|
|
Post by The Gorgon on May 12, 2011 22:29:50 GMT -8
So I was reading the latest issue of Hi-Fructose (#19) and arrived at the Clayton Brothers interview. In the interview they were able to get a quote from Robert Williams about bringing back representational art.
"The core of the struggle has been to bring representational art back. And the idea isn't to bring it back under the guise of Pop Art or Surrealism. Pop art is the art of appropriation. Surrealism is defined by its manifesto written in the '20s and it was primarily a communist movement. It dealt in automatic art, art of the subconscious. So when you call yourself a Pop Surrealist, you're just trying to get underneath two different birds' wings. Now I know the term Lowbrow is offensive. But what it means is, 'I'm at the bottom of the fuckin' barrel and I can only go up."
That was straight from the person who coined the term Lowbrow. I love the fact that Lowbrow is an offensive term that hits you in the gut. It's not trying to sugar coat anything. Just as "impressionist" art was a derogatory term used to describe the seemingly unfinished paintings of Monet, Degas, and Pissaro were. I love that impressionism was suppose to be a put-down, but now it means something beautiful. That's what I hope will happen with the word Lowbrow.
But I am aware that there are several notable artists in the movement that hate the term, even the godfather himself, Robert Williams.
I would love to hear what other people have to say, and hope that a HEALTHY discussion blossoms in the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on May 13, 2011 7:27:13 GMT -8
So I was reading the latest issue of Hi-Fructose (#19) and arrived at the Clayton Brothers interview. In the interview they were able to get a quote from Robert Williams about bringing back representational art. " The core of the struggle has been to bring representational art back. And the idea isn't to bring it back under the guise of Pop Art or Surrealism. Pop art is the art of appropriation. Surrealism is defined by its manifesto written in the '20s and it was primarily a communist movement. It dealt in automatic art, art of the subconscious. So when you call yourself a Pop Surrealist, you're just trying to get underneath two different birds' wings. Now I know the term Lowbrow is offensive. But what it means is, 'I'm at the bottom of the fuckin' barrel and I can only go up." That was straight from the person who coined the term Lowbrow. I love the fact that Lowbrow is an offensive term that hits you in the gut. It's not trying to sugar coat anything. Just as "impressionist" art was a derogatory term used to describe the seemingly unfinished paintings of Monet, Degas, and Pissaro were. I love that impressionism was suppose to be a put-down, but now it means something beautiful. That's what I hope will happen with the word Lowbrow. But I am aware that there are several notable artists in the movement that hate the term, even the godfather himself, Robert Williams. I would love to hear what other people have to say, and hope that a HEALTHY discussion blossoms in the board. I love the term "Lowbrow" for it's unpretentious and self deprecating vibe. I'm not a big label guy myself. I don't really care how people label my artwork. But I do not like the idea of trying to come up with a more respectable name for the sake of legitimacy. Who are we trying to appear more legitimate to? Highbrow galleries and mainstream culture? I think they should be rejected, not catered to. Isn't that the whole point of this movement? That's what attracted me to the movement in the first place- the mainstream ignored us so we started doing our own thing, having our own shows, opening our own galleries. |
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on May 13, 2011 11:23:13 GMT -8
Awesome response Chet. BTW I love your art. It's nice to hear from an established artist in the movement commenting.
|
|
|
|
Post by sketchv on May 13, 2011 11:25:16 GMT -8
You nailed it ,Chet.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on May 13, 2011 12:11:08 GMT -8
I'd like to expand on Chet's comment about opening their own galleries. If my art history is correct didn't the impressionists do exactly that? Didn't they open their own gallery show in 1874, and call themselves Société Anonyme Coopérative des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs (Cooperative and Anonymous Association of Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers).
So what would be "THE" show that established the 1st wave of Lowbrow artists? Someone's got to have the answer here.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldfartatplay on May 13, 2011 15:41:30 GMT -8
I'd like to expand on Chet's comment about opening their own galleries. If my art history is correct didn't the impressionists do exactly that? Didn't they open their own gallery show in 1874, and call themselves Société Anonyme Coopérative des Artistes Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs (Cooperative and Anonymous Association of Painters, Sculptors, and Engravers). So what would be "THE" show that established the 1st wave of Lowbrow artists? Someone's got to have the answer here. In my opinion it would have been this www.moca.org/library/archive/exhibition/detail/3374I saw it and it changed the way I viewed art forever. BTW the term Pop Surrealism was first used by Kenny Scharf to describe his art, Kirsten Anderson (owner of Roq La Rue Gallery) wisely borrowed the phrase for the title of a fantastic book she published a few years back. It's a great book that surveys the genre from an earlier "wave" you should pick one up.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on May 13, 2011 18:56:08 GMT -8
Ah so "Helter Skelter" was the birth of the movement. I knew someone knee the answer.
