view with Gene R. Swenson, when asked if he thought Pop art was despicable Lichtenstien summed up Pop art overall:It is an involvement with what I think to be the most brazen and threatening characteristics of our culture, things we hate, but which are also powerful in their impingement on us. I think art since Czanne has become extremely romantic and unrealistic, feeding on artIt has had less and less to do with the worldOutside is the world; its there. Pop art looks out into the world; it appears to except its environment And that was exactly what Lichtensteins, as well as all the others, art was doing. Taking the world and making it art. Along with Rauchenberg, Johns, James Rosenquist, Claes Oldenberg, and Warhol, Lichtenstien laid the foundation for the future of art. Pop art, unlike some other art movements, explored new art practices that allowed them to inquire into how art can differ from the more mundane abstract. At the time, people mainly enjoyed Pop art because of its connectivity from humanity to culture. Yet, today, the implications and hypotheses of Pop art have left an unprecedented impact on the art world. Post-Pop and Photo-RealismThe later period of Pop-Art remained similar to what had been happening before. Painters like Ed Ruscha (see appendix G) still based their art on common things and basic forms. Yet, slowly, as we came closer to the end of the 1960s, a strange occurrence began to happen in the art world. A new popular form of art was photo-realism. Photo-realisms roots grew out of Pop art by taking the images seen from the everyday world. Artists like Richard Estes (see appendix H) painted scenes of cities, diners, and drive thrus while Chuck Close (appendix H) painted such realistic self portraits that they were virtually impossible to tell from a photograph. These paintings did not have any emotion and were cold but the accuracy was impossible to get away from, it made them fascinating. The main goal of pho...
