ART AND POP CULTURE _ writing
Art and Pop Culture
Works of art deemed to be ‘high art’ have been highly perpetuated throughout history,
however over the past generation, ‘high art’ has been seen to dissolve into ‘popular culture’.
According to philosopher David Novitz (1945), this divide has never been present within works of art,
as it was the audiences that determined they were different.1 This collapse of ‘high art’ into popular
culture has occurred because of the effects neo-liberalism has had on the class-liberation of the
contemporary arts audiences. The artwork Puppy (1992) by Jeff Koons will be used to exemplify the
impact that economic neo-liberalism has had on the globe, as well as its impact on the way in which
an artist creates artwork and its interaction with audiences.
Throughout history ‘high art’ has been known as many things, including: ‘highbrow’; ‘insider
art’; ‘art’; and ‘autonomous art’, however ‘high art’ will be used throughout this piece. ‘High art’ was
described by the art historian Julian Stallabrass in 1999 as art done by someone that went to art
school, and it is this reference to schooling and education that provided the artist with the
accreditation to be of the ‘high art’ institution as well as a creator of it.2 ‘Popular culture’ too goes by
many descriptions and definitions, and has been described by the anthropologist and linguistic
professor Marcel Danesi (born 1946) as a lower form of art that provides no profundity on what it is
to exist, and is predominantly reactionary to existence.3 For the general population, the buying
power of ‘popular culture’ has been expanding since the 1920s through a beneficial relation to
technology, media and business.4 This generation has seen the eruption of a debate between the
1 Novitz, David. 1989. Ways of artmaking: The high and the popular in art. British Journal of Aesthetics 29 (3): 213.
2 “By far the most successful definition – though still imperfect – is to say that art is something done by those who went to art school. The closed shop operates with remarkable effectiveness, and you will find very, very few artists endorsed by the gallery system, private or public, who have not been through an accredited course.5” Julian Stallabrass, High ArtLite: British Art in the 1990s, Verso, London, 1999. P 130
3 “Most anthropologists would define culture as a means of organizing and stabilizing communal life through specific beliefs, rituals, rites, performances, art forms, symbols, language, clothing, food, music, dance, and any other mode of human expressive, intellectual, and communicative behaviour that is associated with a group of people at a particular period of time. In Western tradition, it is common to subdivide culture into high and low, according to historically based perceptions associated with aesthetic movements. High culture is considered to be a form of culture that purportedly has a more profound import on human life than does low culture, which is seen as simply recreational and perhaps even base.” Danesi, Marcel, and Ebooks Corporation. 2015. Popular culture: Introductory perspectives. Third ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. P 2
4 “Pop culture alludes, on the other hand, to a form of culture that makes little, if any, such categorical distinctions. Its emergence in the 1920s was due, in large part, to unexpected affluence, which gave people in the mass, regardless of class or educational background, considerable buying power. Its spread was made possible by an ever-expanding and ever-reinforcing media-technology-business partnership. Since then, it has played a pivotal role in the overall evolution of American society (and virtually every other modernsociety).” Danesi, Marcel, and Ebooks Corporation. 2015. Popular culture: Introductory perspectives. Third ed. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield. P 2
classification of high art and low art, art and non-art, lowbrow art and highbrow art, insider art and
outsider art, and autonomous art and art. The aesthetic of the art object has been commonly used
to try distinguishing one art work from another through a changing ‘environment’ of development,
resulting in a classification of either ‘high art’ or of ‘pop culture’. These classifications of art are
somewhat meaningless, as the object exists in neither state outside of all aesthetic, and can only be
classified until a human, of mind, spectates the artwork to then classify it into either category. 5
Philosopher Novitz suggests that audiences are the solely responsible for the classification of art,
and further suggests that these classifications are effectively a way for the ‘ruling’ class to maintain
control of the subjects discussed within the art, as any subject with a ‘pop culture’ title is often
vulgarised and deemed unworthy. 6 7 This separation between ‘high art’ and ‘pop culture’ has now
predominantly homogenised due to a series of contributing factors, however neo-liberal economics
has had a substantial affect upon the contemporary world and is one of the strongest contributors to
the homogenisation of these audiences.
