14 January 2014

 

Dylan Spivak (HBSc Mathematics 3^rd Year)

 

Andy’s Balloon

 

            This ability of the balloon to shift its shape, to change, was very

pleasing, especially to people whose lives were rather rigidly patterned,

persons to whom change, although desired was not available. The balloon,

for the twenty-two days of its existence, offered the possibility, in its

randomness, of mislocation of the self, in contradistinction to the grid of the

precise, rectangular pathways under our feet. The amount of specialized

training currently needed, and the consequent desirability of long-term

commitments, has been occasioned by the steadily growing importance of

complex machinery, in virtually all kinds of operations; as this tendency

increases, more and more people will turn, in bewildered inadequacy, to

solutions for which the balloon may stand as a prototype, or ‘rough draft’.

-Donald Barthelme, The Balloon

 

            This passage is from Donald Barthelme’s postmodern short story, The Balloon. In the story

citizens contemplate the meaning and purpose of a large, enigmatic balloon

hanging over their heads in New York City. The balloon changes the way citizens live

their lives; a change in perspective is felt throughout the city. Upon hearing this one

cannot help but think of Andy Warhol, and how his oeuvre can be viewed in a similar

light. The purpose of this paper is to make clear these parallels by showing that the

exhibition of Warhol’s “Brillo Boxes” in 1964 was a paradigm shifting moment in arts and

culture that made it possible for anything to be art, and anyone an artist. In doing this,

the meaning and philosophical importance of the “Brillo Box” will be discussed.

 

            The logical starting point for such a discussion is to examine what exactly “Brillo

Box” is. The Brillo company sells a product called Brillo Pads that are used for cleaning

pots and pans. In the 1960s these soap pads came in large white cardboard boxes

covered with colourful writing that said “ 24 GIANT PKGS. New! Brillo Soap pads with

rust resistor, shines aluminum fast” (Danto, Andy Warhol, 63). It is interesting to note

that the man who designed the boxes for the company, James Harvey, was an abstract

expressionist painter who designed packages for companies in his spare time (or vice

versa)( Danto, Andy Warhol, 64). In 1964, Andy Warhol had a show where he displayed

sculptures he made of the boxes that look like exact copies. The naked eye wouldn’t be

able to tell the difference between Andy’s and the original (Danto, After the End of Art,

35). One difference worth mentioning is that Warhol’s sculptures are made of wood

instead of cardboard (Danto, Andy Warhol, 53).

 

            Warhol’s “Brillo Boxes” were subject to controversy from the very start, as the

designer of the original Brillo Box, James Harvey, had to ‘choke back’ an impulse to

start a lawsuit against Warhol for stealing his idea. Harvey didn’t attempt to press

charges because he gave up the rights to his work to the Brillo Manufacturing

Company; the company was getting free publicity from the popularity of Warhol’s work,

so they we quite content and wouldn’t press charges. Time Magazine even ran an

article titled Boxing Match that appeared in May of 1964 that documented the situation

 (Golec, 5). Another controversy occurred one year later when an art dealer tried to bring

a collection of “Brillo Boxes” into Canada for a showing; at customs the artworks were

not considered to be art, but rather merchandise. Instead of being let in duty free, a tariff

of $4000 was charged (Danto, Andy Warhol, 68). During this period Warhol did

sculptures of many other products, for example, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Kellogg’s Corn

Flakes, and Mott’s Apple Juice (Danto, Andy Warhol, 56). None of these pieces

achieved as much fame as the “Brillo Boxes” did.

 

            In The Balloon, the citizens of New York are perplexed by the presence of the

balloon; Barthelme writes that “There were reactions. Some people found the balloon

‘interesting’ (Barthelme, 46). Different groups of people all have different attitudes

towards the balloon; children play games on it, city officials feel threatened by the

unknown, some see it as a reward and others a burden. Barthelme continues to say that

“There was a certain amount of initial argumentation about the ‘meaning’ of the balloon;

this subsided, because we have learned not to insist on meanings, and they are rarely

even looked for now, except in cases involving the simplest, safest phenomena. It was

agreed upon that the meaning of the balloon could never be known absolutely” (Barthelme, 47). This screams postmodernism. The talk of not insisting on

meanings can be seen as a consequence of Nietzsche’s famous claim that God is

Dead: human kind reaching the point where they don’t believe in capital-t-truth

anymore. Barthelme has certainly given the situation a grave nihilistic tone. This is an

attitude that often gets associated with Andy Warhol.