So OldFart I assume that you're an advocate for the Pop Surrealism term?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldfartatplay on May 14, 2011 5:15:04 GMT -8
Ah so "Helter Skelter" was the birth of the movement. I knew someone knee the answer. So OldFart I assume that you're an advocate for the Pop Surrealism term? Well I wouldn't say it was the "birth" of the movement. I was answering your question ...what would be "THE" show that established the fist wave...I think the Helter Skelter exhibit certainly did that as far as Williams is concerned. There had been many gallery shows of lowbrow before that. La Luz De Jesus Gallery in LA and Psychedelic Solution Gallery NYC the forerunners. No, I'm not necessary an advocate of the tern Pop Surrealism. I would say I have a similar view to Chet as he stated above. As he said both terms are just labels. I do not think they sould be used interchangeably. |
|
|
|
Post by troom on May 14, 2011 7:38:55 GMT -8
This is great discussion. I'm just grateful that this movement has a title.
Just my opinion, but I'd have to say that the birth of the movement was a culmination of several subcultures, and the artists that were involved with them.
These would be some of the ones that I think played a part in kick starting the movement. I'm sure there are more artists and subcultures that contributed, but these are the ones in my small head at the moment.
The subculture of Hot Rod artists, from the likes of Von Dutch, Ed Roth, Robert Williams, etc. along with the rock poster artists, Stanley Mouse, Alton Kelley, Rick Griffin, etc. semi underground comic artists Mort Drucker, Don Martin, Dave Berg , from Mad, R. Crumb, Spain, S Clay Wilson etc. from Zap Comix, and probably some surf subculture artists, like Jim Phillips etc.
There was a lot of crossover between these subcultures and artists.
I didn't attend the Helter Skelter exhibit but I did see the Kustom Kulture show at the Laguna Art Museum in 93 and I think it's exhibits such as these that legitimized this movement. My hat is off the the galleries that had the guts to show these artists previously, until the Museums finally got in on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on May 14, 2011 20:11:50 GMT -8
So thus far we have 2 probable shows:
"Helter Skelter" at MOCA in 1992
"Kustom Kulture" at Laguna Art Museum in 1993
I've heard references to both. The documentary "Lowdown on Lowbrow" credits the "Kustume Kulture" show at Laguna as the ground breaking moment for the movement. On the other hand, it's also hard to argue with the "Helter Skelter" show at MOCA.
I will leave it to the art historians, but my bet is both shows will get full credit.
Does anyone know who the curators were for the individual shows? I bet that will play into history as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldfartatplay on May 15, 2011 6:44:30 GMT -8
So thus far we have 2 probable shows: "Helter Skelter" at MOCA in 1992 "Kustom Kulture" at Laguna Art Museum in 1993 I've heard references to both. The documentary "Lowdown on Lowbrow" credits the "Kustume Kulture" show at Laguna as the ground breaking moment for the movement. On the other hand, it's also hard to argue with the "Helter Skelter" show at MOCA. I will leave it to the art historians, but my bet is both shows will get full credit. Does anyone know who the curators were for the individual shows? I bet that will play into history as well. The Kustom Kulture exhibit was curated by Craig Stecyk. After it left the Laguna Art Museum it went to the C.O.C.A., Seattle, WA. then on to the Maryland Institute College of Ant in Baltimore, MD. This was an amazing show to see in person, focused mainly around Williams, Ed Roth and Von Dutch. Tons of hot rod car stuff which was really cool. HEY! If you follow the link to the Helter Skelter show I posted earlier you will see who curated that one. |
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on Jun 30, 2011 11:05:11 GMT -8
So I was reading the latest issue of Hi-Fructose (#19) and arrived at the Clayton Brothers interview. In the interview they were able to get a quote from Robert Williams about bringing back representational art. " The core of the struggle has been to bring representational art back. And the idea isn't to bring it back under the guise of Pop Art or Surrealism. Pop art is the art of appropriation. Surrealism is defined by its manifesto written in the '20s and it was primarily a communist movement. It dealt in automatic art, art of the subconscious. So when you call yourself a Pop Surrealist, you're just trying to get underneath two different birds' wings. Now I know the term Lowbrow is offensive. But what it means is, 'I'm at the bottom of the fuckin' barrel and I can only go up." That was straight from the person who coined the term Lowbrow. I love the fact that Lowbrow is an offensive term that hits you in the gut. It's not trying to sugar coat anything. Just as "impressionist" art was a derogatory term used to describe the seemingly unfinished paintings of Monet, Degas, and Pissaro were. I love that impressionism was suppose to be a put-down, but now it means something beautiful. That's what I hope will happen with the word Lowbrow. But I am aware that there are several notable artists in the movement that hate the term, even the godfather himself, Robert Williams. I would love to hear what other people have to say, and hope that a HEALTHY discussion blossoms in the board. So you know how I feel about the euphemism "Pop Surrealism." Thus, I love Luke Chueh's painting titled, "Pop Surreal (and still the loser)"  |
