to portray everyday mass

images and products as a form of high art, or as Warhol liked to say, “pure art.”13 Thus, there

was a unique intermingling of the original and the mechanical, the sophisticated and the unrefined, and the fine and the commercial in Pop Art. It was a conundrum or paradox of sorts.

As a result, the common or mundane was suddenly capable of maintaining a status of originality,

glamour, and significance.14 People began to pay attention to those elements of American life that were so easily ignored and neglected before. As asserted by Donald Kuspit in Art Journal,

8 Andy Warhol, “Andy Warhol: My True Story,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 90. 9 Andy Warhol, “Warhol Interviews Bourdon,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 9. 10 Stephen Bann, “Pop Art and Genre,” New Literary History 24, no. 1 (1993), 115. 11 Gregory Battcock, “New Look at the New Art,” Art Education 18, no. 2 (1965), 30. 12 Burton Wasserman, “Remember Dada? Today We Call Him ‘Pop,’” Art Education 19, no. 5 (1966), 12. 13 Andy Warhol, “Andy Warhol: My True Story, in “I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 88. 14 Donald B. Kuspit, “Pop Art: A Reactionary Realism,” Art Journal 36, no. 1 (1976), 33.

7 “Pop art takes images with wide circulation…and fetishizes them into icons by placing them in

an art context…fulfilling a traditional purpose: the ‘idealization’ of the actual in an absolute so that it seems memorable.”15 Such “fetishizing” of images including advertisements, cartoons,

labels, and commercialized products, causes people not only to notice these things, but also to

appreciate them more carefully. Evidently, if a famous artist takes the time and energy to

represent these images as high art, then the audience is more prone to recognize that there is

something noteworthy about them; thus, they should be celebrated as icons of American culture.

As Kuspit has eloquently analogized, “Pop art gilds an already gilded lily, seemingly

making it sterling gold.”16 In addition to a greater awareness of everyday images, this movement

increases their status, cultural value, and public appreciation. As a sort of “[confrontation of]

details from the surrounding commercial, social, or industrial landscape,”17 Pop art assumes a

kitschy, mass-produced quality that is easily recognized by the masses. Thus, unlike other

modern art genres, namely Abstract Expressionism, most are able to enjoy Pop art, regardless of

their level of artistic education, talent, or comprehension. In other words, it embraces the

consumerist, mechanistic, and commodified aspects of post-Industrial America, with a

concentrated focus on the mundane and the everyday, “so essential to consumer capitalist

society, [yet having] nothing to do with the derision of that society socialists imagined they saw

in it.”18

Indeed, Andy Warhol stuck faithfully to such subject matter and media throughout his

entire career. Nathan Gluck, one of Warhol’s primary assistants, has stated of Warhol’s art:

But I could see that his point was to get something that was basically everyday, dull, that you’ve seen over and over again, is not romantic, is not esthetically…Whatever you want

15 Kuspit, 33. 16 Kuspit, 32.. 17 Gregory Battcock, “New Look at the New Art,” Art Education 18, no. 2 (1965), 36. 18 Kuspit, 38.

8 to say. You know, at one time, when the movement first got started, he wanted to call his stuff ‘Communist Painting.’ Meaning it was common.19

Warhol had a knack for taking a variety of everyday items and images such as soup cans,

dollar bills, comic book characters, and even the faces of celebrities and making them

sophisticated, original, glamorous, and complex. Warhol manipulated these images in multiple

ways, whether that involved changing their medium or serializing them. In doing so, he was able

to eliminate their original meaning, and make it so that any spectator would be able to view them

both apathetically and objectively.20 Such spectatorship did not add any new message or

meaning to these images, for Warhol was concerned solely with surfaces and physical

appearance. However, it gave one the ability to see them in a new light, for it detached them

from their original stigma. Even so, such art warranted a certain level of passive spectatorship.

It is irrelevant to try to involve oneself in its process or presence. There is no deeper meaning,

no hands-on experience, and no dynamism or movement. Instead, Warhol’s oeuvre concentrates

on the static, the commercial, the objective, and the indifferent.21 However, this changes when

Warhol begins a series that is distinctive from all of his preceding works, the Do It Yourself

series. This series marked a specific turning point, after which Warhol’s artistic output is no

longer the same.

Andy Warhol began the Do It Yourself series in the early summer of 1962. In

comparison to many of his other series, this one was relatively small, consisting of only five

acrylic paintings and two drawings. Generally, the subject matter, which is “conventionally

19 Patrick S. Smith, ed., Warhol: Conversations about the Artist (Michigan: UMI Research Press/ University Microfilms Inc., 1988), 67. 20 Kuspit, 38. 21 Kuspit 38.

9 picturesque,” consists in still lifes and landscapes. 22 Warhol created each of the paintings using

the Venus Paradise Paint-by-Number merchandise as his sole source. Venus Paradise produced

a number of commercial art products, including colored pencils and paint-by-numbers sets.

These sets, also called “pre-sketched drawings,” were created to go with the company’s

numbered pencils, and once these compositions were completed, would result in a surprisingly

accurate artwork.23 For almost a decade, the paint by numbers product had been an American

craze. In 1953 alone, “the hobby industry had realized sales of $80 million retail, at an average

price of $2.50 for a kit with two to three canvases and a palette ranging from 8 to 90 colors.”24

Consequently, it is only fitting that a Pop artist would choose to represent such an intense

commercialized phenomenon. Warhol made very few changes to his versions of the product.

He did not diverge from the designated color codes, nor did he make any changes to the

drawings.25 Instead, his paintings corresponded almost exactly with the Venus Paradise paint-

by-numbers. Really, the only deviation is a new group of numbers, added to one of the source

pictures included by Warhol so that he could use colors outside of the set’s given selection. This

will be discussed a bit later in the chapter.

Furthermore, he reproduced the numbers in this series via Letraset transfer digits, which were rubbed “onto the canvas from a prepared sheet.”26 Accordingly, they allowed Warhol to

create Pop art with a popular commercial product. This is worth investigating, because rather

than painting or printing the numbers onto the canvas, he utilized an actual consumer product to

do so. Such an action creates a more solid correlation between the Do It Yourself works and the

22 Georg Frei and Neil Printz, eds., The Andy Warhol Catalogue Raisonne: Paintings and Sculpture 1961-1963, Vol. 1 (New York: Phaidon, 2002), N.P. 23 Frei and Printz, N.P. 24 William L. Bird, Jr., The How-To Craze that Swept the Nation: Paint By Number (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2001), 3. 25 Frei and Printz, N.P. 26 Frei and Printz, N.P.

10 commercial paint-by-numbers product. Finally, it is important to note that the title Do It

Yourself, first appeared in the Sydney Janis catalogue for the exhibition at the Sidney Janis

Gallery, and was subsequently instituted in secondary literature.27

Unusual for Warhol, the images represented in the paintings of the Do It Yourself series were not the usual images of popular culture spectators were accustomed to seeing, such as celebrities, advertisements, and cartoons. Instead, these works emphasized images of landscapes and still lifes, subjects found in paintings throughout history, but not typically seen in Pop art.

Thus, they represented popular culture in a different, less direct fashion. Rather than portraying the Venus Paradise label or advertisement that would immediately reflect the commercial good,

Warhol chose to depict the scenes from a particular product. For this reason, the Do It Yourself series is something of an anomaly in the Pop art movement, and therefore, each painting within the series necessitates a formal description.

First, there is the Do It Yourself (Seascape)(figure 1). Each of the paintings in the series still maintains its original title provided by the Venus Paradise Company. This is called a source image title.28 For Seascape that source title is “Coastal Scene.”29 Depicted is a small cabin and unequipped sailboats sitting calmly by the sea. The scene is quite static, and is exactly what one would expect from a paint-by-numbers artwork: no movement, little to no shading or shadow, completely two-dimensional, and stagnantly peaceful. In other words, it is totally basic and straightforward, a sort of painting for novices. Moreover, the primary colors are strongly represented, with a deep blue sky, yellow sand, and red sailboats. Despite the presence of over fifteen different colors, there is little creative use of them; there is no arbitrariness or unusual shades included. Again, this is perfectly standard for this kind of commercial art.

27 Frei and Printz, N.P. 28 Frei and Printz, N.P. 29 Frei and Printz, N.P.

11 However, there are several aspects that make Seascape unique. First of all, it is the only

one in the series that is completely filled in by Warhol. This may simply have been a way for

Warhol to show what a finished product may look like, should someone want to take the

initiative and play the role of artist later on. On the other hand, it may have simply been the one

that kept his attention long enough. Another unusual quality of the painting is its numbers. They

are still visible even in the painted areas, whereas in the other works, they are absent. One may

assume that Warhol included such visual deviation, because it proves that he followed the

numbers specified by Venus Paradise.30 In other words, his finished painting is still able to walk

the line between fine art and commercial art, because his finished product is an exact replica of

the actual merchandise, not an original design. One final curious aspect of Do It Yourself

(Seascape) is related in its source image: Warhol actually handwrote a group of numbers himself. Although also included on the back of the Venus Paradise container, “the new numbers allowed Warhol to add colors not included in the general assortment and to revise certain color relations from drawing to painting.”31 In doing this, Warhol still correlated the original colors

and numbers, but was able to make the changes needed if, for example, two adjacent colors were

too similar or too discordant.32 Because of these discrepancies, it seems as though Warhol

utilized this painting as his foundation for the series. He was able to show what a finished paint-

by-numbers resembles, to prove that he followed the color code provided by Venus Paradise, and

finally, to work with that code while still maintaining the painting’s commercial quality.

