Andy Warhol’s interest in photography, Hollywood and the film industry, and the new technology offered by the Polaroid Land company, opened some doors of opportunity for portraiture. Many of Warhol’s most celebrated portraits came into being through the “snap judgment” of Polaroid cameras and the lure of immediate access to “instant” imagery. Jasper Johns, the American Pop Art artist who was friends with Warhol, made the following comment in the 1972 documentary Painters Painting: “The term Pop Art suggests that everything is certain.” An interesting thought, especially in the context of Warhol’s use of “instant” imagery afforded by the Polaroid camera. Do you think Warhol’s use of Polaroid technology for the formal content of his celebrity portraits is characterized by John’s statement about “certainty” quoted above? Your thoughts?
Andy Warhol, Polaroid of Caroline, Princess of Monaco
Art and Honors BGFA 
“If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings and films and me, and there I am. There’s nothing behind it.” (Andy Warhol) With this idea in mind, it is very clear that Andy’s approach to making art is very direct. Even with his silkscreen prints there was very little ambiguity about what the subject was. With the Polaroid camera, Andy was able to instantly capture the surface of his subjects without pondering the outcome, and feverishly working in the present. He was able to work within a live moment and through the Polaroids look back and re-experience those moments. The moments that he looked back into with these Polaroids were very honest and frank. What Jasper Johns says about certainty definitely applies in the case of Andy Warhol. While a painter will take his time when working on a portrait, and take liberties with important variables such as expression and mood, Andy was able to definitively trap that person in that one moment, and eventually go on to manufacture that image in his silkscreen process. Although one may speculate that this last step allows Andy to alter the mood of the person in these cases, Andy goes on to say, “Paintings are too hard. The things I want to show are mechanical. Machines have less problems. I’d like to be a machine, wouldn’t you?” This suggests that he changed the state of the portrait (i. e. from Polaroid to print) but not the portrait itself. When there is something that is certain, changing it into something that becomes uncertain is not easy to do. A creature of habit, Andy certainly did not want to take steps that would achieve that outcome, and instead gave the audience a piece that shows everything on its surface. With Andy, what you see is what you get.
Warhol’s true intent is hard to pin down. Therefore, the meaning of his work is very uncertain. When Jasper Johns made that comment, he was criticizing the alleged certainty of the idea of “Pop Art.” His criticism holds true if you only look at the surface. Because the surface is nothing more than a visual representation. It is only when you delve below the surface that certainty vanishes. In Warhol’s case, it’s the academics that do the digging. Their interpretation of Warhol’s oeuvre creates the first uncertainty. Are we supposed to believe their opinions regarding the meaning of Warhol’s body of work? Or do we believe the somewhat dismissive comments made by Warhol? If Warhol’s sparse statements about his work are true, then he played a huge joke on the art world. Because they made his work into something bigger than he intended. I tend to believe the academics. Warhol was very calculating. His public comments and writing were all an act. It feeds right into his fascination with auras. He created an aura around his work and it’s uncertainty creates a mystery that everyone wants to solve. Now that’s shrewd!
The Polaroids and the resulting portraits are also uncertain. From a technical perspective, Polaroids do not capture a true image of their subject. They are more like a sketch than a photographic portrait. When it comes to Warhol’s portraits, the only certainty there is that you know he isn’t going to produce a painterly portrait.
I don’t believe that Jasper Johns quote, ”The term Pop Art suggests that everything is certain.” Is not characterized by Warhol’s use of Polaroid technology for his celebrity portraits. The Polaroid camera is instant, but by no means certain. The image for example is not even viewed through the lens, rather it is seen through the viewfinder. Not a very certain or accurate method. In the traditional studio setting the photographer choreographs, plans, and directs every detail of the photo shoot. Warhol on the other hand would give minimal instruction to his subject. This technique allowed for spontaneity and accuracy for capturing the moment, but disallowed for certainty in the final outcome. I think Warhol’s multiple image silkscreen works are also reflective of this idea. He said he wanted to be like a machine. Machines can reproduce objects with perfection, accuracy, and certainty that humans are not capable of. But, if you look at Warhol’s multiple image silk screens he would purposely cause and allow inaccuracy in his registration and distribution of ink. Warhol claimed he wanted certainty but displayed through his work that nothing is certain.
Certainty to describe Pop Art is an interesting concept and I feel it could mean or refer to the fact that the images produced represents objects and images that are familiar and reliable. When it comes to Warhol’s Polaroid pictures of celebrities, he chose his subjects matching to Jasper John’s idea of certainty. The people that Warhol chose had an already established public persona, a reliable and familiar identity. In their face alone, and the ideas behind them are clear points of certainty, but the dualistic personalities of public and personal image, matched with Warhol’s posing of his celebrities, to either enforce the public image or contradict it, provides more context for Pop Art in being ironic.
Andy Warhol, liked to experiment, he liked to experiment with existing brands and images. He was captivated with what translated to fame or what was in the American psyche of the definition of fame. Much of fame to Warhol was in the form of images, either in movies or pictures. Warhol liked to use the Polaroid camera in an attempt to capture the likeness of the famous person as quickly as possible and the polaroid was the perfect tool for the job. Within just a few minutes Warhol would have serval images for reference. As far as the Polaroid camera I do not see a difference from it to the digital camera of today. The only difference might be, is that with the digital camera after the price of the camera and a few electrons the images are absolutely free. With the digital camera the images are easy take therefore because it is easy I think we take far less pictures just because we can capture an image of whatever we see. On the other hand Warhol’s used the Polaroid in a deliberate act. The subject was often framed just as it is if he was going to paint a portrait, Warhol used the power of light and framing to capture the expression he wanted. What Warhol wanted was something of a likeness that society could identify with.