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on Jun 30, 2012 11:52:54 GMT -8
OK slightly off topic, but with the recent firing of Paul Schimmel, MOCA's chief curator of 22 years and responsible for HELTER SKELTER. Who will be the champion of Lowbrow? tinyurl.com/7z6ofl3 |
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jul 1, 2012 9:57:24 GMT -8
OK slightly off topic, but with the recent firing of Paul Schimmel, MOCA's chief curator of 22 years and responsible for HELTER SKELTER. Who will be the champion of Lowbrow? tinyurl.com/7z6ofl3I wonder if he was really forced out by Deitch? And where Schimmel's next job will be... |
|
|
|
Post by kungfooweetie on Jul 2, 2012 4:29:52 GMT -8
I don't care for either term - for fairly personal reasons though. My own art has been listed on the forum as lowbrow/pop surrealist when I think of myself purely as an outsider artist.
What does irk me however, is the fact that artists seem get promoted to New Contemporary. Suddenly the money that changes hands is relevant to how the body of work would otherwise have been regarded. I think that's bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by roqlarue on Jul 6, 2012 14:59:54 GMT -8
I've told this story a few times but in interest of keeping facts straight about the term "Pop Surrealism"... In 2004 the term used was "Lowbrow" across the board, even though there was some grumbling about the name. Personally I liked the name a lot as it had some punk humor to it, as did the majority of the artists working at the time (Ausgang, Pizz, Rbt Williams, Petrucci, ect ect), however now to me "lowbrow" is a very distinct genre and NOT pop surrealism, which is not what gets defined as "new contemporary". When I was working on the book "Pop Surrealism", I originally wanted to call it "Lowbrow". However, several of the artists in the book didn't WANT to be associated with the term anymore and didn't want to be in a book called "Lowbrow", they felt it was a bit derogatory and flippant for work that was so technically accomplished. That meant I had to come up with something else. (I actually asked for advice from several prominent scene members but all they had to say to me was "good luck!") I had a zillion terms I was kicking around, but the one I eventually picked (and got the thumbs up from most of the artists in the book when I floated it by them) was "Pop Surrealism". It was a term I ripped off of Kenny Scharf, who called his own work that. I felt that Kenny Scharf was not a part of this new movement but absolutely was a spiritual godfather so it made a lot of sense, and the term was a loose enough umbrella that I felt it could contain the works of artists so varied such as Shag and Mark Ryden. The book came out, was exceedingly popular, and that's how the term "Pop Surrealism" happened as a genre moniker. Since then, others have tried to come up with new terms...Gary Baseman tried "Pervasive Art" and Jonathan Levine used "Pop Pluralism" but it seems the only other term to take hold is "New Contemporary" which is kind of a funny term but there you have it! (Incidentally, I met Kenny Scharf a few years ago and told him I was responsible for the "Pop Surrealism" book and he was totally cool with me snagging his term. I'm working a new book with a new title that should cause some arguing as well. -Kirsten |
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jul 6, 2012 15:16:38 GMT -8
I don't care for either term - for fairly personal reasons though. My own art has been listed on the forum as lowbrow/pop surrealist when I think of myself purely as an outsider artist. What does irk me however, is the fact that artists seem get promoted to New Contemporary. Suddenly the money that changes hands is relevant to how the body of work would otherwise have been regarded. I think that's bullshit. I don't think it has to do with money. I actually think outsider art might be a good compromise as essentially this type of art has been rejected by traditional blue-chip galleries although that is becoming less and less of an issue. As always, when this discussion comes up, there is no making everyone happy. It's sometimes it is hard to pick one or the other (new contemporary/lowbrow/pop surrealism). I would prefer everything in one category but some artists don't like the term low brow. What happens now is people just get confused and aren't sure which section to look for the artist the are looking for. I mean functionally, it would work if you just lumped everyone in lowbrow/pop surrealism/new contemporary, but maybe not politically. |
