It is a powerful experience in terms of form to enter the exhibition “Warhol and Munch” at Haugar in Tønsberg, where Andy Warhol’s variations on well-known Munch motifs are displayed side by side with the Norwegian’s own graphic originals. Warhol described Edvard Munch as one of his absolute favorite artists. In 1973 he traveled to Oslo to get to know the great painter better. In particular, it was Munch’s innovative graphics that inspired him. Ten years later, Warhol created a series of screen prints based on four iconic Munch motifs, namely “Self-Portrait with Bone Arm”, “Eva Mudocci” (The Brooch), “Madonna” and “Scream”. WARHOL’S VERSIONS: By creating colorful series of Munch’s pictures as he did with celebrities, he also refers to the pictures’ iconic status. Photo: MICHAL TOMASZEWICZ / Haugar Kunstmuseum Photo: MICHAL TOMASZEWICZ / Haugar Kunstmuseum Photo: Michal Tomaszewicz / Haugar Kunstmuseum Artistic patricide While I was sitting at home flipping through the catalog, my 14-year-old daughter came over and looked over my shoulder: “But this is a pure copy!” was her immediate comment when she saw Warhol’s “Scream”. And of course she is partly right. Because where is the line between being inspired and copying in the world of art? Is it really enough to put a background color on another artist’s work to be able to call it your own? Isn’t that a form of spirit theft? In the world of art, it’s called appropriation. Appropriation Photo: Marcel Duchamp An artistic practice where one openly and intentionally steals or borrows images, motifs or ideas from another artist. Started by French-American Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) with the work “LHOOQ” from 1919. There he drew a mustache on Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” (see picture). Important appropriation artists besides Marcel Duchamp are Andy Warhol, Sherie Levine, Louise Lawler, Cindy Sherman and Richard Prince. No deeper meaning Standing in the exhibition, I think that even though Munch and Warhol are two very different artists, who belong to their respective times, they have quite a lot in common. Both emphasized clarity of form and strength of expression, and both worked with series. By juxtaposing popular cultural images and great works of art, Warhol emphasizes pop’s most central mantra: that everyday aesthetics must be considered as important and worthy as the art in museums. REPETITIONS: Warhol has said: “I like things to be exactly the same over and over again”. Munch worked on the same motif again and again both painterly and graphically. Warhol’s repetitions allude to the mass production of images, and to the mass photography of people. Because what happens when the artwork loses its originality, and what happens to us when we become visible, when our face becomes common property, multiplied? Such questions are what Warhol raises with his project. Photo: Øystein Thorvaldsen As Gerhard Richter, the foremost representative of German pop, stated in the 1960s: “An amateur photograph must concern me as much as a painting by Paul Cézanne”. Sheds new light on the motifs Warhol himself constantly insisted that everything he created was completely superficial: that one must not look for any deeper meaning, any underlying reflection. There is nothing but exactly what you see, he said. Andy Warhol (1928-1987) Photo: RICHARD DREW / AP American painter, graphic artist and film artist. Perhaps the foremost representative of pop art. Started as an advertising designer. He used the advertising motifs in his art, including Coke cans and soup cans. From 1963 he worked with film, and took up subjects such as sexuality, drugs, fame and life in the big city. He was central to the launch of the group The Velvet Underground. Warhol died on February 22, 1987 due to complications from gallbladder surgery. Source: Store Norske Leksikon Nevertheless, I imagine, while admiring a colorful version of Munch’s beautiful portrait of Eva Mudocci, that I can sense a completely genuine excitement – almost a heartfelt joy at Munch’s idiom and elegant lines. MUNCH’S MARILYN: Portrait of the English violinist Eva Mudocci, who was Munch’s mistress at the beginning of the 20th century. The picture is considered one of his most beautiful portraits, and Andy Warhol described it as Munch’s Marilyn. Photo: Haugar Kunstmuseum What exactly has Warhol contributed? In terms of form, he has changed little. Nevertheless, I feel that, with his simple moves and his colouring, he sheds a new light on these motifs. He gives them a new visual packaging that helps us see them with fresh eyes. The fact that he chose Munch was no more copying or less creative than when he chose a soup can, a disaster image from the media, or the face of a celebrity. It is as if for a moment we get to follow Warhol into the visual reality where he picked and chose elements that fascinated, horrified or inspired him. In Munch’s motifs, he found a sense of line and an idiom that he wanted to dwell on and hold on to, and take with him into his own artistic universe. DEEPER THAN THE RUMOR: Many have talked about the fact that Warhol unscrupulously allowed himself to be bought and absorbed by consumer culture, that he was someone who contributed to flattening and commercialization. I think this is too easy a way to understand Warhol. By clearly formulating the state of things, he showed how art had become part of commodity culture. Photo: Michal Tomaszewicz / Haugar Kunstmuseum The strong overall experience of the interaction between Warhol and Munch is disrupted to a significant extent by the exhibition’s graphic design. Here, designer Halvor Bodin has been inspired by the aesthetics of the 60s magazine Interview, founded in 1969. With large, careless, colorful letters, the two artists’ names have been scrawled all over the walls. It does not fit as a setting for two sharp formalists such as Munch and Warhol. Functionally, this also falls through. PULLS DOWN: It’s easy to understand that here he wanted to create something pop-inspired, immediate and signature-like, but in my eyes the result has become weak and messy in terms of form. Photo: Øystein Thorvaldsen The identity of the letters is not respected here, and it is poorly arranged for reading. Not least for a slightly older audience. Photo: Øystein Thorvaldsen The information text is also covered with these handwritten words and names. Photo: Øystein Thorvaldsen Does not offer new professional insight It is undoubtedly a wonderful exhibition, even if strictly speaking it does not bring in much new insight into either Warhol or Munch. It is a well-known fact that Warhol created these paraphrases. They have also been shown to a Norwegian audience on several occasions, including at the Munch Museum in 2018, and at Haugar ten years ago in connection with the celebration of Munch’s 150th birthday. That the exhibition is nevertheless worth a visit to the highest degree almost goes without saying! Here the father of expressionism and the undisputed king of pop meet: simply two of art history’s greatest masters in a beautiful union. news reviews Photo: Haugar Art Museum Title: “Warhol and Munch” Place: Haugar Art Museum Artists: Andy Warhol and Edvard Munch Graphic design: Halvor Bodin Estimated time: 30-45 minutes Date: September 9–28. January 2024
ttn-69
“Warhol and Munch” at the Haugar Art Museum – Reviews and recommendations
