Lynn El-Roeiy Professor IrvineCCT 71112/20/15

The Semiotics of Pop ArtSigns, Signals and Social Growth

In the current era, most people would not consider a can of Campbell’s

Soup to have the potential to be an artistic masterpiece that sparked social

change and intellectual growth. Granted, the flash of red color and cursive

writing is aesthetically appealing and enticing, yet it does not necessarily warrant

the same admiration that one feels when viewing Vincent Van Gogh’s, “The

Starry Night,” or Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica.” Yet in 1962, Andy Warhol’s artistic

adaptation of “Campbell’s Soup Cans” transformed the mundane image of a

staple grocery store item into a wildly popular and lauded icon of Pop Art. During

the 1950s and 1960s, Pop Art emerged as a stark contrast to previous art forms,

exploring the boundary between art and pop culture and how the two ironically

yet earnestly intersect. Typical subjects of this art movement included common

products such as groceries, elements of advertisement and objects that were

usually presented as being removed from a background or underlying setting that

provided context and an inherent purpose. This paper will examine the key

semiotic features of Pop Art as both a form of artistic expression and critical part

of 20th century art, as well as dissect what exactly is the signifier and signified in

such an artistic genre.

Writer Carl I. Belz explains that Pop Art possesses, “A distinct self-

consciousness” (105). This is a highly accurate and observant statement that

transcends the place Pop Art had during its initial debut into modern society.

El-Roeiy 1

Pop Art does not attempt to trigger a different reaction in its viewers that the one

it clearly presents; it is an entirely straightforward and aesthetically obvious in its

content. A prime feature of the artistic genre is that it defied the intentional

ambiguity of recent movements such as abstract painting, which Belz

characterized as, “a phenomenon that somehow lost touch with reality,” and left,

“spectators of the twentieth century art,” craving, “the return of recognizable

subject matter” (105). Although these descriptions are easily gained from simply

viewing an example of Pop Art, it is in these seemingly obvious details that Pop

Art has such power and ability in its delivery. Pop Art lacks the suggested or

even guided message of the artist behind a particular piece; it is a raw, nearly

comical interpretation of an object in its plainest form. However, in the plainness

of its seemingly indifferent artistic representation, it makes the viewer question

whether objects are actually superficial and their appearance somewhat

superficial or if those images are actually a reflection of deep and complex

themes in reality. Constructing a Semiotic narrative of Pop Art, specifically art

works created by artist Andy Warhol, could lead to potential answers for such a

question.

In the text, Handbook of Semiotics, author Winfried Noth articulates pivotal

ways to understand how the objects depicted in Pop Art act as both a signifier, or

the concrete form of a sign, and the signified, or what the sign is referencing.

Prior to exploring how Pop Art fits into semiotics on a whole, it is crucial to study

how an object is even converted into a work of art that in turn becomes a

manipulated representation of reality and society. Noth provides valuable insight

El-Roeiy 2

into the more basic steps of studying signifiers and what they actually signify in

his explanation of “Semiotics of Objects: State of the Art” (440). In this selection,

he probes different levels of objects, such as “Aesthetic Objects,” or “Objects of

Cultural Praxis,” in terms of how they are converted from mundane samples of

ordinary life into part of a social commentary.

In his discussion of “Aesthetic Objects,” Noth pinpoints a major theme

within the semiotic breakdown of Pop Art: Specialization. The author explains

that, “Specialization refers to the fact that language is exclusively or at least

primarily communicative in its function. Speech production requires little

energetic effort, and man is free to perform other activities while speaking.

Object languages are not specialized in this sense” (Noth, 441). Art does have

its own form of communication in its presentation of signifiers, yet it is not a

“language” that was specifically designed to communicate. When objects are

used as referents and signifiers, Noth explains that a subtle yet important

distinction emerges within a semiotic perspective of art. He notes that, “Objects

of signs raise the semiotic question of the difference between sign vehicle

(signifier or representamen) and its referent (denotatum)” (Noth, 443). In Pop

Art, there seems to be multiple dimensions of signs that all coalesce to form a

singular message. In the example of Andy Warhol’s “Campbell’s Soup Cans,”

the painting’s subject could be seen as an ironic representamen of modern

society’s fixation on materialism and superficial elements of appearance.