Neo-liberalism has shaped the approach of government policies since the 1970s, and has
spread across the western world, lead by the American super power and big business.8 These
policies are grounded in the assumption that the governments cannot create economic growth or
provide social welfare and in its stead, private companies and philanthropy can provide this growth
and welfare through relaxation of government’s market regulation.9 Neo-liberalist polices were
implemented to re-establish profitability and control in reaction to the worldwide capitalist crisis
and the growing popularity of socialism, which had undercut the capitalists’ profits and its control of
5 “In particular, (Novitz) denies that there are any substantive aesthetic differences between popular artworks and high art.” "High Art vs.Low Art," in Routledge Companion to Aesthetics 2nd ed. B. Gaut & D. Lopes (London: Routledge Press, 2005), pp. 527-540.
6 “It is merely a matter of social convention to differentiate them.”…” Novitz notes that the customary way of ascribing a higher status to high art and a lower status to popular art is to argue that there are systematic diffrences between works in the respective categories. Yet’“there are neither formal nor affective properties which distinguish the high from the popular in art” (1992:24), nor is there an essential difference in the way works are produced, such as the difference between the individualgenius and a production team. "High Art vs. Low Art," in Routledge Companion to Aesthetics 2nd ed. B. Gaut & D. Lopes (London: Routledge Press, 2005), pp. 527-540.
7 “Since there is no substantive aesthetic difference between low and high artwork, Novitz suggest that the distinction is artificial and constructed to serve a political function, namely to make art avoid political, moral and economic issues, in short, high art, the only acceptable art. High art is art that does not threaten the intresets of the dominant Classes.” B. Gaut & D. Lopes . London: Routledge Press, 2005."High Art vs. Low Art," in Routledge Companion to Aesthetics 2nd ed, pp. 527-540.
8 Bockman, Johanna. 2013. Neoliberalism Context. 12.3. p. 14-15
9 Idib p.14
the economy.10 These policies brought together world markets and powerful states, opening the
world to the capitalist nature of business.11 These private companies developed a world through
which they can profit and not be restrained by the powers of government, and this spread has
created a global free market for private companies and corporations to dominate.
Neo-liberalism economics has helped create the economic environment of the ‘free market’,
which has affected the way the art world operates, as it has been steadily re-privatising since 1985,
and examples of this privatisation include the Saatchi Gallery, Francois Pinault collection Venice,
Leeum Samsung Museum of Art Seoul.12 The privatisation of the contemporary art world, collectors
and Museums has mirrored the early founding and patronage of the early renaissance period, which
allowed the institutionalised ‘high art’ of the renaissance to be exposed to a public audience and
reshaped the boundaries of ‘high art’ and ‘pop culture’.13 This dilution of class was furthered
throughout the 1990s, where the ‘high art’ audience’s ability to govern the art object and its ‘value’
was been reduced as a result of the privatised audience and its need to please these audiences in
accordance with a consumerist ethic.14 This shift in the founding of, and implementations of
contemporary art in reaction to the neoliberalist global structure has freed art audiences from the
dominance of the previous ‘high art’ artists, audiences and their institutions. Class liberation has
been described by the art historian Terry Smith as one of the key contributors to the art of
‘contemporaneity ‘.15 The new neo-liberal founders of art uphold their ethics of capitalist business
practise and implement it in their own institution, aiming to appeal to the masses through
propagation of art that is a spectacle, advertised, of positive imagery, uses popular imagery, and that
is accessible no matter your ability as a previous ‘high art’/’pop culture’ audience member. The
10 Idib p14
11 “Philosopher Michel Foucault agreed that neoliberalism brings together markets and powerful states, but he argued that what makes these states truly neoliberal is using the market to govern, distributing services and benefits according to the market logic of efficiency, competitiveness, and profitability.” Idib p 14-15
12 Barikin, Amelia. ARTPOP: ART, DESIGN AND CONSUMER CULTURE. Lecture, University of Queensland, Brisbane, 23 March 2016.
14 “as Paul A. Trout notes “consumerism Implies that the desires of the customer reign supreme (‘customer sovereignty’) and that the customer should be easily satisfied (how hard should a consumer have to work at buying something?).” Potts, Michael. 2005. The consumerist subversion of education, Academic Questions. 18. 3 p.54
15 Class liberation has been a key contributor of contemporaneity as “the inequity among peoples, classes, and individuals is now so accelerated that it threatens both the desires for domination entertained by states, ideologies, and religions and the persistent dreams of liberation that continue to inspire individuals and peoples.” Smith, Terry. 2009. What is contemporary art?. Chicago;London;: The University of Chicago Press. P6
viewer of artwork is treated like a customer in a shop, however this shop has developed out of Noeliberal
policies and its products are created through capitalist production methods, and the viewer is
treated in accordance with the consumerist ethic.