|
|
|
Post by jimandtara on Jul 6, 2012 22:36:20 GMT -8
I would prefer everything in one category ... How bout "New Low-Pop!" Kirsten - Feel free to use that term for your new book my friend!  Jim |
|
|
|
Post by The Gorgon on Jul 9, 2012 20:47:39 GMT -8
I've told this story a few times but in interest of keeping facts straight about the term "Pop Surrealism"... In 2004 the term used was "Lowbrow" across the board, even though there was some grumbling about the name. Personally I liked the name a lot as it had some punk humor to it, as did the majority of the artists working at the time (Ausgang, Pizz, Rbt Williams, Petrucci, ect ect), however now to me "lowbrow" is a very distinct genre and NOT pop surrealism, which is not what gets defined as "new contemporary". When I was working on the book "Pop Surrealism", I originally wanted to call it "Lowbrow". However, several of the artists in the book didn't WANT to be associated with the term anymore and didn't want to be in a book called "Lowbrow", they felt it was a bit derogatory and flippant for work that was so technically accomplished. That meant I had to come up with something else. (I actually asked for advice from several prominent scene members but all they had to say to me was "good luck!") I had a zillion terms I was kicking around, but the one I eventually picked (and got the thumbs up from most of the artists in the book when I floated it by them) was "Pop Surrealism". It was a term I ripped off of Kenny Scharf, who called his own work that. I felt that Kenny Scharf was not a part of this new movement but absolutely was a spiritual godfather so it made a lot of sense, and the term was a loose enough umbrella that I felt it could contain the works of artists so varied such as Shag and Mark Ryden. The book came out, was exceedingly popular, and that's how the term "Pop Surrealism" happened as a genre moniker. Since then, others have tried to come up with new terms...Gary Baseman tried "Pervasive Art" and Jonathan Levine used "Pop Pluralism" but it seems the only other term to take hold is "New Contemporary" which is kind of a funny term but there you have it! (Incidentally, I met Kenny Scharf a few years ago and told him I was responsible for the "Pop Surrealism" book and he was totally cool with me snagging his term. I'm working a new book with a new title that should cause some arguing as well. -Kirsten Hi Kristen, Thank you for the history of the word. We got it straight from the horse's mouth --not that you're a horse, I think you're very pretty. I'm just glad that there's a debate, which means the movement is alive and people care enough to be pissed off. I've heard Gary Baseman's "Pervasive Art" and Jonathan Levine's "Pop Pluralism" and respectfully disagree. I'm still a fan of the good 'ol Lowbrow. I can't wait to read your new book and new term. I hope it pisses people off. Well, you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by treeoflife on Jul 10, 2012 15:06:23 GMT -8
"Straight from the horse's mouth"... "I think you're pretty". - I think some of this was meant to try be funny... I'm not sure if it's all a catalyst to the "HEALTHY" discussion you opened by hoping for. Kirsten (I before the R) is a lot more than a pretty face in this conversation. In regard to critical writing in art, pissing people off as an objective is pretty 'lowest common denominator'. An understanding of history and context lend to sharing the tasty nuggets of information and inspiration - opinion is cheap. Not everything discussed here, or even in Hi-Fructose seems to comfortably fit under one umbrella of a label. I'm not sure I can think of any reason it would need to. Mark Ryden isn't Banksy, isn't Robert Crumb, isn't Robert Williams, certainly isn't Luke Chueh. As a gallerist and a writer, Kirsten is consistent about presenting excellent work. That carries more weight than any labels, but since she picked one - it's worth mentioning that she's done an exceedingly good job of being a presenter and proselytizer for it. Hi Kristen, Thank you for the history of the word. We got it straight from the horse's mouth --not that you're a horse, I think you're very pretty. I'm just glad that there's a debate, which means the movement is alive and people care enough to be pissed off. I've heard Gary Baseman's "Pervasive Art" and Jonathan Levine's "Pop Pluralism" and respectfully disagree. I'm still a fan of the good 'ol Lowbrow. I can't wait to read your new book and new term. I hope it pisses people off. Well, you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfooweetie on Jul 11, 2012 4:04:28 GMT -8