Additionally, in a more metaphysical sense, the painting could be seen as society

El-Roeiy 3

itself, as it is a shrine to a consumer good, which mimics the huge value we place

on material objects.

Winfried Noth’s explanation of Specialization also provides valuable

insight into the power that language (specifically, titles and captions) can have in

helping to decode the meaning of an art genre as subjective as Pop Art.

Conversely, it also demonstrates how little information a title can divulge about

the more abstract, more symbolic meaning of an artwork. Andy Warhol’s most

iconic paintings were labeled in simple phrases that usually only stated the brand

or object that was being depicted. His lauded painting of Campbell’s soup cans,

for example, was aptly titled, “Campbell’s Soup Cans.” Even his more notional

pieces, such as a colorful depiction of Marilyn Monroe’s head floating without a

body or physical background against a gold backdrop, were titled with similarly

simplistic phrases such as, “Gold Marilyn Monroe.” Andy Warhol, in a quite

conscious decision, chose to reveal the same amount of information about his

artworks in both visual and linguistic forms. This enhanced the object or subject

of the painting being the only form of communication between his artwork and the

viewer. There is no verbal expansion or explanation of a deeper meaning to

guide the viewer in how to interpret the message behind a specific painting.

Additionally, the lack of an expressive title further accentuates the reflexive

nature of Warhol’s work; as explained earlier, the viewer could interpret the

depiction of an object as a sign of social materialism or as social materialism

itself.

El-Roeiy 4

Michael Kelly, author of the book A Hunger for Aesthetics: Enacting the

Demands of Art, also stresses the importance of Pop Art having a quality of self-

consciousness or content awareness. He quotes Susan Sontag when explaining

that, “Art today is a new kind of instrument, an instrument for...organizing new

modes of sensibility,” and that, in turn, “artists have had to become self-

conscious aestheticians: continually challenging their means, materials, and

methods” (Kelly, 25). The new “self-conscious aesthetician” created an entirely

new approach to pop culture and key social features. Rather than acting as a

reflection of the outside world, as is usually seen in fine art subject matter, the

paintings embodied the culture of the outside world itself while simultaneously

acting as a critic of that world. Kelly also reveals that modern society was

virtually required to have a reaction to Pop Art, whether it be positive or negative,

curious or controversial. He explains that, “aesthetic theory needed to be

substantially transformed if new facts incommensurate with existing theory

demanded such transformation. So rejecting Pop was not an option, any more

than rejecting new facts would be acceptable in the sciences” (28). Thus, Andy

Warhol’s work essentially started an entirely new aesthetic, one that tested the

boundaries of what could actually be labeled “art” in contemporary society.

It could be said that any non-documentary portrayal of reality (i.e. a

painting, drawing, computer animation, etc.) is art, as it is expressing a visual

message without being entirely accurate or obvious. This is an easy theory to

apply to artists such as Jackson Pollock, whose work is so blatantly unrealistic

that it cannot be categorized as a documentary recording of a subject, but rather

El-Roeiy 5

the artist’s own interpretation of a subject. However, it develops a more

complicated and nuanced meaning when applied to Pop Art, which is essentially

a handmade, slightly manipulated version of a photograph or actual subject. The

question arises of whether Andy Warhol’s painting of Campbell’s Soup Cans

could even be considered art. Is the piece a work of subjective visual expression

simply because it is displayed on a canvas and etched out in paint, which

somehow distinguishes it from a photograph or exact depiction of reality?

Michael Kelly explains that the key element that differentiates Pop Art from a

concrete depiction of reality lays in context. When reviewing Pop Art, “The issue

of aesthetic norms...is at heart an issue not merely of interpretation or taste, but

of understanding, and thus it is an implicit invitation to aestheticians to participate

in the discussion of 1960s art because their task is the critical understanding or

art’s normativity” (Kelly, 32). Thus, as a signifier, a work of Pop Art could be

considered “fine art” because it provokes a reaction in its viewer that is different

than what another depiction of the same signifier (in a different context, such as a

documentary photograph) would produce.