 

            Andy’s artwork is often just a depiction of an everyday object and usually nothing

more, so art critics are often perplexed by the meaning of the piece and there is a wide

spectrum of responses. Critics called him “nothingness himself” (Andy Warhol, 7) and

say that “Values, feelings, seemed not to exist for Warhol. He registered race riots,

suicides, airplane crashes, the atomic bomb, the electric chair with the same cool

detachment that he brought to registering soup cans, revolvers, flowers and Brillo

boxes” (Ruhrberg, 323).

 

            Danto refers to Warhol as a Socrates-esque character, always testing definitions

for art, pushing the boundaries and challenging our views of what art can be (Danto,

Andy Warhol, 79). I find this comparison quite interesting and appropriate because

Socrates was a ‘midwife for ideas’, he claimed to have no knowledge of his own but he

assisted others is reaching a conclusion; this is most apparent in Plato’s earlier

dialogues (Annas, 2). Socrates’ statement about having no knowledge comes to mind in

many of Warhol’s interviews. For example, Andy says “If you want to know all about

Andy Warhol, just look at the surface: of all of my paintings and films and me, and there

I am. There’s nothing behind it” (Danto, Andy Warhol, 145). Barthelme has a similar

opinion on his work. As Trachtenberg puts it, “Barthelme has explicitly disclaimed any

interest in the kind a psychological study that would mean going beneath the surface of

his characters” (Trachtenberg, 34). Barthelme stresses the importance of not knowing

about the subject matter, rather than approaching it with a ‘Tolstoyan

understanding’ (Trachtenberg, 38) which keeps in line with Andy’s maxim: it’s all on the

surface, baby.

 

            Of course, it is thoroughly absurd to accept Andy’s statement literally. There is

much more meaning than appears on the surface, even when the work in question is an

apparently meaningless object like “Brillo Box”. In After the End of Art, Danto quotes

T.S. Elliot from his essay, Traditional and Individual Talent: “ No poet, no artist of any art,

has his complete meaning alone. His signification, his appreciation, is the appreciation

of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone, you must set

him, for contrast and comparison among the dead” (Danto, After the End of Art, 164).

When we are judging the “Brillo Box”, we can’t think of it as a lonely object in a vacuum

and judge it solely on its appearance. We should instead recognize that it is dependent

on everything that has ever happened, everywhere on the planet. Danto does this when

discussing monochromatic art, he says that works like Malevich’s “Black Square” (1915)

are “dense with meaning” (Danto, After the End of Art, 156) and that two squares of the

same colour have “very different stylistic attributes” (Danto, After the End of Art, 167).

Danto says this because of the historical importance of the works. The paintings aren’t

admired for their blackness, but rather their place in history.

 

            We will now briefly discuss why Arthur Danto takes the “Brillo Box” to be such an

important piece of philosophy, why it signifies the end of art. To do this we first need to

discuss the Age of Manifestos. According to Danto, this movement in art started in the

beginning of the twentieth century. “The point about the Age of Manifestos is that it

brought what it took to be philosophy into the heart of artistic production” (Danto, After

the End of Art, 36). Each movement within the Age of Manifestos - Dadaism, Cubism,

Constructivism, Surrealism etc. - were “driven by a perception of the philosophical truth

of art” (Danto, After the End of Art, 28). For example, Danto quotes Picasso as saying

that “the Cubists abandoned colour, emotion, sensation, and everything that had been

introduced into painting the impressionists” (Danto, After the End of Art, 28).

           

            Warhol’s facsimile boxes end the Age of Manifestos because of the questions it

raised, mainly: why is this art? and If we accept that “Brillo Boxes” are art, then what

isn’t art? as well as the various questions stemming from the intellectual property

dispute between Warhol and Harvey. Danto says that “one could not any longer

understand the difference between art and reality in purely visual terms” (Danto, After

the End of Art, 125). This is apparent since Andy’s sculptures look identical to the boxes

sold in grocery stores. Danto continues that thought by saying “that there is no special

way a work of art has to be” (Danto, After the End of Art, 125). There is no way to

distinguish art from non-art, no set of criteria to follow. So the distinction is rather

arbitrary. Because of this, all previous work in the philosophy of art becomes obsolete

(Danto, After the End of Art, 125).