Another landscape Warhol chose to portray is entitled Do It Yourself (Sailboats) (figure

2), with the alternate source image title “Evening Sails.”33 Like Seascape, this painting portrays

30 Frei and Printz, N.P. 31 Frei and Printz, N.P. 32 Frei and Printz, N.P. 33 Frei and Printz, N.P.

12 a nautical scene, complete with sailboats and fluffy clouds. Moreover, this too, is a very static

landscape. Despite the fact that the sailboats are obviously meant to be in motion, as their sails are billowed out in front of them, they lack any visual dynamism. They simply seem to sit on the canvas. Once again, the two-dimensionality and motionlessness of the subjects reflect the elementary nature of paint-by-numbers art. In terms of color, this work uses a good deal of gray and blue, and adds in some pink for the clouds. However there is still a complete lack of shading or mottling, and nothing to suggest any great knowledge of painting or color theory. Finally, it is

worth noting that Sailboats is the only painting in the series whose source seems to come from a

different Venus Paradise set.34 Warhol’s reasoning for this departure is not clear. Perhaps, he

took a liking to it, or maybe saw it as complementary to Seascape. Either way, the origins of this

work are atypical, even though the work itself still fits with the formal qualities and motifs of the

rest of the series.

The last of the three landscapes in the series is Do It Yourself (Landscape) (figure 3), with source title “Autumn Scene.”35 As in Seascape, the primary colors in this work are

dominant, and as in the entire series, the color is flat and basic. Unlike the former two

landscapes, that depict the sea as its subject, this one portrays land. The majority of the canvas is

taken up by a large tree that Warhol began to fill in but never finished. Instead, the only

completed aspects are the barn and fence, found to the left. It seems odd that the artist would

choose to finish the more peripheral aspects of the work, while leaving the most central object

incomplete. Nevertheless, there may be no reason for this; he may have simply decided he did

not want to work on it anymore. In an interview with Warhol’s former assistant and noted art

critic, David Bourdon, he has stated of the Do It Yourself Series, ”But I haven’t tried to change a

34 Frei and Printz, N.P. 35 Frei and Printz, N.P.

13 thing…the only reason that I didn’t finish them is that they bored me; I knew how they were

going to come out. Whoever buys them can fill in the rest themselves.”36

In the sameseries, Warhol also depicted two still lifes. First, there is Do It Yourself

(Violin) (figure 4), given the source title “Still Life (Violins and Apples).”37 Of the five

paintings, this seems to have the fewest of the zones completed. Furthermore, that which is

being portrayed is more difficult to immediately recognize without first reading the title. It takes

a couple of moments to register that they are indeed apples and a violin. Lastly, it is intriguing

that in addition to acrylic paint, Warhol used crayons to fill in some of the numbered areas. In

the rest of the paintings, he only used the acrylic paint. As a result of this added medium, there

is a unique contrast between the flatness of the paint and the texture of the crayon.38 This is the

only work in the series that varies its media, and creates a contrast via texture and mark

irregularity.

Finally, there is Do It Yourself (Flowers) (figure 5), which is the only painting of the

series without a separate source image title. This is because its source is unknown.39 Unlike

Sailboats that simply came from another Venus paradise set, the company may not have created

Flowers at all. It is possible that Warhol designed this canvas himself. This possibility is further supported by the fact that Flowers is the only work that carries with it two pencil and colored pencil drawings. Perhaps they were preliminary drawings, created to help Warhol plan out the finished canvas. Nonetheless, it is important to observe that despite the possibility that Warhol designed Flowers himself, the formalities and visual themes remain intact. The color codes still

36 Andy Warhol, “Warhol Interviews Bourdon,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 8. 37 Frei and Printz, N.P. 38 Frei and Printz, N.P. 39 Frei and Printz, N.P.

14 adhere to those of the Venus Paradise paint-by-numbers, the images are still static and two- dimensional, and the subject fits in with the “conventionally picturesque.”40

The two accompanying drawings of Flowers, also created in 1962, are noteworthy because of the information they provide the viewer that the paintings do not. Their titles are Do

It Yourself (Flowers) (figure 6) and Do It Yourself (Narcissus) (figure 7), named after the Greek myth about the young boy who fell so deeply in love with his own reflection that he turned into a flower.41 This flower is known to resemble the daffodil, which is the center of focus in

Narcissus. Both of these drawings are incredibly rudimentary and haphazardly made. Unlike the straight, mechanical lines of the paintings that seem as though they could have been made by a machine, these drawings are obviously handcrafted. Even the process of coloring in the numbered zones seems like it was done without much care or caution. Often, the colored pencil travels outside of the designated lines. Basically, these works look like a child made them, possibly in an attempt to emulate the original creator of the paint-by-numbers product. Even so, there is one significant aspect of these two drawings. The drawing entitled Do It Yourself

(Flowers) contains more information along the bottom than in the corresponding painting, suggesting that the painting was cropped for some unknown reason.42 Without being able to trace the original source for Flowers, it is difficult to know or speculate upon why Warhol wanted to crop it.

It is necessary to note that in terms of choosing sources for his art, Warhol has said, “…I don’t have strong feelings on anything. I just use whatever happens around me for my material.

40 Frei and Printz, N.P. 41 Kynaston McShine, ed., Andy Warhol: A Retrospective (Boston: Bullfinch Press/Little, Brown & Company, 1989), 174. 42 Frei and Printz, N.P.

15 I don’t collect photographs or articles for reference material, I don’t believe in it.”43 Warhol

never seemed to care much for deeper meaning or underlying messages in his work. Instead, he

was a formalist, for he placed his focus on the purely visual aspects, including color, medium,

and the depicted motifs and objects. This suggests that it is irrelevant that the source for Flowers

is unknown, or that Seascape came from an entirely different set of Venus Paradise paint-by-

numbers than the rest of the series. What is important is at the core of the work. This core

involves certain one-of-a-kind elements that have yet to be seen in Warhol’s oeuvre.

These elements involve spectator participation and an increased level of audience

commitment. Art scholar, Benjamin Buchloh describes this new ideal of participation

thoroughly:

The Do It Yourself paintings bring the viewer, almost literally, into the plane of visual representation in what one might call a ‘bodily synecdoche’-a twentieth-century avant- garde practice intended to instigate active identification of the viewer with the representation, replacing the contemplative mode of aesthetic experience with an active one. However, this tradition had, in the meantime, become one of the key strategies…of advertisement design itself, soliciting the viewer’s active participation as Consumption.44

This active aesthetic experience is a consequence of that which is visually incomplete in this series, the blank zones of each painting. The spectators are dynamically drawn into the work with the longing to finalize it himself. Thus, he has the capability to take over the role of artist, despite any lack of talent or formal artistic education, and paint the canvas as well as Andy

Warhol himself could have done. No longer is the viewer limited to simply beholding the work of art. Now, there is the potential to become physically involved with it, collaborating with

Warhol to create a work of art.

43 Andy Warhol, “Andy Warhol: My True Story,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Diaries, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 93. 44 Benjamin Buchloh, “Andy Warhol’s One-Dimensional Art: 1956-1966,” in Andy Warhol: A Retrospective, ed. Kynaston McShine, 45.

16 Never before in Warhol’s career has there been an artwork that so openly and directly calls for active participation. True, there have been works that have involved the tradition of

advertisement consumption, as mentioned by Buchloh, yet the Do It Yourself series surpasses

this fashion of consumption by justifying one’s ability to become an artist himself. It skips over

the demands made by advertisement that outside spectators become involved with a product via

buying or owning it. Instead, by using a paint-by-numbers product as the source of the series,

the desire to buy or own the product is bypassed, and in its place, is the desire to actually involve

oneself in its process of production. The Do It Yourself series is the only series of Warhol’s

career that can be considered visually incomplete, with blank spots that seem to ask that someone

come and put the final touches on them. For this reason, the series is incredibly unique, and

significant to the path that his career ultimately took.