Another major theme in the semiotic analysis of Pop Art is Parallel

Architecture, which is explained by author Ray Jackendoff in the excerpt, “The

Parallel Architecture and its Place in Cognitive Science.” Although his discussion

of this theory mostly apply to music or verbal expression, there are still many

overlapping perspectives in how such an approach can be applied to visual

mediums and, specifically, Pop Art. Jackendoff explains that Parallel

Architecture can provide meaning in expressions when, “The relation between

El-Roeiy 6

sound and meaning is mediated by a set of interface components, which

establish optimal linkings among the various structures and their parts” (647). A

major distinction in this explanation of an interface in this theory is that, “an

interface is not a level of structure but rather a connection between two levels of

structure” (Jackendoff, 647). In other genres of fine art, especially ones that very

accurately depict scenes of reality, an interface, or a joining of multiple forms of

communication or signs, can be its own component of how to process a work as

a whole. In Pop Art, interfaces function more as links between sign systems than

their own actors. There seems to be less need for transition between one sign

and the other. In more abstract examples of fine art, viewers need to form

connections between how the artist perceived the subject matter, how that

subject matter was ultimately portrayed, what the subject matter could represent

if it does not resemble its realistic inspiration, etc. In Pop Art, contrastingly,

interfaces and transition between sign systems become more condensed

because there is less of a need to process the subject matter that is being

visually presented. The subject is usually clear and relatable to everyday life.

Instead of a viewer transitioning from viewing the materials on the canvas to the

canvas in social context to how the social context joins with their own personal

context, etc., the depicted object is clear and readily recognized. The process of

recognizing the signs becomes condensed and easier for the viewer, leaving

more time for him or her to contextualize the significance of the piece in its social

and cultural importance.

El-Roeiy 7

Jackendoff’s rhetoric echoes what is described by both Winfried Noth and

Michael Kelly when applied to Pop Art. He explains that,

“The visual system is known to contain numerous areas specialized to

different aspects of visual perception: detection of motion, detection of

color, several independent mechanisms for constructing the perception of

depth, possible face perception, and many others. Each of them accounts

for a relatively limited aspect of visual understanding; the totality of visual

understanding arises from their combined efforts. In order for their efforts

to combine, they must communicate, linking their respective r

representation in an optimal fashion (Koch 2004)” (Jackendoff, 648).

Noth notes that visual works do not share a specific language or way of

communicating. Similarly, Kelly explains that interfaces and connections

between sign systems function differently in some forms of visual and musical

expression. Jackendoff’s theory, in conjunction with the resounding sentiments

of Noth and Kelly, explains that, “parallel derivation has no notion of logical

sequence, as is essential in a syntactocentric derivation” (Jackendoff, 650). The

lack of logical sequence in how a work of Pop Art communicates could actually

be analogous to how viewers perceive Pop Art. The subjects of Pop Art are vivid

and clear; there is little need to contemplate if the image is truly a can of soup or

if it is a different object. However, the irony and symbolism that the object

represents is extremely layered and complex, pushing the viewer to question

whether an item such as a can of soup is actually a metaphor for concepts as

grandiose and theoretical as social fixation on materialism.

El-Roeiy 8

Ray Jackendoff also explains that, within the field of Conceptual

Semantics, the way viewers derive meaning from a work of art is a language in

itself and again contributes to the overarching theoretical message that lays

buried in the piece. He divides the definition of Conceptual Semantics into two

components, Spatial Structure, in which, “shapes are encoded in a perspective-

independent fashion, so that they can be recognized from any angle,” and,

Conceptural Structure, or the, “algebraic structure built up in terms of discrete

features and functions” (Jackendoff, 657). Although both are quite relevant to the

study of fine arts, Spatial Structure seems more pertinent to analyzing the visual

significance of works in the genre of Pop Art. Andy Warhol’s work definitely fits

the mold of portraying an object in a universally recognizable fashion. The

majority of his pieces feature objects and subjects that are extremely common

and familiar, making them instantly relatable to the viewer. However, the objects

also lack higher levels of depth and dimension, making the work of art appear the

same from almost every angle. His paintings, for the most part, are also quite

similar to one another. Warhol usually chooses to paint an image of a public

figure or common object in duplicate forms outlined with dark shading and

illuminated with bright, unnatural colors. Most of his works also lack

backgrounds, drawing greater attention to the subject in place of creating a more

cohesive and detailed landscape.

The connected features between Andy Warhol’s work allow his paintings

to not only fit into the highly concentrated genre of Pop Art, but also adopt their

own “specific” language that Noth explains most objects and visual works lack.