           

            Dadaist artist Marcel Duchamp is often compared to Warhol because

Duchamp’s sculpture “Fountain” (1917) is cited as the first piece of ‘readymade

art’ (Danto, Andy Warhol, 51). Why is it the case that Warhol’s “Brillo Boxes” cause the

end of art and not Duchamp’s urinal? I think this is because the “Brillo Boxes” were

subject to more of an intellectual property controversy à la James Harvey. Don’t get me

wrong, Duchamp and the entire Dadaist movement are controversial, but for entirely

different reasons. Duchamp’s controversy stems from his desire to “liberate art from

having to please the eye” (Danto, Andy Warhol, 56). Duchamp’s urinal is plain white

porcelain, a completely generic object. Unlike with Harvey’s case, the person who

created the original urinal and the company that manufactured it would have no way of

knowing that Duchamp was showing their urinal specifically, so there are no intellectual

property issues. This minute difference between “Brillo Box” and “Fountain” is enough

to spark the end of art because Andy’s sculpture makes us think more philosophically

about art in that respect.

 

            The citizens of New York City in Barthelme’s story are inspired by the random

fluctuations balloon. Barthelme writes that because of the randomness of the balloon

and its contrast to the rigidness of the city, “more and more people will turn, in

bewildered inadequacy, to solutions for which the balloon may stand as a prototype, or

‘rough draft’” (Barthelme, 50-51). Andy Warhol’s “Brillo Box” had a similar effect on not

just New York City but the entire world. As mentioned earlier, after Warhol there is no

distinction between art and non-art, so anything goes; everything is art and everyone is

an artist. In the $12 Million Stuffed Shark, Don Thompson brings up something rather

interesting. While discussing subsidies for artists he cites a belief of Robert Storr’s: that

the “government should offer a living wage stipend to all who say they want to create

art, a guaranteed annual income that rewards effort rather than output” (Thompson,

180). I think the bolded word in that assertion makes the statement important. It doesn’t

exclude anyone or anything, no degrees, experience or talent is required. Anything

made would be art. Despite the fact that this system isn’t in practice, I think that this

idea is a testament to Warhol’s legacy. Such an idea is possible only after 1964. Also in

the spirit of artistic freedom, in an interview with Art News, Andy says “How can you say

one style is better than another? You ought to be able to be an Abstract-Expressionist

next week, or a Pop artist, or a realist, without feeling you've given up

something” (Warhol and Swenson).

 

            At first, the theme of Andy’s entire oeuvre seems to be a celebration of

capitalism, consumerism, and utilitarianism. This is apparent when Warhol says things

like:

 

What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where

the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You

can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you 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

than the one the bum on the corner of the street is drinking. All the Cokes

are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the

President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it (Andy Warhol,

100-101).

 

The most beautiful thing in Tokyo is McDonald's.

The most beautiful thing in Stockholm is McDonald's.

The most beautiful thing in Florence is McDonald's.

Peking and Moscow don't have anything beautiful yet (Andy Warhol, 71).

 

Here Warhol seems to advocate capitalism. He says that big brand names are the best

because they are the most popular and available to everyone. This theme is also

evident in his art, by presenting mundane consumer products, like “Brillo Boxes”,

Warhol is putting the items on a pedestal. Coke and McDonald’s are typical,

normalizing, uncontroversial products that have mass appeal. It makes the most

number the people the happiest, unlike a specialty drink that has a narrower appeal,

Warhol seems to be defending the idea that this makes them better. This concept is

something he wants his art to capture. This can be seen when he says “ This talk of

bluejeans was making me very jealous. Of Levi and Strauss. I wish I could invent

something like bluejeans. Something to be remembered for. Something mass” (Warhol,

13).