Klaus Honnef, professor of photography theory at Kassel Art Academy and distinguished

contemporary art author and editor, does a superior job of explaining how the Do It Yourself

series is one that warrants spectator involvement. Furthermore, he discusses how this

involvement is relevant to the rest of Warhol’s work:

Were all aspiring painters to follow the instructions in minute detail, the results of their work could not be distinguished from one another by merely looking with the naked eye…He simply reversed the bizarre principle of a painting pattern for dilettantes. With the help of mass production techniques he created a series of paintings, which…can be distinguished from one another and thus do not merely call into question the uniqueness of the ‘original’ artwork, but even profit by the use of repetition of the original.45

Therefore, although this series is unlike other ones in Warhol’s oeuvre, it does not diverge from his artistic themes, motifs, and philosophies. The newly dynamic viewer associates with this work. He or she is still encountering Pop art, and is still looking at a subject taken from popular culture. However, what was new was his newfound ability to indirectly collaborate with

45 Klaus Honnef, Andy Warhol 1928-1987: Commerce into Art (West Germany: Benedikt Taschen, 1990), 54-55.

17 Warhol to complete the blank areas of canvas. This kind of inherent potential for collaboration

is unusual, for in this version of Pop art, not only does the status of the painting walk the line

between high and commercial art, so does that of the artist. Any artistic novice could finish the

work, and no one would be the wiser. Warhol does not need to be deeply involved in these paintings, for any layman would be just as well suited to take on any artistic duties. No other work in Warhol’s preceding career allows such close connections between the high art work and

mass culture. In other words, the themes behind the Pop art movement are taken a step further

with the Do It Yourself series. Moreover, the series is still contained within the realm of high art

for one essential reason, namely, “Though it lowers the highly exaggerated importance of the

concept of originality [of the Abstract Expressionists] in contemporary art, it does not negate

it.”46 Warhol remains highly invested in the work, for he was the one who designed it, and he is

the one who began the process of painting it. It is simply the task of completing it that is left to

the masses.

Throughout his career, Warhol repeatedly expressed his admiration for machines. He has

famously stated, “I think everybody should be a machine. I think everybody should be like

everybody.”47 This idea further emphasizes the importance of spectator participation to the Do It

Yourself series. Additionally, it proves that Warhol responded strongly to the mechanical nature

of Pop Art, and the way in which it can be so easily recognized and reproduced. This series

allows any individual, other than the artist or his assistants, to work directly on the canvas. For

this reason, it helps to make all people like one another, especially in terms of their artistic

abilities. They now have the ability to create art as well as any other person, even those with a superior artistic education and talent. Furthermore, they become more machine-like. If Warhol

46Honnef, 55. 47 Andy Warhol, “What is Pop Art? Answers from 8 Painters, Part I,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 16.

18 had made multiple copies of the works in this series, they could be finished by hand as rapidly

and as accurately as if by a machine, for everyone could contribute simultaneously. Rather than

giving the masses the ability to passively view, this series is one in which they are able to

actively work with it. It allows them to utilize their artistic skills, or lack thereof, in such a way that makes them comparable to a machine, especially in terms of accuracy and consistency. This is an aspect of Pop art that has yet to be seen in Warhol’s preceding oeuvre.

19

Chapter 2 The Path to the Ultimate Spectator Role: Techniques and Subject Matter in Andy Warhol’s Early Career, 1950-1962

“Warhol called upon everything he had learned from advertising and television, where the dollar sign and the gun were predominant symbols, where the subliminal message was sexual desire without gratification, and where the immediate aim was to shock. He decided to paint…what “artists” were supposed to hate most: advertisements.”48 -Victor Bockris, 1989

“From the early sixties, when he seemed to turn ‘high art’ on its head with his paintings of subjects as lowly as Campbell’s soup cans, the debate over whether he was ‘important’ or ‘worthless’ had never ceased to rage.”49 -Victor Bockris, 1989

In the year 1949, Andy Warhol began his lengthy artistic career as a commercial artist.50

Although, at this time, success as a fine artist was elusive, success in commercial advertising and

imagery was entirely feasible.51 “America was fast becoming the most productive nation in the

world: In the early 1950s, the nation’s spending on advertising rose to nearly $9 billion…and the

need for images that would ‘persuade’ was inexhaustible.”52 Warhol created graphic works for

a number of popular magazines, beginning with Glamour.53 Upon meeting Glamour art editor

Tina Fredericks, he expressed that he was willing and considerably able to draw almost anything.

As a result, he became the magazine’s main illustrator of shoes.54 His success and popularity

grew, and more magazine commissions followed, including projects for Interiors and Harper’s

Bazaar.55 Because of his many contributions to these publications, Warhol received a

48 Victor Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol (New York: Bantam Books, 1989), 97. 49 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 3. 50 Ratcliff, 117. 51 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 51. 52 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 51. 53 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 51. 54 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 52. 55 Heiner Bastian, “Rituals of Unfulfillable Individuality- The Whereabouts of Emotions,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian (London: Tate Publishing, 2001), 17.

20 remarkable amount of feedback and recognition, thus, making his name known in the advertising

and magazine industry.

Despite his great success as a commercial artist, Warhol was not satisfied. He always felt

that his calling was as, what he liked to call, a “pure artist.”56 He wanted to become more

machine-like, and less at the whim of another’s fancy.57 In discussing his turn from commercial

to fine art, Warhol has stated, “If they told me to draw a shoe, I’d do it…I’d have to invent and

now I don’t; after all that ‘correction,’ those commercial drawings would have feelings, they

would have a style…the attitude had feeling to it.”58 Warhol did not want to be involved in such

emotional and stylistic art. Instead, he favored a type that was completely mechanical and

objective, and the only way to create such art was to completely sever his ties with advertising.

He has to break off on his own, making art of his own volition. Once establishing a foothold in

the world of fine art, Warhol would be able to determine and put forth his personal artistic

philosophy and style: Pop art that is both mechanical and serial, recognized and enjoyed by all

people, yet still commonplace and everyday. Ultimately, he would blur the lines between high

and low art, and this began, as he became a fine artist.

From his days as a successful commercial artist, Warhol brought with him one of his most significant and widely recognized trademark techniques, that of the “blotted-line.” Warhol

discovered this process while he was still a student at Carnegie Institute of Technology in

Pittsburgh (1945-9).59 However, he first used it in his artistic career when he undertook the I.

56 Honnef, 7. 57 Andy Warhol, “What is Pop Art? Answers from 8 Painters, Part I,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 18. 58 Andy Warhol “What is Pop Art? Answers from 8 Painters, Part I,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 18. 59 Ratcliff, 117.

21 Miller Shoe account, around the year of 1950.60 In both his commercial career and his early

stages as a fine artist, Warhol’s assistants, especially Nathan Gluck, played a considerable role in

executing the blotted-line.61 Although his input was always contributed, Warhol himself rarely

ever completed a blotted-line work alone.62 Gluck provides Klaus Honnef with some valuable

information on its implementation:

When Warhol got more work to do he needed someone to help him…It was Gluck’s job to draw…in precise detail and sometimes to arrange them in a layout. Andy then corrected the details in the drawings or changed the composition of the layout. The drawings were then traced onto a different piece of paper, after which the “blotting” started, resulting in the finished drawing with the characteristic blotted line.63

In keeping with his personal philosophy of maintaining the importance of surfaces and physical appearance in art, this process allowed Warhol to remain personally removed from it.

As a result notions of authorship, uniqueness and individual signature were held at bay. Author and art-scholar, Victor Bockris has eloquently stated how this process “…was directly influenced by the Bauhaus approach to art: ‘personal comment’ was removed from the work in favor of clear, strong design; the traditional boundary between commercial and fine art was blurred.”64

Thus, it becomes clear that even in the earliest stages of Warhol’s artistic career, he favored a kind of process that allows a non-artist to play the role of primary artist. Gluck, and sometimes other of Warhol’s assistants, were actually granted the position when asked to create the drawings that were to be displayed and/or sold. Subsequently, Warhol’s name would go on them, and credit would be conferred to him. However, because of such a method, Warhol was able to assume a backseat function as supervisor and editor of the art, in which his input, not his artistic talent or signature, was necessary. In the Do It Yourself series, this quality becomes

60 Ratcliff, 117. 61 Patrick S. Smith, 54. 62 Honnef, 25. 63 Honnef, 25-6. 64 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 42-3.

22 recognizable that from the first that Warhol adamantly subverted the role of high artist and

challenged the tenet of originality.65 Specifically, with the blotted-line technique, he did so by

giving his friends and subordinates, who were not trained, recognized or talented artists, the

chance to put themselves in his shoes. Even though Warhol’s signature went on the work, as it

did with the Do It Yourself series, others were given the opportunity to play his role for a short

duration. Consequently, any trace or aura of uniqueness or personal touch was completely

removed from the work. Even so, it is important to note that despite the lack of authorship and

originality in such a process, Warhol still has not reached the point of completely handing over

the work to anyone as he did in the Do It Yourself series. In the cases of the blotted-line

technique, only his assistants, individuals who understood and had experience with Warhol and

his work, were given the opportunity.

In 1960, Warhol began his first fine art paintings. Like the blotted-line technique, these

works further support the implications of the Do It Yourself series, and demonstrate the path

Warhol would ultimately take in their process and completion. Primarily, these early paintings

consist of a series of comic book appropriations of various superheroes who inspired and

attracted Warhol, including Popeye, Superman, and Dick Tracy.66

In Popeye (1961) (figure 8), which is currently in the collection of Mr. and Mrs. S. I.

