very cool art!!!!

Are you familiar with 'Dada'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada I am still on the errr.. what why side of things but the entire thing also taught me a great deal about 'eye of the beholder'. Cheers

i used to be a bit puzzled once, then I realized that one hasn't to find a meaning, but a sensation, an emotion... i like how the main subject, the sax, interacts with the painting on the wall and the visitor, who becomes part of a new piece of artwork, or better a new piece of popo art, that's your photo! great work, Bill!

Another of your always thoughtful explorations that I wanted to comment on when it went up. Bill, think of it this way: When you photograph a monumental building that makes it appear like a doll-house (because the pov makes it look small next to its neighbors), you're transforming the 'usual' view of the bldg into a wholly unexpected one: incongruous, as you say. You & other photographers do that all the time. In fact, incongruity was exactly what the Pop artists wanted. But it's natural when you think about it: If you photographed the sun so that it looked like a play-ball, you'd be doing what Pop artists did at their best. (As in all movements, a lot of second rates came into the Pop movement, and turned out obvious, dull work. Oldenberg wasn't one of those in my opinion. I've always loved his work. And even technically, it was a major operation to create these huge floppy sculptures...) "Congruous" is from the same root as "agree" (gru & gree are related), so that "incongruous" means "not what everyone agrees upon". For many Pop artists, the new & unexpected view was often playful.. So when Oldenburg did his famous "soft versions" of everything, he was making them new, touchable and fun. A giant aspirin, done in soft fabric, can be a genuine blast because we suddenly see this tiny 'hard' thing looming before us, filled with punch holes & wrinkles, and it looks like we could sleep in the damned thing. I don't know how many "masterpieces" came out of Pop Art, but the best was awfully eye opening & fun to me---just like a monumental building looking like a doll house can be scintillating. Such a photograph could be done masterfully too. So that's what Oldenberg did here: He made a brassy cold-to-the-touch saxophone look like a big droopy mess, like it gave up & folded over on-itself. He made it touchable, soft, and slovenly, like someone too lazy to sit straight. And 'cause Oldenberg loved bigness, he made these things way larger than they were in real life: Therefore, small objects "loom" over us, yet they're soft & bulgy & unthreatening---anti-monumentality at its best. I haven't seen this piece, but boy I'd love to; and I'd love to jump around on it. I'd never want to jump around on a sax. (If you're interested, Oldenberg designed a pair of naked legs to be placed at the end of Navy Pier in Chicago, It wasn't completed, but it was basically massive feet ready to test the water. And he said, why should public sculptures always be 'monumental': Why not make them human & fun...So "incongruous" is apt once again. And btw, Warhol's famous "Campbell Soup Cans" were painted, so their 'manufactured' look---ie, without a blemish---was actually done by hand, where we can see a little of the wobbly line, fresh paint, etc, that comes with human painting rather than machine painting. And they're huge, which makes those little soup cans amazingly stark geometric designs. I never thought they were masterpieces, but they truly change our view of the everyday. Warhol started out in advertising & record-cover illustration, and his work in those fields was beautiful. He also grew up in an Eastern Orthodox Christian home, and was surrounded with many icons of saints, etc, and became infatuated with their constant repetition and endless glimpses into each life, sometimes with agony along side joy. This influenced his famous "series"...in fact, if you look closely at his Marilyn Monroe series, you'll see seering penetrations into the dark side of her persona---against agreement---giving a whole new view of a human icon. When he did them, that was new. Imagine that that was influenced by the church and the icons in his home. Just some tidbits you might find interesting...) But now that I've taken up half your gallery, the capture is fine, esp when you consider how difficult an object this is to capture (because of its indeterminate shape, floppiness, etc). You got the Oldenberg feel. And the light is equally fine, as it is in all your museum captures. And shot-wise, you have that painting in the background which is a fine companion: It's either Photo-realism or 20th C. no-nonsense realism---meaning, not the glorified nudes of the past, but a woman looking straight at us without the slightest desire to be a "model"---and next to her, you caught a spectator walking away, in shadow: great juxtaposition. The Pop movement would approve! Another fine museum capture, Bill, sensitive to the piece and to the space; and another always thoughtful upload from you. You always put real thought behind your work...Now picture an Oldenberg "Bill's Camera," 20 feet high, made of canvas and pillow-stuffing, and sitting outside your door. With a huuuuuge lens---picture it---made of bulgy cotton, drooping all over the place. It would give you a smile, right? At least until you realized you couldn't see the sun anymore and the neighbors were calling the police, lol. But it would be fun while it lasted. Ok, tome over. Love the upload.