 

            To stop here and say that pieces like “Brillo Box” are only about capitalism is a bit

too easy. To appreciate the real meaning, we need to first unpack some of Andy’s

psychological issues. In the 50s before his art world success “he was the best known,

highest-paid fashion illustrator in New York, making upwards of $100,000 a

year” (Bockris, 11). During this time Andy was in love with a man named Charles

Lisanby. The two were good friends but had an asymmetric relationship. “Andy was so

in love with Charles that their love was difficult to sustain” (Bockris, 11), whereas

“Charles adored Andy but he did not love him the way Andy loved Charles and they

never had sex or kissed or anything” (Bockris, 11). In 1956 the two took a trip to the Far

East. On the trip the pair had a fight: Andy wanted to consummate their relationship ,

but he was rejected. Afterwards Andy lamented that “he’d gone around the world with a

boy and not even received one kiss” (Burns, 54:35). Also on that trip Andy says:

 

I was walking in Bali, and saw a bunch of people in a clearing having a ball

because somebody they really liked had just died, and I realized that

everything was just how you decided to think about it. Sometimes people

let the same problems make them miserable for years when they should

just say so what. That’s one of my favourite things to say. So What.

My mother didn’t love me. So what.

My husband won’t ball me. So what.

I don’t know how I made it through all the years before I learned how to do

that trick. It took a long time for me to learn it, but once you do you never

forget. (Bockris, 14)

 

These are clearly the thoughts of someone who is depressed, someone who has given

up and decided not to care. Bockris writes that “this was a cornerstone of the attitude

that made Andy Warhol famous in the 1960s” (Bockris, 14). It is at this moment where

Andy “stops caring” and “gives up his sentimental strategies of the 50s in favor of a

colder, more mechanical style in the 60’s” (Burns, 55:30). One of the things Andy was

best known for was repetition, churning out silkscreen after silkscreen. Only in this

context can we see deeper into Warhol’s work.

 

            Warhol saw the world as an unbearable, unforgiving place; he was homosexual,

ugly, lonely and rejected, he felt uncomfortable with everything around him. By making

exact copies of the major symbols of the 60s he was able to nullify them. As Banksy

said in Exit Through the Gift Shop: “Andy Warhol made a statement by repeating

famous icons until they became meaningless” (Banksy, 1:19:14). Works like “Brillo Box”

have no brush marks, no shading or imperfections; in doing this there is “no place for

our spiritual eye to penetrate it” (Burns, 1:07:30). In doing this Andy attempts to make

himself more comfortable by making a new world of reproduced images.

 

            In my view, Andy was a tormented soul; he was a lonely, pasty-white, gay man

who didn’t really fit in anywhere. To cope with these demons he used his art. Warhol

took the popular images of his time and made them meaningless by making hundreds

of copies. For him this was a form of therapy. By reproducing mundane objects and

presenting them as artworks he changed the way we think about art. This is so

important because after Warhol the distinction between art and non-art is completely

arbitrary. There are no rules one has to follow to create art, truly anything goes. Warhol

had a great influence on the artistic community and pop culture. For example, Donald

Barthelme is someone who we can see adapting Warhol’s ideals; so much so that we

can liken “Brillo Box” to Barthelme’s balloon in the sense that they both serve as a

symbol for inspiration and freedom.

 

References:

 

1. Barthelme, D., Sixty Stories (Penguin, New York, 1993)

2. Danto A., Andy Warhol (Yale, 2009)

3. Danto A., After the End of Art ( Princeton University Press, 1997)

4. Thompson D., The $12 Million Stuffed Shark ( Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2008)

5. Annas J., Plato: a Very Short Introduction ( Oxford, 2003 )

6. Warhol A., The Philosophy of Andy Warhol ( Harcourt, New York, 1975)

7. Warhol A. and Swenson G., Andy Warhol Interview with Gene Swenson, Art News

(1963)

8. Golec M., The Brillo Box Archive: Aesthetics, Design and Art ( Dartmouth College

Press, 2008 )

9. Trachtenberg S.,Understanding Donald Barthelme ( University of South Carolina

Press, 1990)

10.Ruhrberg et al., Art of the 20th Century ( Taschen, 2000)

11.Bockris V., Warhol the Biography ( Da Capo Press, 2003 )

12. Burns R., Andy Warhol: A Documentary Film ( PBS, 2006 )

available at http://vimeo.com/64603995

13. Banksy, Exit Through the Gift Shop (Paranoid Pictures, 2010)