Talk:Pop art

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

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

• pop art not is from USA!!!.
• pop art is 100% British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.239 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

we can just specifically mention that a particular pop artist is American or British, or have a separate section for both North American and British Pop Art in order to reduce bias MacStudent1 (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

I found too many examples in the lede with reference to Warhol. This makes it seem biased. Bod (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I simply don't agree...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are free to disagree. I would hope you would say why. I read the lede to this article and it contains mention of one (1) artist (Warhol) and names three (3) of his artworks as examples. He was not the only player in the pop art movement. Bod (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see 2 mentions of Warhol in the lede - the box and the soup can - enormously influential; sorry if you don't agree but he blew the lid wide open in the NY artworld with the boxes and the soupcans...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

His work in '62 more than Rauschenberg, more than Johns, more than Lichtenstein, put the notion of Pop Art front and center especially by his essentially being so derivative of those commercial products. More than anyone else he embodied Dada and Duchamp's anti-art innovations...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good idea to remove that one reference to his "brillo" piece. Because I see a picture of Hamilton's work, if someone could work him in, it might make the whole thing seem more international and unbiased. I don't know enough about "pop art" to say whether Warhol deserves to be the only artist in the lede, but it just came off that way when I read it. Bod (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think a Warhol individual Campbell's Soup Can should be illustrated at the top of the article. This one might be good. Richard Hamilton's collage is of an earlier date but it is a composite of many images deriving from popular culture. The individual soup can is more important because it does not rely on the relationship between component parts. It is an affront to good taste because it substitutes the least likely imagery for artistic purposes in much the same way as Duchamp offensively substitutes a urinal for what is generally thought of as a sculpture. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are going in the wrong direction; that would further Warhol-ize the article. I would like to see a Campbell Soup Can up top. I think the Paolozzi Bunk! piece should be first, as the beginning of the movement and then the soup can. I would also like to see Paolozzi or Hamilton mentioned in the lede. Bod (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

This section needs improvement. It reads like a list of names and dates currently. While the article benefits from having a list of pop art artists, it needs to focus more on the pop art movement of the United States. Bod (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pop art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101110936/http://art.sy/artist/yayoi-kusama to http://art.sy/artist/yayoi-kusama
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130607022802/http://canofart.com:80/? to http://www.canofart.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Öyvind Fahlström, Armand Fernandez, Raymond Hains, R.B Kitaj, Edward Ruscha, Wolf Vostell are missing on this page. Sorry I only wish to help. I didn't no that was a problem. Just let Hariton Pushwagner be on this page, maybe some day he be famous and some one in Sweden here about him. ISueco (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fame is not relevant. Many artists on the list are known only locally. What is important is that an artist meet the requirements of notability. If there is an article, and the person meets notability requirements, there is nothing wrong with including him on this page. If the artist is not notable, the article can be nominated for deletion but if notability is already established, that would be a waste of your time. Focus your energies on adding names for artists that have articles, such as some of those you mentioned. freshacconci talk to me 15:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and neutralized the origin of Pop Art within the article. Some sources (usually of British origin) claim the movement began in Great Britain. Other sources (usually of American origin) claim it began in the U.S. Other sources still, claim the movement began in parallel, in both locations. Indeed, early works from both countries (early 1950s) fall into the category of Pop Art. The origin, according to much of the literature on the topic, appears to be consistent with the position that the movement began in parallel, both in the U.S. and in the UK. Coldcreation (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Charles G. Shaw's `Wrigley's' of 1937, although intended as an advertising poster, has features of Pop Art - do any RS support this view? Barney Bruchstein (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's interesting. I'd never heard of Shaw, but this blog (which may not a reliable source, mind you) states that it was in fact a painting first and Shaw attempted to sell it to Wrigley's for advertising posters. Not sure if that's accurate however. If it was a painting first (as in something falling under "fine art"), and we found some sources that state that it's a precursor, I see no problem with including it in the Proto-pop section. It wouldn't be pop art in the proper sense of the later art movement, but to my eyes it's got the right characteristics to be at least a precursor and it is part of the The Art Institute of Chicago collection, plus there is an article on Shaw, so notability is not a concern. freshacconci (✉) 18:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• https://www.pinterest.com/pin/690387817859286435/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4113:5700:4926:99AD:83DD:C66D (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Essay about pop art now 2001:4452:32C:A000:F0A1:8CBA:6B01:2A8C (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply