Claes Oldenburg Analysis
The artist Claes Oldenburg did his job as an artist by making people think and feel many different things when they viewed his Giant Hamburger. The art students viewed the large hamburger and they had a direct perception to the art and the art students were compelled to make their own artistic expression. The students had an immediate aesthetic view of the hamburger and soon after they had a practical view for the art even if they meant it to be satirical.
The artist himself even commented on the student protest: “This doesn’t hurt my feelings at all. My work is going to get old soon enough. Perhaps they will come my way.” Oldenburg also added: “They should have made it out of something soft.” (Claes Oldenburg from the pages of Art Gallery of Ontario 1967) No, it should not be regarded as disrespectful because the audiences interpretation of the art and their aesthetic experience and feelings about the art is just as important as the artist. How the students viewed the object is the pinnacle of respect that can be paid to the artist because they had a special focus on the giant hamburger.
Yes this can easily be seen as satire from college art students who were tired of seeing art being heralded as "sophisticated" that they perceived as being obviously ridiculous. When you see a large foam …show more content…
rubber cheeseburger with a large green pickle on top, it may be difficult to view it with a purely artistic aesthetic attitude at first glance.
Oldenburg was probably prepared for people who did not possess artistic taste to make jokes about his artwork. There was nothing damaged aesthetically, but the museum management had a problem with it which doesn't make any sense because they are the gatekeepers of art and so they should know above all else that art is subjective. This just wasn't a harmless joke, the bottle of ketchup the art students made became almost as popular as the hamburger itself. It would be difficult to ruin any type of art. Even if they would've added a large foam rubber box of french fries it still would've been perceived as art by many people and an aesthetic experience would be had by all with artistic taste.
The artist understood that other people would have artistic distance when it comes to his art then the creator of the art. He understood some type of criticism would come along with his artistic endeavor. The art from the student's was not a mistake, their art was a purposeful response.
The students did not miss the point they made their art with their own intent.
If you have artistic taste then you can see the compliment that the bottle has to the overall art. If you don't have artistic taste then the ketchup bottle would take away from the art of the giant hamburger and make it uninteresting. If you would see the hamburger and the ketchup bottle together it would look more like a food advertisement and a lot less like art. Even if you witness a single hamburger in an art museum your mind would be conditioned to think of it as a food advertisement. With the addition of the ketchup bottle it would have no chance of being viewed upon as art by the average
person.
No, the students did not create a new artwork. Oldenburg's art was not a part of the student's art. In the beginning the student's art was a satirical parasite. It was made art overtime and by the millions of people who viewed it. Their artwork and the fact that it was banned by the museum became almost as well known as the giant hamburger.
Research
With his saggy hamburgers, colossal clothespins and giant three-way plugs, Claes Oldenburg has been the reigning king of Pop sculpture since the early 1960s, back when New York was still truly gritty. In 1961 he rented a storefront, called it The Store, and stocked it with stuffed, crudely-painted forms resembling diner food, cheap clothing, and other mass-manufactured items that stupefied an audience accustomed to the austere, non-representational forms in Abstract Expressionist sculpture. These so-called "soft-sculptures" are now hailed as the first sculptural expressions in Pop art. While his work has continued to grow in scale and ambition, his focus has remained steadfast: everyday items are presented on a magnified scale that reverses the traditional relationship between viewer and object. Oldenburg shrinks the spectator into a bite-sized morsel that might be devoured along with a giant piece of cake, or crushed by an enormous ice pack. His work shows us just how small we are, and serves as a vehicle for his smart, witty, critical, and often wickedly funny insights on American culture over the past half-century. Claes Oldenburg Biography, Art, and Analysis of Works. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2017, from http://www.m.theartstory.org/artist-oldenburg-claes.htm#
The artist himself even commented on the student protest: “This doesn’t hurt my feelings at all. My work is going to get old soon enough. Perhaps they will come my way.” Oldenburg also added: “They should have made it out of something soft.” (Claes Oldenburg from the pages of Art Gallery of Ontario 1967) No, it should not be regarded as disrespectful because the audiences interpretation of the art and their aesthetic experience and feelings about the art is just as important as the artist. How the students viewed the object is the pinnacle of respect that can be paid to the artist because they had a special focus on the giant hamburger.
Yes this can easily be seen as satire from college art students who were tired of seeing art being heralded as "sophisticated" that they perceived as being obviously ridiculous. When you see a large foam …show more content…
rubber cheeseburger with a large green pickle on top, it may be difficult to view it with a purely artistic aesthetic attitude at first glance.
Oldenburg was probably prepared for people who did not possess artistic taste to make jokes about his artwork. There was nothing damaged aesthetically, but the museum management had a problem with it which doesn't make any sense because they are the gatekeepers of art and so they should know above all else that art is subjective. This just wasn't a harmless joke, the bottle of ketchup the art students made became almost as popular as the hamburger itself. It would be difficult to ruin any type of art. Even if they would've added a large foam rubber box of french fries it still would've been perceived as art by many people and an aesthetic experience would be had by all with artistic taste.
The artist understood that other people would have artistic distance when it comes to his art then the creator of the art. He understood some type of criticism would come along with his artistic endeavor. The art from the student's was not a mistake, their art was a purposeful response.
The students did not miss the point they made their art with their own intent.
If you have artistic taste then you can see the compliment that the bottle has to the overall art. If you don't have artistic taste then the ketchup bottle would take away from the art of the giant hamburger and make it uninteresting. If you would see the hamburger and the ketchup bottle together it would look more like a food advertisement and a lot less like art. Even if you witness a single hamburger in an art museum your mind would be conditioned to think of it as a food advertisement. With the addition of the ketchup bottle it would have no chance of being viewed upon as art by the average
person.
No, the students did not create a new artwork. Oldenburg's art was not a part of the student's art. In the beginning the student's art was a satirical parasite. It was made art overtime and by the millions of people who viewed it. Their artwork and the fact that it was banned by the museum became almost as well known as the giant hamburger.
Research
With his saggy hamburgers, colossal clothespins and giant three-way plugs, Claes Oldenburg has been the reigning king of Pop sculpture since the early 1960s, back when New York was still truly gritty. In 1961 he rented a storefront, called it The Store, and stocked it with stuffed, crudely-painted forms resembling diner food, cheap clothing, and other mass-manufactured items that stupefied an audience accustomed to the austere, non-representational forms in Abstract Expressionist sculpture. These so-called "soft-sculptures" are now hailed as the first sculptural expressions in Pop art. While his work has continued to grow in scale and ambition, his focus has remained steadfast: everyday items are presented on a magnified scale that reverses the traditional relationship between viewer and object. Oldenburg shrinks the spectator into a bite-sized morsel that might be devoured along with a giant piece of cake, or crushed by an enormous ice pack. His work shows us just how small we are, and serves as a vehicle for his smart, witty, critical, and often wickedly funny insights on American culture over the past half-century. Claes Oldenburg Biography, Art, and Analysis of Works. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2017, from http://www.m.theartstory.org/artist-oldenburg-claes.htm#