I think Warhol’s work was a deliberate act. In that way, it was “certain”. He used familiar objects and famous people to capture a familiarity for the public. He knew what the public would want and he was a very astute businessman. If he had wanted his work to have a certainty to it, he would not have allowed for the registration on his silkscreens to be off by even a millisecond. He made sure that he used famous people that ordinary people could identify with…his “trademark”.
Through what I have learned thus far in class regarding Pop Art, I believe that Pop Art does represent certainty to an extent; however, it is ultimately up to the viewer to decide. Take Warhol’s soup can portrait for example. It is certainly a portrait of a Campbell’s soup can, no one can doubt that. Certainty can be argued in lieu of his Polaroid celebrity portraits. Yes the portraits are of the celebrities; however, what these people represent, or rather who they are, is dependent upon the viewer. Warhol attempted to depict the celebrities in a way that is recognizable to the audience, for example the regal-like portrait coincides with Princess Caroline of Monaco. But whether or not these portraits represent who these celebrities really are is not certain. In my opinion, what makes something certain is also what makes it real. For example, if Warhol took these Polaroid portraits of celebrities randomly, without him posing them, then the term “snap judgment” would be more appropriate because the photo was taken in a spontaneous moment as opposed to a staged photo session.
Based on the artworks we have discussed so far, it is true that pop art suggests certainty. However, this certainty is only “surface deep.” This is evident when the audience responses of the art pieces are examined. Objects, icons, or brands depicted in the artwork are represented objectively, especially in Andy Warhol’s works, with little to no input from the creator. This unique characteristic allows and encourages viewers to create and experience their own individual connections to the artwork. It is never certain why or how the viewer will react to a pop art piece. Popular artists produce loaded images that appear objective, but the references found in those images provoke all sorts of responses from the audience. Thus, one can disagree with Johns’ statement and argue that pop art actually suggests uncertainty.
Warhol’s Polaroid series is not excluded from this argument. The portraits are certainly the celebrities they show, but how the viewers respond to these photographs and how the portraits were created reveal uncertainty. As stated earlier, responses to pop art is never definite. In addition, although the Polaroid technology allows instant imagery, it is never the real thing. In the same way, the celebrities themselves are not their “real” self – they are portraying a certain persona or character in front of the camera. Most of them pose as how the general public perceives them. For instance, Grace Jones’ sharp intimidating pose in the portrait coincides with our representation of her being fierce and strong. Even the selection of the photographs to be showcased is carefully done – only choosing those that satisfy Warhol’s artistic expressions and the celebrity’s preferences, which adds another layer of uncertainty to the whole representation of the “real” celebrity in the Polaroid picture and reveals flaw in Johns’ statement.
I agree that the final picture is certain, but didn’t Andy Warhol take several pictures before he decided on a final image? I guess Jasper Johns was saying that he thought that it was easier than painting from scratch and that using the Polaroid was like getting instant gratification. I guess I see it both ways.
Looking at the works of Warhol and understanding his process to create his work I would say that the instant imagery from the polaroids was a part of just that process, but did not lead to the actual art piece. I know that he ended up taking many polaroids in order to come up with the ultimate artpieces that we can see up on the walls, but the one that was choosen was not the only photo that he took. It was a choice out of many, and was then manipulated for the silk screen process. Finally the choice of color to each piece of art was then added to give off his unique design properties and secure his name as an artist in the upper echelon of the art world. So the instant access to photography was only a part of the process to the final artwork, but was not created for just that artwork.
When I first read this post I thought of images today. Nothing is for certain with image editing so prevalent in the media today. You can never trust an image with programs like Photoshop in existence. Photoshop has been used so much, it is now a verb used to describe edited images. “Is that Photoshopped?” So, with that being said, yes, I do think Warhol’s Polaroids are for certain in that respect. They capture the subject in a moment in time. They are right there as they appear in real life. The Polaroid captures this moment and immediately returns it to you. The faster the better, I think. If it’s returned to you faster the more certain it is because you can relive that moment closer to the actually moment the photographer took the photo. Now, I’m not so sure about the rest of his art. Why is pop art for certain? Because it is about real things that exist in society, concrete things that people know? Maybe, but after everything I’ve seen in the gallery, how almost all of the pieces are different colors and have that Warhol touch to it now. I don’t see those images being anything close to reality. They may still have the essence of the subject, but it’s not really the real thing.
I think Jasper Johns usage of “instant” can mean a lot of things. For example, Warhol was trying to capture that exact moment of the celebrates fame or perhaps he was capturing the celebrating true colors. When i first read Jasper Johns quote about Warhol, it made me think of a interview where they Warhol in what he was trying to portray in his self-portrait,
“In the future, everybody will be world famous for 15 minutes.
In the future everyone will have their fifteen minutes of fame
When asked about this quote, he would corrupt it intentionally, including:
In the future, fifteen people will be famous.
In fifteen minutes, everyone will be famous.
Andy Warhol: I think everybody should like everybody.
Gene Swenson: Is that what Pop Art is all about?
Andy Warhol: Yes, it’s liking things.
“What Is Pop Art?” Art News, November 1963
It’s the place where my prediction from the sixties finally came true: “In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes.” I’m bored with that line. I never use it anymore. My new line is, “In fifteen minutes everybody will be famous.”