Newhouse, Warhol depicts the silhouette of the famous spinach-eating sailor in the midst of

delivering a powerful punch, represented by the “starburst shape” found at the left.67

Additionally, there is the outline of a crossword puzzle, seen underneath Popeye’s white silhouette. The legitimacy of the puzzle’s inclusion lies in the fact that it is yet “…another

newspaper feature that often appears on the same entertainment page as the funnies. The

65 Honnef, 24. 66 Ratcliff, 117. 67 David Bourdon, Warhol (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1989), 73.

23 overlapping implies the barrage of visual information that confronts the reader.”68 As with the paintings in the Do It Yourself series, this work conveys an air of activity and amusement. It is not one that is limited to the elite or leisure classes, but to anyone who has seen or read a newspaper. Also like the Do It Yourself series, the source of Popeye is one that the masses may

enjoy, despite their education or financial situation. However, it has still not reached the same

point of spectator participation as the former.

In addition to Popeye, Warhol also painted two superheroes with whom he was quite

fascinated, Dick Tracy and Superman. As with Popeye, Superman (1961) (figure 9), now

located in the collection of Gunter Sachs in Paris, represents the superhero in action.69 The

painting portrays Superman in flight, putting out a fire with a great breath of air, emphasized by

the words “PUFF!”70 Similar to the Do It Yourself series, this painting is taken directly from its

source image, with few alterations, if any.71As stated by author David Bourdon, “To ensure that

the picture was perceived as art, Warhol added some scribbled passages of colored crayon just

above and below the balloon, energizing an otherwise plain ground.”72

Finally, there is Warhol’s appropriation of Dick Tracy, who was arguably his favorite of

the numerous superheroes. In Dick Tracy (1960) (figure 10), which is now in the private collection of Mr. and Mrs. S.I. Newhouse, one sees not only the handsome superhero, but also his trusty sidekick, Sam Ketchem.73 The two figures are juxtaposed next to one another, with the

thick outline of Tracy’s sharp facial features greatly contrasting the rounder and more subtle ones

of Ketchem. Although Warhol’s version of the comic is copied directly from its source, there are

68 Bourdon, 73. 69 Bourdon, 72. 70 Bourdon, 72. 71 Bourdon, 72. 72 Bourdon, 72. 73 Bourdon, 72.

24 several manipulations that, like the crossword in Popeye and the scribbles in Superman, prove that the painting is, in fact, a work of high or fine art. For example, “he often left several areas in

a sketchy state or blurred them with passages of freely brushed paint, which he applied thinly,

letting it run and drip towards the bottom edge of the canvas.”74 Moreover, Warhol whitewashed

the letters in speech balloons, making them difficult to read in both Dick Tracy and Superman.

According to Heiner Bastian, Warhol chose the subjects of these three paintings, for they

reminded him of his childhood.75 By only slightly manipulating them, he was able to hold on to

the essence of their original sources.76 As stated by Heiner Bastian, famous contemporary art

curator cum dealer:

Here the artificiality of the motif or the figure that serves as a source image is linked to the narrative structure of the original- the world as experienced by the protagonist of a cartoon…The paths of the illusion of reproduced real life cross in the reality of the picture.77

As is characteristic of Warhol’s entire oeuvre, the superhero paintings convincingly blur the lines between high and low art, paintings and comics. However, they never cross the line into the realm of merging artist and layman, as do the Do It Yourself works.

It is important to note that of all of the comics available at the time, these were some of the most popular and recognizable, an attribute that certainly did not get past Warhol’s radar.78

Like the Do It Yourself series, that of the comic book portrayals comes from a source with which

1960s consumer America would immediately be familiar. Therefore, in order for Warhol to

manifest his intentions of blurring the lines between high and low art, and of referring to

74 Bourdon, 72. 75 Heiner Bastian, “Rituals of Unfulfillable Individuality- The Whereabouts of Emotions,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 23. 76 Heiner Bastian, “Rituals of Unfulfillable Individuality- The Whereabouts of Emotions,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 23. 77 Heiner Bastian, “Rituals of Unfulfillable Individuality- The Whereabouts of Emotions,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 23. 78 Bourdon, 70.

25 consumerism, popular culture, the superficial, and the nature of modernity, he had to utilize those items which all classes of people would know. Here is the first step Warhol takes on his path to directly bestowing upon the general public the ability to become artist, and ultimately, to become

Andy Warhol himself. Furthermore, it is the first step in blurring the lines between both high

and low art, and high and low artist. However, he has not yet reached the level where his art

conveys that “completely impersonal touch,”79 that allows any person to recreate his art, a touch

that will later be found in the Do It Yourself works.

Warhol’s next set of works reflects a different aspect of popular culture: advertising.

Because he began his entire artistic career as a commercial artist, it was only a matter of time

before he decided to merge advertising with fine painting. He said, “What’s great about this

country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the

same things as the poorest.”80

Among the many works that fit into this category, two specific motifs are vital in a

discussion of and comparison with the Do It Yourself series: the Coca-Cola Bottles and the

Campbell’s Soup Cans. The former, which Warhol began in 1960, was an item represented

repeatedly by Warhol, because of its instantly recognizable label and signature bottle shape.

Two of the more relevant works to this discussion are Coca-Cola (figure 11), currently found in

the collection of the Dia Art Foundation in New York,81 and Large Coca-Cola (figure 12), now

in the collection of Elizabeth and Michael Rea.82 The first shows a more Expressionistic view of

the bottle, with a “large, circular shape with part of the logo bleeding into a scribbled area along

79 Ratcliff, 25. 80 Bourdon, 76. 81 Bourdon, 78. 82 Bourdon, 78.

26 the right edge.”83Coca-Cola is executed in ink, tempera and wax crayon on canvas.84 As is seen

with the study of Do It Yourself (Narcissus), also drawn in wax crayon (and pencil), spectators are presented with a more handcrafted looking image. Instead of the ultra-accurate, straight lines

of the painted versions of these items, one is given a view into Warhol’s personal artistic

endeavors, a rarity that must be noted. Thus, although the majority of the Do It Yourself works

and Coca-Cola images reflect a more mechanical and consumerist artistic perspective, they still retain aspects of the hand-made, a perfect way for Warhol to show that the works are still a form of high art.

In Large Coca-Cola, an oversized Coca-Cola bottle is portrayed on the left side. Its great

size makes it seem almost like a grand column, holding up the two ends of the canvas,

complemented with the famous Coke label printed across the open space, yet cropped off at the

end.85 This particular image is a more “faithful imitation” of the bottle and logo than some of his

other depictions, including Coca-Cola.86 As seen in the paintings of the Do It Yourself series,

this work reflects an immediate copy of its source. In other words, the original is basically

indecipherable from the painted version. As Heiner Bastian so eloquently stated, “The anti-

metaphorical style of this painting marks an important step Warhol had taken in the direction of

new painting, where the subject comprises the unaltered reproduction of an original on

canvas.”87

With these two, different portrayals of Coca-Cola bottles, one is presented with a very

important step in Warhol’s process. It shows him moving in the direction of ultimately, allowing

83 Bourdon, 74. 84 Bourdon, 79. 85 Bourdon, 74. 86 Bourdon, 74. 87 Heiner Bastian, “Rituals of Unfulfillable Individuality- The Whereabouts of Emotions,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 24.

27 anyone to play his role of fine artist, as first seen in the Do It Yourself series. He has completely

separated those works that are identical to their sources from those that confirm the artist’s

handiwork and more importantly, split them from their banal counterpart. This step was not

inherent in Warhol’s earlier comic book appropriations. In Popeye, Superman, and Dick Tracy,

the artist’s manipulations and personal fingerprints were included within each of the paintings,

whether they were random scribbles or the manipulations of various lines. As a result, spectators

are able to distinguish those paintings from their sources directly. In contrast, the Coca-Cola

bottle portrayals are distinct from the original advertisements only in certain works, yet in none

of the paintings. These paintings, as a result of their lack of uniqueness, increase one’s ability to

recreate Warhol’s art and play the role of artist. Without his signature touches, such recreations

would be indecipherable from their originals. However, some level of artistic ability would be

necessary to be able to do this. Here, is what separates these from the works in the Do It

Yourself series.

One of Warhol’s most famous and significant advertisement motifs is that of the

Campbell’s Soup cans (figures 13 and 14). When asked where he came up with the idea he

stated, “They’re things I had when I was a child.”88 Growing up in industrial Pittsburgh, Warhol did not come from wealth or power. In fact, it has been noted that, “Andy wore his peasant heritage like a badge of honor.”89 Therefore, it is clear that he has chosen an object that not only

reminds him of his childhood, but also of his heritage. Despite having little financial means, he

and his family were still able to indulge in the same foods as people of the higher classes, this

idea being central to the Pop art movement and to Warhol himself. For him, Campbell’s soup

personified this situation of universal enjoyment and consumerism. Thus, it is fitting that he

88 Andy Warhol “Pop Art? Is It Art? A Revealing Interview with Andy Warhol,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 5. 89 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 38.

28 would choose this product to be such an integral part of his artistic work. Furthermore, it proves

the relevance of other works, such as the Do It Yourself series. Being part of the lower classes

his self, an artistic output in which the general public has the opportunity to play artist makes

perfect sense.

Heiner Bastian’s discussion of the soup cans and the ideas behind them is valuable,

because he explains their affirmation of the very object:

Warhol’s soup cans do not seek to be pictures about something, but the picture of a picture; they choose purely to affirm the object. Warhol’s repetition of the motif can no doubt also be seen as the meta-level of an illustration of consumer-goods advertising, a kind of unbiased litany for the optical formulas of everyday myths that have lost their appeal.90 Thus, like the Do It Yourself series, these soup cans may be said to underscore the creativity and

originality of commonplace consumerist products.

According to William L. Bird, Jr., author of The How-To Craze that Swept the Nation:

Paint By Number, the paint by number product became an American phenomenon in the

1950s.91 Accordingly, it became a symbol of bad taste, mass media, and “artless

performance.”92 Evidently, these two items received similar, negative public reactions as a

consequence of their low cost and mass appeal. By relaying their images onto canvases, Warhol

was able to bring them into the nation’s attention, and further, by depicting them as identical to

their sources, he was able to bestow upon them a new aura, one that equates them with high art.

Despite the fact that both the soup cans and the Do It Yourself series were originally met with

more scorn and confusion than praise, it is essential to note that both series forced people to pay

attention to items that before would be completely ignored. These works make the public want

to participate, and want to see what comes next.

90 Heiner Bastian, “Rituals of Unfulfillable Individuality- The Whereabouts of Emotions,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 26. 91 Bird, 103. 92 Bird, 103.

29 The creative technique behind the making of the numerous Campbell’s soup cans is considerably similar to that of the blotted-line technique, and more importantly for this analysis, it relates in large part to the opportunities presented by the Do It Yourself series. Kirk Varnedoe,

American art historian and curator of the Museum of Modern Art in New York states:

He had his assistants invest considerable labour in miming a mechanical look, without yet adopting the techniques or technologies that might have given him the real thing. The appearance of breezy ease was doggedly laboured, as lots of rough ingenuity and tedious sweat went into making these images play the ragged masquerade of mindless, effortless products. The basic pencil schemas for the cans…followed a template…After that the images were wholly hand-painted, with the exception of the fleur-de-lis motifs along each label’s bottom edge (which were individually printed)…via hand-made gum-rubber stamps.93

Once again, Warhol enlisted the service of his assistants to execute the artistic and creative means of his work. Like the blotted-line technique, he allowed others, who are not necessarily trained or recognized artists, to play his role for a change. Again, this continues to pave the way for a further step in the direction of the Do It Yourself series: total freedom for anyone, despite class, wealth, talent, training, or knowledge, to become Andy Warhol and participate in the completion of one or more of his artworks. Because of such methods, both the soup cans and the paint-by-numbers possess an “…almost-machine-like impact and the almost-subliminal handmade feel.”94

In choosing the Coca-Cola and Campbell’s soup motifs, Warhol created a significant distinction between American consumerism and the elitist preferences for high art. As with the comic book superhero appropriations, and later, the Do It Yourself series, he chooses a form of representation that refers to items in which the general public may participate, no matter what.

Anyone may read comic books (and, if illiterate, may still recognize the pictures). Similarly,

93 Kirk Varnedoe, “Campbell’s Soup Cans,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 43. 94 Kirk Varnedoe, “Campbell’s Soup Cans,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 44.

30 anyone can eat Campbell’s soup and drink Coca-Cola. Neither money, nor education, nor power

can change these items, or make them any different. Of Coke, Warhol has famously stated,

“You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you can know that the President drinks Coke,

Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no

amount of money can get you a better Coke.”95 However, the difference between these early artworks and the later ones of the Do It Yourself series lies in the fact that although the former

represent a product available to anyone, in which anyone may partake. Only the latter produces

an artwork of a commercial product in which anyone may participate. In the Do It Yourself

series, everyone can play artist and finish the work themselves, if given the opportunity.

Although true to the earlier works’ sources, this quality is not yet found in their high art

counterparts.

95 Bourdon, 76.

31

Chapter 3 The Do It Yourself Series as an Integral Turning Point for Warhol: Spectator Participation in his Art from 1962-Death

“It doesn’t matter what you do. Everybody just goes on thinking the same thing, and every year it gets more and more alike. Those who talk about individuality the most are the ones who most object to deviation, and in a few years it may be the other way around. Some day everybody will think just what they want to think, and then everybody will probably be thinking alike; that seems to be what is happening.”96 -Andy Warhol

The idea of spectator participation in both the creation of art and in observing it

fascinated Andy Warhol throughout his entire career. However, as has been demonstrated by his

cartoon appropriations and advertisement representations, he never fully embraced that concept

until after completing the Do It Yourself series in 1962. At this time, some creative switch turned on in Warhol that caused him to utilize spectator participation in almost every one of his

subsequent works. Now, instead of simply depicting those objects or commercial products that

are available to anyone, he created works in which any person, despite his or her artistic talent or

education has the ability to participate. In fact, his art, after the completion of the Do It Yourself series, continued to blur not only the hierarchy of high and low art, but also that of high and low artist. Anyone could re-create his works, and furthermore, anyone could contribute to their actual, first-hand production. Such a concept is established and manifested by his Dance

Diagram series of 1962,and his dedicated use of silk-screening and nearly complete abandonment of painting. In addition to his artwork, this concept even seemed to penetrate his daily lifestyle and his interactions with others. This theory is clearly demonstrated by his infamous studio-collectivity known as the Factory, and the way in which he and others worked and lived within it.

96 Bastian, 58.

32 During his work with the Do It Yourself series, Warhol also began working on a similar diagrammatic series of four paintings entitled, Dance Diagram (figure 15), currently all held at

The Estate of Andy Warhol.97 These simple, yet intriguing works are executed in black and

white acrylic paint on canvas,98 and portray the actual steps that follow such dances as the Tango

(figure 16) and the Foxtrot.99 In each, the spectator is presented with two illustrated footsteps,

each labeled “L” for the left foot or “R” for the right. Additionally, arrows and numbers move

from foot to foot, showing exactly how to shift and shuffle correctly for each dance.

Interestingly enough, Warhol insisted that each work in this series be displayed horizontally on a

platform,100 thus allowing the ultimate level of spectator participation. As a result of such

exhibition, the spectator is given the chance to move on the diagram, in keeping with the arrows

and numbers, so that he or she is doing the dance exactly as Warhol himself would have wanted.

Like the Do It Yourself works, these also provide exact instructions for complete

participation by any person. Specifically, the paint-by-numbers canvases include numbers to

direct the spectator’s movements. As a result of such conscious direction by the artist, it

becomes clear that Warhol was handing over the rest of the work to the spectator, whether that

was artistic completion in the Do It Yourself series or operational usage in the Dance Diagram

series. This is an occurrence not yet seen in any of his preceding artworks. As stated by Heiner

Bastian:

His pictures were entities which, having themselves the character of objects, gave the mimesis of the object a status all its own. Expressive content became pure communication. The difficult-to-grasp idea that there is nothing behind the surface was

97 Kynaston McShine, ed., 178-181. 98 Bourdon, 110. 99 Bourdon, 114. 100 “Ralph Rugoff, “Albino humour,” in Who is Andy Warhol? eds., Colin McCabe, Mark Francis, and Peter Wollen (London: British Film Institute and the Andy Warhol Museum, 1997), 98.

33 now exclusively a matter of interpretation for the viewer, who was henceforth responsible for the mystery of the picture’s possibilities and meanings.101

Furthermore, art scholar, Benjamin Buchloh has stated of both diagrammatic series, “These

works seem to have been conceived in response to the idea of renewing participatory aesthetics.”102 Before, Warhol simply reproduced the images of commercial items and

advertisements. Although the products and objects he chose to portray were accessible to any

American, the artworks were not necessarily. In other words, the artwork did not warrant

participation, its source did. Thus, with the progress in spectator participation made by the Do It

Yourself series, Warhol found a concept that greatly fascinated him: the allowance of anyone to

contribute to his artwork, and ultimately, play the role of fine artist with only a fragment of

instruction. From this point on, spectator participation will be an integral aspect of Andy Warhol

and his career.

In August 1962, only a few weeks after Warhol completed the Do It Yourself and Dance

Diagram series, he began to favor a new method of artistic creation: the silk-screen.103 Victor

Bockris describes this process:

Photo silk-screening, which Andy would make his primary medium for the rest of his life, is a sophisticated stencil process in which a photographic image transferred to a porous screen can be quickly duplicated on canvas by laying the screen on the canvas and applying paint or ink over it with a rubber squeegee. With a silk screen, an image can be printed on canvas in a matter of minutes.104

For Warhol, this technique possessed a number of advantages, especially for his perspective on

artistic creation. First, it almost wholly eliminated any traces of the handmade, allowing Warhol

101 Heiner Bastian, “Rituals of Unfulfillable Individuality- The Whereabouts of Emotions,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 24. 102 Benjamin Buchloh, “Andy Warhol’s One-Dimensional Art: 1956-1966,” in Andy Warhol: A Retrospective, ed. Kynaston McShine, 45. 103 Antje Dallmann, “Andy Warhol- A Chronology in America,” in Andy Warhol Retrospective, ed. Heiner Bastian, 293. 104 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 112.