I don't care for either term - for fairly personal reasons though. My own art has been listed on the forum as lowbrow/pop surrealist when I think of myself purely as an outsider artist. What does irk me however, is the fact that artists seem get promoted to New Contemporary. Suddenly the money that changes hands is relevant to how the body of work would otherwise have been regarded. I think that's bullshit. I don't think it has to do with money. I actually think outsider art might be a good compromise as essentially this type of art has been rejected by traditional blue-chip galleries although that is becoming less and less of an issue. As always, when this discussion comes up, there is no making everyone happy. It's sometimes it is hard to pick one or the other (new contemporary/lowbrow/pop surrealism). I would prefer everything in one category but some artists don't like the term low brow. What happens now is people just get confused and aren't sure which section to look for the artist the are looking for. I mean functionally, it would work if you just lumped everyone in lowbrow/pop surrealism/new contemporary, but maybe not politically. Oh yeah, I totally understand that in terms of a forum there is the issue of ease of use and functionality and that a compromise needs to be met in terms of what-people-are-looking-for vs the (sometimes hairsplitting) issue of what-they-should-be-looking-for. My comment about New Contemporary goes beyond the forum. I think some galleries and art writers seem to sometimes hesitate before using a term like "lowbrow" or even "pop surrealist" - irrespective of the fact that an artist will have (to that point) have flourished under the term. Maybe it's because they don't want to isolate their market? And I suppose factors like location matter too. I don't know - I guess it can be a prickly issue because most people don't like being told "you are x". Apparently a lot of artists get their noses out of joint when they're referred to as "Outsiders". Maybe we need to give it 50 years and see what comes out in the wash? |
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jul 11, 2012 10:15:50 GMT -8
In the 1980's "Outsider Art" was art done by people who literally were outside of the establishment, . . . self-taught, . . . they weren't making art to be "artists". The kind of artists that fit that category were people in prisons and asylums, . . . people who were cut off from society in one way or another. There was a fella in prison cell who made elaborate carvings with a spoon, an artist who made sculptures out of aluminum foil, etc, . . .
By the time the late 1990's rolled around it just became anybody who was self-taught or outside of academia. Terms change with time.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jul 11, 2012 10:28:53 GMT -8
As far as Lowbrow vs Pop surrealism. I think it is silly to come to the conclusion that my work has anything to do with Tim Biskup or Gary Baseman, . . . we know each other and have shown in some of the same galleries, but clearly, our art comes from a different place. I think the terms have become confusing because the category of the artwork became connected to the galleries where the artwork is shown instead of being classified on its own appearance and influences. To use a blanket term like Lowbrow to classify all of our work together doesn't make sense to me. It isn't about being reactionary or as someone said, "pissing people off". I don't think there should even be a discussion called Lowbrow Vs Pop Surrealism.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonytag on Sept 11, 2012 4:50:49 GMT -8
Hey all,
I thought I'd jump in here to shed some light on the true origin of the term "Pop Surrealism" and who actually came up with it.
Pop Surrealism was the title of a show at The Aldrich Museum of Contemporary art June 7 to August 30th in 1998. Harry Philbrick was the director at the time and curated the show with Dominique Nahas and Ingrid Schaffner. There were 3 main themes of the show:
Verbatim From the show card:
"The three themes are:
1. Surrealist icons of popular culture;
2. the grotesque body; and
3. Surreal comics and the influence of "low art" underground comics on "high art" including the fractured dreamlike surrealist narrative that has been used in comics, television, film, and advertising.
Kenny Sharf was simply one of 40 artists chosen for that show. I don't blame anybody for being confused about where the term came from since it wasn't until the year 2000 or 2001 that the term started to take off in NYC art circles but the facts are it was not Kenny or Kirsten who populated the term. That being said they should both be credited with helping to expand the term especially out west where it seems the movement has taken wing and for that we all are appreciative.
|
|
|
|
Post by trobynt on May 31, 2015 22:00:53 GMT -8
Kenny Scharf made a manifesto coining the term Pop Surrealism in 1981.
|
|