El-Roeiy 9

By adhering to a certain trend and common style, Warhol’s style develops more

easily discernible signs (such as duplication of one image possibly indicating the

ubiquity of consumerism) that thread all of his works together in presenting a

singular social commentary. However, as expressive and dynamic as Warhol’s

Pop Art paintings are, they do lack what some art critics say is a traditional,

possibly even essential component of artwork. Carl Belz, author of “Pop Art and

the American Experience,” explains that Pop Art lacks, “the cult of the ugly man,”

in which a, “man appears in a multitude of guises, all of which somehow stress

his baser physical and psychological natures” (106). He expands this definition

by saying that, “he is always unattractive as an individual,” but, “what usually

redeems him...is that he has style, or at least is neatly ‘styled’ by his creator”

(Belz, 106). This seems to be an especially pertinent statement when applied to

Warhol’s creations. His pieces not only center on attractive and popular designs,

but also usually enhance the positive features of the depicted subjects. For

example, some of his most famous portraits feature highly desired celebrities

such as Marilyn Monroe and Michael Jackson, their appealing faces highlighted

and illuminated by loud colors and neon shades of light. One could say that a

can of soup is unappealing in its ordinariness, but it is actually quite aesthetically

presentable, combining bright blocks of primary colors and neatly positioned

script to create a clean, fresh image.

Andy Warhol lacks a distinct “ugliness” in his pieces, and rather they seem

to be mostly focused on positive attributes and even lighthearted and cartoonish

with their gaudy colors and multiple frames. It is possible that Warhol did this

El-Roeiy 10

intentionally to draw more attention to the genre or premise of Pop Art rather than

the work of art itself. Pop Art is a phenomenon that primarily focuses on the idea

behind a subject or work of art instead of more basic systems of visual

communication such as paint strokes, color choices, perspective and texture.

Rather, the sign systems in Warhol’s paintings seem to be almost external from

the works themselves, pushing the viewer to look at his or her own life in the

context of central themes such as superficiality and materialism rather than how

the work of art fits into the context of modern society. Upon further

consideration, Warhol’s works may not even fit into the category of images, but

rather be better defined as “icons.” Winfried Noth explains that, “Often a

difference between icons and images is hardly discernible” (446). He notes that

Peirce defines icons as a term that, “covers a broader class of signs by likeness

which includes signs of non visual channels” (Noth, 442). Andy Warhol’s

combined use of irony and unnaturally concentrated focus on beauty could be

seen as his using of non visual channels, such as the viewers’ personal

perception of themselves and society as a whole, to create a system of signs that

exists outside of his subject matter or paintings.

Pop Art employs its signifiers as reflexive symbols that force viewers to

question what constitutes a subject matter qualifying as “art” in an age of

materialism, conspicuous consumption, hedonistic ventures and obsession with

fame and celebrity. Daniel Horowitz, author of the text, “Consuming Pleasures:

Intellectuals and Popular Culture in the Postwar World,” explains that, “By the

middle of the twentieth century new ways of looking at consumer culture

El-Roeiy 11

emerged, ones that emphasized pleasure, symbolic communication, skepticism

about moralistic judgments and an exploration of the relationship between

producers and consumers” (45). Artists in both Europe and the United States

addressed this controversial, seemingly morally depraved relationship with both a

serious acknowledgment of its reality and possible motivations as well as a

subtle sense of humor of its gaudy place in our lives. There is clearly irony and

dark humor in portraying a can of soup as a subject fascinating and unique

enough to be painted in vivid detail by an esteemed and talented artist.

However, this seemingly lighthearted or mocking humor transfers to more serious

subjects as well; images of Marilyn Monroe and Michael Jackson could highlight

the foolishness of society’s obsession with celebrities. Both subjects are

laudable and exciting, yet they are, in the simplest reduction of status, examples

of human beings, just as a can of soup is a simple reduction of all consumer

goods.