34 to produce a great number of copies in a very short amount of time.105 Not only did this separate

him even further from the subjective aspects of the Abstract Expressionists,106 it became the

ultimate technique for mechanical art production. As Klaus Honnef has so persuasively noted,

“His ambivalent attitude toward the aspects of empirical reality accompanies a technique which

encourages personal disinterest, probable objectivity, and personal indifference.”107 Obviously,

this method is in perfect accordance with Warhol’s own philosophy of the benefits of being

machine-like and superficial.

Warhol has affirmed his reasons for choosing such a medium, and then, dedicating his

work to it. Basically, he found it simpler and faster.108 Because of its mechanical nature, this

technique did not necessitate Warhol’s treatment. Of the works he made via silk-screening, he has said, “I tried doing them by hand, but I find it easier to use a screen. This way, I don’t have

to work on my objects at all. One of my assistants or anyone else, for that matter, can reproduce

the design as well as I could.”109 Evidently, Warhol’s interest in the simple and perfunctory

supplemented his immersion in spectator participation. Because his signature is removed from

an artwork by the silk-screen process, room is given to any person, whether an assistant or

complete artistic novice, to complete or reproduce it. As a result, in terms of spectator

participation, the subject matter of the work becomes almost irrelevant. Even if it portrays

something completely unrecognizable to the masses, anyone may still contribute, for the

procedure of its production is so easily and quickly executed. In Warhol’s previous work, this

was not the case. Alternatively, the subject matter only was vital to spectator participation, as is

demonstrated by Warhol’s advertisements, cartoon appropriations, and representations of

105 Honnef, 54. 106 Honnef, 54. 107 Honnef, 54. 108 Patrick S. Smith, 164. 109 Kynaston McShine, ed., 459.

35 commercial products. Without the instant familiarity associated with the subjects portrayed in these works, not everyone would be able to participate. This is because they had been hand-

painted by Warhol, sometimes with the help of one of his assistants. Without, at least, a bit of

background knowledge on how Warhol worked, one would have a much more difficult time producing a believable or successful contribution.

In fact, these paintings were so mechanical and easy to create that, according to

Gerard Malanga, one of his primary assistants at the time, someone actually forged a copy.

During an interview, he tells Patrick S. Smith, author and editor of Warhol: Conversations about the Artist, “Somebody was able to forge Andy’s paintings. I mean, Andy’s paintings are very easy to make. All you have to do is silk-screen one of his images that have already been silk- screened.” Although this account reviews an illegal form of participation, it provides evidence to

the theory that Warhol’s art, and in particular, the silk-screening process invited a certain level of

spectator participation previously unseen.

Additionally, it is significant that after discovering the silk-screen technique, Warhol

almost completely abandoned hand painting, until 1972.110 He became so accustomed to being

able to output paintings in gross quantities at a rapid pace, that painting began to seem tedious,

boring, and inefficient. Instead of having to do everything by hand, a quality only necessary if

uniqueness or signature were important to him, he now had the ability to allow others to play his

role. As reported by Nathan Gluck, another of Warhol’s important assistants, “Hell, why even

the silk screen, let someone else do the silk screen, and just call up and say, ‘Run me off this

much.’”111 Never before had another’s participation become possible, and even significant, to

110 Ratcliff, 118. 111 Patrick S. Smith, 60.

36 Warhol’s oeuvre. Moreover, when asked by David Bourdon, noted art critic and personal friend

of Warhol, how silk screens differ from paintings, Warhol replied:

I suppose you could call the paintings print, but the material used for paintings was canvas. The prints, if they were silk-screened by us, were always done on paper. Anyone can do them. Why, even now, there’s this boy in Cologne who has printed up slightly smaller versions of my Marilyn Monroe paintings and the Cow wallpaper prints. But his versions are also done on paper and with more color combinations.112

Thus, here is an example of two important components of Warhol’s oeuvre: how popular his art was, and how easy it was to reproduce and/or contribute to it. Spectators and art lovers around

the world, even youngsters, had the opportunity to be like Warhol. Ever more importantly, a

number of them embraced that opportunity. If put in the position, they would be able to add to

Warhol’s own work just as well as Warhol or any of his many assistants.

In 1963, only about a year after completing the Do It Yourself series, Warhol and his

followers moved to a studio in an old firehouse, and then shortly thereafter, inhabited an

abandoned factory on East Forty-seventh street.113 At this time, he hired Gerard Malanga as his

primary assistant, and commenced with the numerous artworks that were to be created, or say,

mechanically generated, inside its walls.114 The name for the Factory, now so widely known,

was chosen for an incredibly self-explanatory reason: the group took up residence in an old

Factory, and thus, the title seemed fitting to all involved.115 As described by David Bourdon,

this loft-like space was significantly sized, about fifty by one hundred square feet, complete with

a number of windows that looked out onto the street below.116 Its upper interior space was

reached via freight elevator, it floors were hard and concrete, and there were four metal columns

112 Andy Warhol, “Warhol Interviews Bourdon,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews, Ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 194. 113 Ratcliff, 117. 114 Ratcliff, 117. 115 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 146. 116 Bourdon, 146.

37 that defined its main area.117 Later, the space was dubbed the “Silver Factory,” when it was decorated, covered even, with tin foil and silver paint.118 Such decorum evoked a sense of overt decadence and the bright lights, gritty glamour, and mechanically centered fascination of the

American 1960s.119

Immediately upon its initiation, the Factory proved its significance to the Pop art world of

1960s New York City. According to Victor Bockris, “The moment the Factory opened its doors, it became a cultural mecca, part atelier, part film studio, part experimental theater, part literary workshop, and a Salvation Army for all the artists and would-be artists who couldn’t find shelter elsewhere.”120 Here, Warhol’s involvement with the participation and contributions from non- artists, unknown artists, and everyday people who wanted to be a part of his world, becomes inseparable from this environment. Not only is such involvement seen in his oeuvre after the completion of the Do It Yourself series, it is also evident in his subsequent lifestyle. In other words, it is directly reflected in the fact that he allows anyone to be a part of his Factory setting.

Furthermore, many of the people involved within the Factory actually conformed to Warhol’s personal style.121 “The men wore suits and ties or elegant jackets and jeans, and imitated the way Andy talked…They found themselves walking with his curiously choreographed little dancer’s step.”122 Once again, here is an aspect of the Factory that only further proves the extent to which others desired to be like Andy Warhol. In addition to the reproductions and copying of his artwork, many of his assistants and followers aspired to look and act as he did. Thus, an increase in the level of possible spectator participation from any individual seems almost

117 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 141. 118 Bourdon, 179. 119 This was not the only one of Warhol’s Factory locations. Others were found at Union Square, Broadway, and Thirty-third. However, it is the most famous and culturally significant of all of them. The other Factories are discussed in Victor Bockris’s The Life and Death of Andy Warhol and in David Bourdon’s Warhol. 120 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 147. 121 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 300. 122 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 300.

38 inevitable. As claimed by Steve Bruce, owner of the Serendipity restaurant and former associate

of Warhol, “I always had the feeling that Andy was, you know, a certain center for people to

revolve around, because he had that kind of resonance and that kind of mystique.”123 This

mystique is exactly what spectator participation value. People wanted to be like Warhol. they acted like him, they dressed like him, and they revolved around him. Without this incredible draw, the concept of spectator participation in Warhol’s art and career would be meaningless.

Despite the cultural importance of this Factory to the art world at the time, the artistic output it generated is equally as significant, especially to this discussion. Heiner Bastian, noted curator and art dealer, has asserted:

In the years to come the Factory served both as a film studio and as a workshop, turning out countless commissioned portraits. The portraits…were produced in a rapid silkscreen process, their surfaces retouched in a cursory, painterly manner and almost always in the same square format. In all of these portraits the language of artificial ideality is repeated, emerging as an aesthetic dimension.

These commissioned portraits were not the only artworks produced from within the walls of the

Factory. Others include the silk-screened portraits of Jackie Kennedy,124 Warhol himself,125 and

Marlon Brando.126 Such rapid output of art reflects the assembly-line nature of Warhol’s artistic

procedures, and furthermore, of his Factory. For the first time in his lengthy career, Warhol has

created for himself a sanctuary in the greatest level of spectator participation can be reached.

