Main content
Modernisms 1900-1980
Course: Modernisms 1900-1980 > Unit 11
Lesson 2: American and European Pop art- Richard Hamilton, Just What is It That Makes Today’s Homes So Different, so Appealing?
- Mass Consumerism, Warhol, and 1960s America
- Warhol, Marilyn Diptych
- Why is this art? Andy Warhol, Campbell's Soup Cans
- The Case For Andy Warhol
- Warhol, Gold Marilyn Monroe
- Fashion and alienation in 1960s New York, Marisol's The Party
- Oldenburg, Lipstick (Ascending) on Caterpillar Tracks
- Oldenburg, Floor Cake
- James Rosenquist, "F-111," 1964-65
- Lichtenstein, Rouen Cathedral Set V
- Harry Fonseca, Two Coyotes with Flags
- Pop and after
© 2023 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Fashion and alienation in 1960s New York, Marisol's The Party
See learning resources here.
Marisol Escobar, The Party, 1965-66, fifteen freestanding, life-size figures and three wall panels, with painted and carved wood, mirrors, plastic, television set, clothes, shoes, glasses, and other accessories, variable dimensions (Toledo Museum of Art, © artist’s estate) speakers: Dr. Halona Norton-Westbrook, Director of Curatorial Affairs, Toledo Museum of Art and Dr. Steven Zucker. Created by Smarthistory.
Marisol Escobar, The Party, 1965-66, fifteen freestanding, life-size figures and three wall panels, with painted and carved wood, mirrors, plastic, television set, clothes, shoes, glasses, and other accessories, variable dimensions (Toledo Museum of Art, © artist’s estate) speakers: Dr. Halona Norton-Westbrook, Director of Curatorial Affairs, Toledo Museum of Art and Dr. Steven Zucker. Created by Smarthistory.
Want to join the conversation?
- this art... is weird.(1 vote)
Video transcript
(upbeat piano music) - [Steven] We're in the
Toledo Museum of Art standing beside this
assemblage of figures. - [Halona] This is Marisol's
The Party, from 1965, 1966. It's a party where everyone has some
version of Marisol's face. She is the person that is
represented over and over again. And what you'll notice about this work is it's a party with many
people dressed finely, with drinks or accessories
prominently featured, and yet there's a profound
sense of not being able to find connection with
other human beings. - [Steven] Look at the formal
organization of the sculpture. The figures are blocks of wood. They are hewn separately. There is no interaction. There are no arms reaching
out towards each other. The closest we have to that is in the group of three to the right. We see one hand extending
from one block to the other. But, save that, these figures exist in their four-square isolation. - [Halona] It is grappling
with these issues of disconnection, of loneliness,
of being lost in a crowd, and that's a feeling that is universal. - [Steven] Marisol burst
on the New York art scene, in the early 1960s. This was a moment when abstractions, specifically the abstract
expressionism of Jackson Pollock, of Mark Rothko, was the
dominant form of advanced art. But here, we have figurative art. We have an artist who's
gone back to the pictorial. - [Halona] Th work is so
colorful and engaging. Marisol herself was so
beautiful and iconic that that in many ways denied
her, for quite some time, her proper place in art history and underplayed how important of a contribution she was making. - [Steven] And so art historians have struggled to place her. Early on, she was seen as
associated with Pop Art. And, in fact, she was a very
close friend of Andy Warhol. But she has carved out a place that is distinct to her own art. - [Halona] I think that one of the things that Marisol was doing,
was looking for a way to hold up a mirror to what
was happening in society, to comment on changes that she
saw reflected in her own life and in the broader society in the 1960s. It was a time of disruption, of questioning what had been established, the post-prosperity era of the 1950s where it seemed that everything
was on an upward trajectory, and now there was pushing
at the fabric of that. And that's what many of her works in this time period start to reflect. - [Steven] It seems that she
saw herself as an outsider. She had been born to a wealthy family, and they traveled a good
deal, but in interviews she speaks about her
rejection of her background of that wealth and her dissatisfaction with the requirements
of her social position, and I think we see that here. - [Halona] When she was asked
why did she use her own face in so many of the works,
she said she wanted to make a commentary on what
was happening in society, but not necessarily be critical
of the people that she knew. That wasn't what interested her, not the individual personalities and holding them up for criticism. - [Steven] We think of a
face, we think of a portrait, as an extremely intimate expression but here, because of the multiplication, because her face exists
on every single figure, sometimes multiple times, her
face becomes more anonymous. It distances us, rather than brings us in. - [Halona] There's a
profound sense in the work of being distanced, of being
not quite able to connect, of not knowing where to focus. There's so much that you're
being visually presented with in terms of the details of the clothing, the subtle movements and
gestures, that you feel drawn to many things that are
not necessarily the face because there's all these
other things to distract you. - [Steven] But even as we feel
the sense of disconnection, it seems as if so many of these figures are trying to project themselves, even if that projection is failed. The faces in certain cases
literally project forward. The costumes, some of
which are her own clothing, are the stars of the sculpture. Each figure is showing off
and yet not being seen. - [Halona] And I think particularly
thinking about this era of the 1960s and some of the
ways that women were beginning to question their traditional roles. - [Steven] The blocks of wood themselves seem to express conformity. We see these women trying to
stand out beyond these blocks, but they can't quite do it. The blocks continue to restrain them. - [Halona] I think that
is one of the things that's extremely powerful about the work, is that it is in many ways
raising some of the questions that the feminist movement
would then be grappling with, in just a few years, in a
more vocal and public way. But you see here a lack of
contentedness or a deep unease, and the way that that
was manifesting itself in New York society. (upbeat piano music)