As controversial (and potentially quite offensive) as the speculated

meaning behind Pop Art as a movement was, there were also some art critics

and academics who considered it to be a fresh acceptance of what modern

society already know about itself. Daniel Horowitz explains that a select group

of, “authors went against the grain of the widely accepted framework within which

many American intellectuals...understood commercial culture” (46). He

continues by saying that the signs embedded within Pop Art were not created to

offend or bring to light the moral depravity of consumerism in viewers, but rather,

“advocated a somewhat more reciprocal relationship between producers and

El-Roeiy 12

consumers” (Horowitz, 46). In fact, he writes, “they emphasized the possibility

that it involved pleasurable expressiveness, rich meanings, and symbolic

communication” (Horowitz, 46). This theory, which was admittedly not widely

appreciated or pursued by its believers, could again be an indication of the

reflexive nature of Pop Art. Consumer culture is a dominating, often intimidating

phenomenon that has a sure and steady grip on most of society. Money and

material goods are of prime importance in nearly every single person’s life and

success, happiness and self worth are traits usually associated with a high

standard of living and the ability to earn greater wages. This cultural mindset

might be difficult for many individuals to process, accept and eventually embody.

Pop Art’s projection of consumer culture could be seen as an acknowledgment of

society’s discomfort with its presence. Pop Art’s signifier may not be intended to

shame or offend viewers for having such beliefs, but rather reassure them that it

is normal and at times necessary to question society’s focus on the superficial

and, in turn, it is also normal and acceptable to enjoy it.

Pop Art was more than an expression of fear or distaste towards

consumerism. It was an artistic movement that redefined how viewers could

interact with and understand subject matter, sign systems, cultural norms and

social science. From a Semiotic perspective, Pop Art broke ground in new and

profound ways, allowing signifiers to become reflections of the signified and

interfaces to no longer have to act as transitions between different sign systems.

On a whole, Pop Art provided a social commentary that was both ironically

distressing and subtly uplifting about how modern culture can be reflected not

El-Roeiy 13

only in brightly painted portraits of cans of soup, but also in the eyes of the

viewer who chooses to interpret the can of soup as exactly that – an object

available at any local grocery store – or a nearly endless number and variation of

signs that illuminate how we have evolved as a culture.

Works Cited

Bedlam_mayhem. “Thoughtage: Semiotic Analysis: Andy Warhol.”Thoughtage, February 11, 2009.http://bedlammayhem.blogspot.com/2009/02/semiotic-analysis-andy-warhol.html.

Belz, Carl I. “Pop Art and the American Experience.” Chicago Review17, no. 1 (1964): 104–15. doi:10.2307/25293848.

Carey, James W. Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. Psychology Press, 1989.

Heine, Bernd, and Heiko Narrog. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Horowitz, Daniel. Consuming Pleasures: Intellectuals and Popular Culture in the Postwar World. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/j.ctt3fhnkt.

Jaworski, Adam, and Crispin Thurlow. Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space. A&C Black, 2010. Semiotic Landscapes: Language, Image, Space. A&C Black, 2010.

Kelly, Michael, ed. “THE POP EFFECT.” In A Hunger for Aesthetics, 25–55. Enacting the Demands of Art. Columbia University Press, 2012.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/10.7312/kell15292.7.

Kuspit, Donald B. “Pop Art: A Reactionary Realism.” Art Journal 36, no. 1 (1976): 31–38. doi:10.2307/776112.

Nöth, Winfried. Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, 1995.

Rohdie, Sam, ed. “Pop.” In Film Modernism, 164–69. Manchester University Press, 2015.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/j.ctt18dzrf5.45.

El-Roeiy 14

Signs in Contemporary Culture: An Introduction to Semiotics. 1 edition. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014.

Taylor, Pamela G., and Christine Ballengee-Morris. “Using Visual Culture to Put a Contemporary ‘Fizz’ on the Study of Pop Art.” Art Education 56, no. 2 (2003): 20-24.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/3194017.

“The Global Art Market Newswire.” Artnet News. Accessed December 18, 2015. https://news.artnet.com/.

Whiteley, Nigel, ed. “American Pop.” In Art and Pluralism, NED - New edition, 1, 1., 6:175–76. Lawrence Alloway’s Cultural Criticism. Liverpool University Press,2012.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/j.ctt5vj994. 43.

WILLIS, ELLEN, ed. “Andy Warhol, ?–1987.” In No More Nice Girls, NED - New edition., 227–29. Countercultural Essays. University of Minnesota Press, 1992.http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/stable/10.5749/j.cttttt5g.24.

El-Roeiy 15