Now, not only do his assistants contribute to his work, so do random followers who have become

a part of his community. In his essay, “Albino Humour,” Ralph Rugoff describes the work of the

Factory quite eloquently. “Warhol’s wit here is mainly de-idealising: art is no longer positioned

as something that exists apart from consumer culture, but is merely another assembly-line

123 Patrick S. Smith, 149. 124 Bastian, ed., 204. 125 Bastian, ed., 208. 126 Bastian, ed., 215.

39 product, demanding no special genius.”127 Such a lack of “special genius” further evidences the ideals behind this increased spectator participation. Unlike so many modern artists before and after him, Warhol refuses to embrace the supposed significance of signature, style, authenticity, and originality. Instead, his work is based solely upon eliminating any and all artistic hierarchies, those processes that are the fastest and most efficient (especially in terms of making money), and who can and will contribute to his repertoire. Never before has the importance of such participation been so greatly manifested in Warhol’s personal lifestyle and surroundings.

127 Ralph Rugoff, “Albino Humour,” in Who is Andy Warhol?, eds. Colin MacCabe, Mark Francis, and Peter Wollen, 99.

40

Conclusion

Of his life aims, Warhol once asserted:

“The only goal I have is to have a swimming pool in Hollywood. I think it’s great, I like its artificial quality…Los Angeles is so new and different and everything is bigger and prettier and simpler and flat. That’s the way I like to see the world.”128

Thus, in addition to artistic practice, Warhol evidently enjoyed the fruits of unoriginality, modernity, simplicity, and repetition in his lifestyle as well. This statement reflects a genuine desire for all that is included in each of these qualities. He was able to achieve these lifestyle wants, and potentially more important, reached his artistic wants. His ideals of blurring the supposed hierarchy of high art to low, decorative art had become a reality, and beyond that, had extended into the boundaries between high and low artist. Even though such ideals were present in his art from the very beginning, they did not culminate into the ultimate concoction of the two polar ends until the creation of the Do It Yourself series of 1962. As has been stated and analyzed in this study, the primary tenets of active spectator participation inherent in each work of this series formed a basis upon which Warhol’s art would continue to flourish. With the growing popularity and success of his Factory and silk screens, and their innate requirement for spectator participation, Warhol was finally able to wholly immerse himself in the artificial, the superficial, and the mechanical personality of modern day American consumerism.

In the first chapter of this study, my main focus was upon the Do It Yourself series: its formal aspects, its important inherencies, and how it was characteristic of American pop art culture. More importantly, however, I analyzed the way in which each of these works warrants the ultimate spectator participation. Warhol copied the ideas and subjects for these paintings

128 Kenneth Goldsmith, ed., “Andy Warhol: My True Story,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Andy Warhol Interviews, 93.

41 from the popular Venus Paradise product. Moreover, he even included the identical number-

color correlations. Yet, after becoming bored with the process, he left the majority of these

canvases blank, with only the bare numbers visible. Consequently, the unfinished portions

almost resembled a kind of invitation for someone, anyone, to come and fill them in. Because

Warhol provided further instructions by way of the numbers and lined boundaries, anyone has

the ability to finish what he began. Such possibilities allowed Warhol to completely blur the

man-made hierarchies of art and artist. His paintings are neither decorative nor masterful.

Instead, because of their simplistic nature, their familiar subject matter, and most of all, their

allowance of anyone to contribute as well as Warhol could have, the works in this series rest

somewhere in between high and low status. Furthermore, it expresses that a master or high artist

is not always necessary in creating great works.

In my second chapter, the works of the period preceding the Do It Yourself series are

analyzed. This includes a brief discussion of his initial commercial career, and of his reasons for

moving into the realm of high art. Additionally, the formal aspects, subject matter, and potential

for spectator participation in a number of Warhol’s more famous paintings, such as his comic

book superhero appropriations and Coca Cola bottles, are compared with those from the DIY

series. Although these preceding works are seemingly similar to the later series, there are a

number of vital dissimilarities between them. For instance, the former have consistent traces of

the handmade in them, while the DIY works have very few of those traces. Furthermore, the former represent images or products from popular culture, but the latter works are actual appropriated reproductions. In other words, the preceding works are illustrations of a product, and the Do It Yourself series actually becomes the paint-by-number entity. This is because it is almost identical to the item. However, most important is the difference in spectator

42 participation. In the works preceding the DIY series, this participation is limited to the source.

The reproduction in the artwork, although evocative of pop culture, does not leave room for any layperson to contribute to it. The participation of the masses is limited to seeing the painting, and relating it to its source. Thus, it is a more indirect way for Warhol to incorporate spectator participation into his oeuvre.

Finally, in the third and final chapter of the study, I concentrate on the works succeeding the Do It Yourself series, and then, Warhol’s famous Factory. Such a discussion not only proves a turning point in Warhol’s entire artistic oeuvre, it also conveys that this theory of spectator participation extended into his lifestyle. I analyzed the Dance Diagram series, which resembles that of the DIY in all forms, including spectator contribution. Next, I included a discussion and explanation of his signature silkscreen process, one that guarantees the possibility that anyone has the ability to reproduce and/or contribute to Warhol’s work just as well as Warhol himself or any of his trained assistants. As a concluding factor, proving the importance of spectator participation is the Factory. Instead of simply working in a studio, Warhol built this empire, so that anyone could become a member and work as a part of his famous team. In entirety, this chapter helps to prove the theory that the Do It Yourself works represent a defining turning point in the rest of Warhol’s life and work.

After his institution of the Factory, a structure that ultimately became a kind of American popular culture icon, Warhol continued his creative processes. He, with the active participation of his assistants and Factory regulars, produced a great many more silk screens, and even a number of films. Interestingly, these films reflect a point at which Warhol himself plays the part of amateur artist creating art. In this case, Warhol was a layman who wanted to be a film director and producer. In order to achieve this, he simply learned how to use a camera,

43 discovered actors around and within the Factory, and devised thematic ideas that could be shot.

As with the Do It Yourself series, among most of the rest of his oeuvre, Warhol had no in-depth or significant reason for creating films. As he told Letitia Kent of Vogue during an interview, “I just suddenly came up with the thought that movies would be something interesting to do, and I went out and bought a Bolex sixteen millimeter camera and went to Hollywood.”129

Furthermore, these films seem comparable in nature to that of the Do It Yourself works. For

example, each of their thematics is based on the simplest of terms. Just as the DIY series was

based on a trendy paint-by-numbers product, so were the films based on such simple notions as

sleeping or Manhattan’s Empire State Building.130 Each of these is immediately recognizable to

all Americans, and furthermore, each is something in which anyone, despite education or

socioeconomic status, may participate. As concluded by Klaus Honnef, the films “…are shaped by their deliberate contrast to the Hollywood approach and benefit from its myths.”131

Evidently, both the films and the DIY series are responding to something institutionally created in real, contemporary America. However, they do not benefit simply from that fact, but also because of the way in which they reflect the possibility of any American individual being able to achieve and/or contribute to something as significant as filmmaking or high art. These films, because of their innate comparability to the Do It Yourself series, are aspects of Warhol’s career that deserve attention with further research upon this topic.

The topic of the Factory itself in relation to spectator participation certainly deserves further research and analysis. This space represented all that is collaborative and collective in

Warhol’s later career until his death. Although I delved into this theory a bit, there is still a great

129 Andy Warhol, “Andy Warhol, Movieman: ‘It’s Hard to Be Your Own Script,” in I’ll Be Your Mirror, ed. Kenneth Goldsmith, 186. 130 Honnef, 74. 131 Honnef, 77.

44 deal of analysis that may be done. A perfect reference to begin such research is Caroline A.

Jones’s book entitled Constructing the Postwar American Artist. Jones persuasively examines

the Factory’s studio-collectivity in accordance with American 1960s consumerist and corporate

culture, with Warhol’s career, and with ambivalent, machine revering, perplexing attitudes and

ideals.132133

Throughout the 1970s, Warhol and his Factory carried on with a great deal more

filmmaking and silk screening. His status, fame, and financial gain began reaching new heights.

However, in the early 1980s, there emerged a new, significant art movement: Neo-

expressionism. These artists, who included Julian Schnabel, Keith Haring, and Jean-Michel

Basquiat, were known for their use of “richly painted canvases, flamboyant color, and disturbing

imagery.”134 Unlike Warhol, these men created “real pictures” again, art that thrived upon

originality and the handmade touch.135 Because of their immediate popularity, Warhol’s status

was challenged. Such a situation mirrors one that happened decades before, when the Neo-

Dadaists, Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg, achieved great wealth and fame for their

versions of commercial art. This included their readymades, artworks devised by the original

Dadaists, Marcel Duchamp, which are defined as industrial, mass-produced objects appropriated

and renamed in order to change their status, use, and phenomenology. At this time, around

1956-1957, Warhol strived to achieve the same places in the art world as Johns and

Rauschenberg. As a result, his art was often compared to theirs, mainly in terms of its commercial nature, its popular and recognizable subject matter, and its celebration of mass-

132 Caroline A. Jones, “Andy Warhol’s Factory Commonism and the Business Art Business,” in Constructing the Postwar American Artist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 189. 133 In a discussion about the collective nature of the Factory and its implications of spectator participation, it would be highly beneficial to research a band called the Velvet Underground, who was a large part of Warhol’s environment and lifestyle at the time. Two of their songs are worth examining: “I’ll Be Your Mirror” and “I’m Sticking to You.” The analysis of these would greatly facilitate one’s research. 134 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 324. 135 Bockris, The Life and Death of Andy Warhol, 324.