Looks like a stack of old Civil War army canteens. Great shot on your part with plenty of detail. Dana

EXCELLENT !

Each to their own, interesting post Bill:-)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder--we all see things SO differently. It won't surprise you to know I LOVE pieces like this; they may seem trite and stupid to a lot of people (as the comments prove), but there's a place for art of all kinds. How boring life would be otherwise!!

The 50's ?? Wasn't there also a big rise on drug use during that same decade.. I am with some others here I don't really get it.. but to each their own. Nice capture. :)

Oh, I love this, and I love pop art in that it takes a vital element of human existence and removes it from the ivory tower in which it has been imprisoned. I remember, once, walking through Chicago's Art Institute with charming company. We were engaged in a rapid fire discussion of what makes art and what doesn't. So far, our only consensus is that art is intent: specifically the intention to shift perception, if only for a moment, and allow the viewers of such art to receive something for free. What most people fail to realize is that ALL art is Pop art: the stuff we call classical is only classical because it's so darn old! It wasn't "high art" when it was produced: it was commercial, and "Pop Art" of another breed. It only became "high art" when social elitists (with money) decided that an additional barrier needed to stand between them and the "unwashed masses." This image (and the original pieces) underscore that perfectly. I love it! It's funny how something like this can provoke such strong reactions in people. Corey and I were talking to a guy who felt that Andy Warhol was a talentless hack. He went on to say that anybody could paint Cambpell Soup cans. Corey, not having much to do with that guy's attitude, just smirked and said: "Yeah, but the difference is He actually did it. You didn't. Which is why he's famous and you're not." Corey has a way of making people shut up when they really need to shut up. What I like about the saxaphone/caterpillar/floppy-saggy thingie is that it is true art in a way. More abstract than Pop. What is it? The artist gave it a name, but that name is probably nothing like the impressions that seeing this beguiling and sublime monstrosity will convey. When I saw the thumbnail, I thought it was a bit of high-fashion from Saint Petersburg (yeah, Russian women are now wearing this very installation as evening wear, it seems.) Seeing it full sized, I saw a saxophone, but found myself bored and immediately disinterested in that. It's obvious that saxophones have something to do with this, but that's too easy and too banal a connection. And then...boom the whole intent of the piece struck me, when I saw the shape of a rather well dressed catarpillar. THAT connection was far more intimate to me and provoked an emotional response that most "high art" utterly fails to engender. I love high art, I love classical art, I love naturalistic and even romantic images and sculputes (who doesn't like naked people frolicking in meadows with Bambi's cousins in the background? Who doesn't like a bird that looks like a bird, or a woman playing a harp that looks like a woman playing a harp--especially if she's nekkid?) And to quote a character from a giddy science fiction movie: "Where does that get fun?" For me, there's definitely a place for fine art, high art, and naked people who look exactly like well-and-properly-lit naked people, but ultimately, I'm left empty after viewing such things, especially since I can look at myself in a mirror after I've taken a shower, if I wanna see the human form represented as a human form. I love Pop Art of this sort, because quite simply, it fragments life and allows you to take it in one piece at a time, rather than feeling yourself swamped by all sorts of details that you'd naturally ignore, as you have other things to do. Pop Art IS contemplative in that you can look at potato sacks, toenail clippings, random bits of pigeon poo, and yes...soup cans...and see something that you've never seen before: a reflection of thoughts you never knew you had! That's why I like this kind of stuff, and ultimately, that is why this is such a stirring piece of photographic art on your part. It's a perfect fusion of skill and a great eye on your part, and whimsy, devil-may-care randomness on the part of the Pop Artists, and thanks to you, the whole collaborative aspect of Pop Art has been drawn to the forefront, and you've gotten people to look at something and actually feel something protean and very, very human. This is excellent work!

when I first opened, I was thinking military canteens and backpack along with other odds and ends. some pop art, I find interesting but far and few in between.excellent shot

Oh you started quite a discussion with this fine shot, Bill, and I just had to laugh out loud at Corey's last sentence... and yep imho too it's in the eye of the beholder though I have to admit it's rather the old fashioned kind of art I like, with some exceptions to pieces of art, which just amuse me, because of the idea

can't stop wondering how this one would sound...guess it would emit a sort of pop sound as well.. excellent image!