Why Is It Surprising That Steven Vincent Was Stopped By The Guggenheim Museum?

ATIVE ANALYSIS PART TWO
It is not surprising that Steven Vincent was stopped by Oldenburg’s Store sculptures because the Guggenheim museum is one of the last places you would expect to find his objects, especially those that were originally intended for his storefront in the Lower Eastside of Manhattan. The irony of ‘the commodity object as art versus the art object as commodity’ set much of the stage for Oldenburg’s Store because he, like Allan Kaprow, understood that art changes accordingly to the thoughts, attitudes, and environmental factors of its audience (94). With this in mind, Vincent’s criticism of Oldenburg’s work not only makes sense, but can be expected. Of course he would appropriate different meanings to the symbols and objects
of yesterday and today because he encountered them in a different setting than which they were created. Just like how Oldenburg’s reaction to the sixties influenced an art that makes Vincent think back to the Kennedy years, Vincent’s reaction to Oldenburg’s art gives power to Kaprow’s overarching argument that social context and environmental factors carry greater meaning and depth than the art itself (94). While Oldenburg’s art gave a larger picture of the era in which it was created and consumed through the concentrated symbols & objects indicative to that era’s time (155), they continue to develop multiple meanings, all of which are justifiable in their own right simply because they are our interpretations and perceptions, and Oldenburg sought to expose “no external or internal objective truth” with his audience.
Whereas the objects found in Oldenburg’s store once symbolized the mystique of the Kennedy era, they now are more representational of American poverty and incompetence, at least in Vincent’s comparative analysis and criticisms. This is, no doubt, what Oldenburg hoped to accomplish with his comical, yet contemplative interpretations of mass-produced consumer goods and products.
Take for example, Pepsi-Cola Sign (1961). Painted in the same red, white and blue as the American flag, painted expressively with industrial enamel that could be bought in a hardware store; a practice he attributes to Jackson Pollock’s use of “direct - real paint” (152).There is a level of patriotism behind his imitation that he both affectionately portrays and mocks. With one symbol, he effectively exposes the contradictions and ambiguities of our modern society. This is reflected not only by the supply and demand of soda pop, but by the buying and selling of art itself. His choice in materials are intentional, by making high-art out of low-material he challenges the spectator by challenging
the “painting space” and brings it out of the canvas and into the world (151).
The point is that there is no ‘real’ image, and no undistorted representation that is true. There is only our desires, values, and representations. By using recognizable American symbols, objects that make up our daily lives and removing their functions, Oldenburg permits us their “real” meaning. He removes any element that makes it functional, therefore ridding us of any patterned desires, forcing us to confront its ‘true’ meaning at least in relation to our previous culturally ingrained interpretations. To Vincent, however, the act of separating these objects from their functions divests them from their meaning and purpose. In other words, they are left without any dignity (103).