45 production and modernity. For further research, it would be beneficial to continue these

comparisons, between Warhol and the Neo-Dadaists, and then, the Neo-Expressionists.

Moreover, such a comparison could elicit, even further, the significance of spectator

participation to Warhol, and how it separated his work from that of his contemporaries.

It is evident that there are a number of other questions that may be answered with further

research. After the completion of the Do It Yourself series, spectator participation became one of

the most significant tenets of Warhol’s artistic oeuvre. Over the years since his death in 1987,

Warhol has been established as one of the most famous and recognizable artists of modern

America. Despite the initial controversy surrounding his superficial and artificial art, his name

and history has soared far and wide. His work, his Pop Art, has never gone out of style, and the possibility of any individual contributing to or participating in his work, namely his Do It

Yourself series, is still at large.

46 Bibliography

Books

The Andy Warhol Museum, Carnegie Institute. The Andy Warhol Museum. New York: Distributed Art Publishers, 1994.

Bastian, Heiner, ed. Andy Warhol Retrospective. London: Tate Publishing, 2001.

Bird, Jr., William L. The How-To Craze that Swept the Nation: Paint By Number. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2001.

Bois, Yve-Alain. Painting as Model. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993.

Bockris, Victor. The Life and Death of Andy Warhol. New York: Bantam Books, 1989.

Bockris, Victor. Warhol. New York: De Capo Press, 1997.

Bolton, Linda. Artists in their Time: Andy Warhol. London: Franklin Watts, 2002.

Bourdon, David. Warhol. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Publishers, 1989.

Butt, Gavin. Between You and Me: Queer Disclosures in the New York Art World, 1948- 1963. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2005.

Cagle, Van M. Reconstructing Pop/Subculture: Art, Rock, and Andy Warhol. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1995.

Carlin, John, and Jonathon Fineberg. Imagining America: Icons of 20th-Century American Art. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005.

Feldman, Frayda and Jorg Schellmann, eds. Andy Warhol Prints: A Catalogue Raisonne. New York: D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, 1997.

Finkelstein, Nat. Andy Warhol: The Factory Years, 1964-1967. New York: PowerHouse Books, 2000.

Fogle, Douglas, ed. Andy Warhol/Supernova: Stars, Deaths, and Disasters 1962-1964. Minneapolis: Walker Art Center, 2005.

Francis, Mark and Margery King, eds. The Warhol Look: Glamour, Style, Fashion. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1997.

Francis, Mark, and Dieter Koepplin, eds. Andy Warhol: Drawings 1942-1987. New York: Bulfinch Press, 1998.

47 Frascina, Francis, ed. Pollock and After: The Critical Debate. London & New York: Routledge, 2000.

Frei, Georg and Neil Printz, eds. The Andy Warhol Catalogue Raisonne: Paintings and Sculpture 1961-1963. Vol. 1. New York: Phaidon, 2002.

Goldsmith, Kenneth, ed. I’ll Be Your Mirror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2004.

Greenberg, Jan. Andy Warhol: Prince of Pop. New York: Delacorte Press, 2004.

Hackett, Pat, ed. The Andy Warhol Diaries. New York: Warner Books, 1989.

Honnef, Klaus. Andy Warhol 1928-1987: Commerce into Art. West Germany: Benedikt Taschen, 1990.

Jones, Caroline A. Constructing the Postwar American Artist. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1996.

Koestenbaum, Wayne. Andy Warhol. New York: Penguin Group, 2001.

MacCabe, Colin, Mark Francis, and Peter Wollen, eds. Who is Andy Warhol? London: British Film Institute and The Andy Warhol Museum, 1997.

Marchetti, Francesca Castria, ed. American Painting. New York: Watson-Guptill, 2002.

McShine, Kynaston, ed. Andy Warhol: A Retrospective. The Museum of Modern Art. Boston: Bullfinch Press/Little, Brown and Company, 1989.

Merewether, Charles, ed. The Archive. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2006.

Michelson, Annette, ed. October Files: Andy Warhol. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001.

Polsky, Richard. I Bought Andy Warhol. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2003.

Pratt, Alan R., ed. The Critical Response to Andy Warhol. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1997.

Phaidon Editors, ed. Andy Warhol: “Giant” Size. With an introduction by Dave Hickey. New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2006.

Ratcliff, Carter. Andy Warhol. Modern Masters Series. New York: Abbeville Press, 1983.

Roof, Judith. Reproductions of Reproduction: Imaging Symbolic Change. New York: Routledge, 1996.

48

Rubin, Susan Goldman. Andy Warhol: Pop Art Painter. New York: Adams Books, 2006.

Smith, Patricia Juliana, ed. The Queer Sixties. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Smith, Patrick S., ed. Warhol: Conversations about the Artist. Michigan: UMI Research Press/University Microfilms Inc., 1988.

Tesch, Jurgen and Eckhard Hollmann, eds. Icons of Art: the 20th Century. New York: Prestel, 1997.

Thompson, Jon. How to Read a Modern Painting: Lessons from the Modern Masters. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2006.

Warhol, Andy. The Philosophy of Andy Warhol. New York: Harvest/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1975.

Warhol, Andy. Style, Style, Style. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1997.

Warhol, Andy and Pat Hackett. POPism: The Warhol ‘60s. Orlando: Harcourt Press, 1980.

Warhola, James. Uncle Andy’s. New York: Putnam Press, 2003.

White, Edmund. Arts and Letters. San Francisco: Cleis Press Inc., 2004.

Wolf, Reva. Andy Warhol, Poetry, and Gossip in the 1960s. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Articles Bann, Stephen. “Pop Art and Genre.” New Literary History 24, no. 1, Culture and Everyday Life (1993): 115-124.

Battcock, Gregory. “New Look at the New Art.” Art Education 18, no. 2 (1965): 30-36.

Kuspit, Donald B. “Pop Art: A Reactionary Realism.” Art Journal 36, no. 1 (1976): 31- 38.

Wasserman, Burt. “Remember Dada? Today We Call Him ‘Pop.’ Art Education 19, no. 5 (1966): 12-16.

49

Illustrations

Figure 1 Andy Warhol Do It Yourself (Seascape) 1962 Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas 54½” x 6’ Collection Dr. Marx, Berlin

50

Figure 2 Andy Warhol Do It Yourself (Sailboats) 1962 Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas 6’ x 8’ 4” Daros Collection, Switzerland

51

Figure 3 Andy Warhol Do It Yourself (Landscape) 1962, Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas 70 x 54” Museum Ludwig, Cologne

52

Figure 4 Andy Warhol Do It Yourself (Violin) 1962 Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas 54” x 6’ Private Collection

53

Figure 5 Andy Warhol Do It Yourself (Flowers) 1962 Synthetic polymer paint and Prestype on canvas 69 x 59” Courtesy Thomas Ammann, Zurich

54

Figure 6 Andy Warhol Do It Yourself (Flowers) 1962 Colored crayon on paper 25 x 18” The Sonnabend Collection

55

Figure 7 Andy Warhol, Do It Yourself (Narcissus) 1962 Pencil and colored pencil on paper 23 x 18” Oeffentliche Kunstsammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett Karl August Burckhardt-Koechlin Fonds

56

Figure 8 Andy Warhol Popeye 1961 Synthetic polymer paint on canvas 68¼ “ x 58½” Collection of Mr. and Mrs. S.I. Newhouse, Jr.

57

Figure 9 Andy Warhol Superman 1960 Synthetic polymer paint and crayon on canvas 67 x 52” Collection Gunter Sacks

58

Figure 10 Andy Warhol Dick Tracy 1960 Synthetic polymer paint on canvas 6’7” x 45” Collection Mr. and Mrs. S. I. Newhouse, Jr.

59

Figure 11 Andy Warhol Coca Cola 1960 Oil and wax crayon on canvas 6’ x 54” Dia Art Foundation, New York

60

Figure 12 Andy Warhol Large Coca Cola 1962 Synthetic polymer paint on canvas 6’10” x 57” Collection of Elizabeth and Michael Rea

61

Figure 13 Andy Warhol Campbell’s Soup Cans 1962 Synthetic polymer paint on canvas Thirty-two works, each 20 x 16” Collection of Irving Blum, New York

62

Figure 14 . Andy Warhol Campbell’s Soup Cans (Chicken with Rice, Bean with Bacon) 1962 Synthetic polymer paint on canvas Two panels, each 20 x 16” Stadtisches Museum Abteiberg, Monchengladback

63

Figure 15 Andy Warhol Dance Diagram 1962 Synthetic polymer paint on canvas 6’ x 54” The Estate of Andy Warhol

64

Figure 16 Andy Warhol Dance Diagram (Tango) 1962 Synthetic polymer paint on canvas 71¼” x 52” The Estate of Andy Warhol

65