Cracked Egg 1995–1999
Oil on canvas
128 x 99 5/16 inches, 325.1 x 252.3 cm
The artwork of Jeff Koons began to change after 1992 as he started drawing on experiences
with neo-liberal economics, and as a result, produced artworks that encouraged the divide between
‘high art’ and ‘pop culture’ to collapse.16 Koons was exposed to neo-liberal corporations and
economics during his time as a stockbroker on Wall Street and as a membership salesman at the
Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), New York in 1977. 17 18 His experience on Wall Street taught
16 “Koons shifted the mood of his artwork to more light---hearted themes, from more serious topics such as consumption and sexuality. With this change, he instantly found success with the exhibition of Puppy in 1992.” Harker, Elizabeth. 2011. Jeff Koons. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. P1
17 In 1977 “Immediately he gained employment at the Museum of Modern Art in membership sales. He was tremendously successful at his job at the museum. He increased new memberships, encouraged members to renew, and also increased member donations. Harker, Elizabeth. 2011. Jeff koons.ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. p. 19
18 He left the museum to work on Wall Street, where he sold mutual funds and commodities. During this time he sharpened his business and advertising skills. Koons praised his former profession in a statement he made in The Jeff Koons Handbook” Idib P.20
Koons that salesmen communicate the real morality of society as they work under the neo-liberal
capitalist credo of consumerism of pushing for their private outcomes (sales and profit).19 His time at
MOMA taught him how to please large demographics through the power of attention and
eccentricity, and he applied these skills to contribute to the private gain of MOMA (sales and
profit).20 Koons later developed an art that was forged from these experiences with the market,
which is aimed to please all his consumers, high and low. 21 Koons’ work aims to please
internationally and is physically created by his production house, which facilitates the class liberation
of his audiences, as the work is targeted at all audiences not just ‘pop culture’ or ‘high art’ but
everything in-between. Alone a multi-audience artwork may not please the ‘high art’ audiences as it
shifts the power away from their institutions and beliefs, however, the interaction of Koons’ art
practice with neo-liberal economics, capitalist business practise, and consumerist ethics negated the
need for the approval or funding of the ‘high art’ institutions. His instalment of the work Puppy
(1992) at the nearby Arolsen Castle forced the Documenta 9 audience to pay attention to his art
brand and shifted the attention of the show.22 This instalment mirrors neo-liberal business practices
as the project was funded entirely by Koons and two of his collectors, which meant that it undercut
his competitors at Documenta 9 for attention, kept all his consumers happy, and worked as great
advertising for the ‘Jeff Koons Art Business’.
Koons’ studio is comprised of artists that create his works, as he is the ‘ideas man’ rather
than the creator, or as Grace McQuilten would describe it a ‘designer’. 23 24 This structure is not new
19 “Salesmen are today’s great communicators. They are out there pushing cars, real estate, advertising. That is where the real morality is played out in society today.” Jeff Koons and Robert Rosenblum, The Jeff Koons Handbook. (New York: Rizzoli, 1992) p. 12
20 “As a sales technique to gain donations, Koons adorned himself with sequins and wore a thin mustache to draw attention toward him. By utilizing this method of marketing himself and adopting an eccentric persona with the accompanying costume he changed the mundane act of donating money into a more enthusiastic experience.” Harker, Elizabeth. 2011. Jeff Koons. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. p.19- 20
21“Any trick; it’ll do anything – absolutely anything – to communicate and win the viewer over. Even the most unsophisticated people are not threatened by it; they aren’t threatened that this is something they have no understanding of…The work wants to Meet the needs of the people. It tries to bring down all the barriers that block people from their culture that shield and hide them. It tells them to embrace the moment instead of always feeling that they’re being indulged by things they do not participate in. It tells them to
believe in something and to eject their will….And it’s about embracing guilt and shame and moving forward instead of letting this negative society always thwart us – always a more negative society, always more negative.” Jeff Koons, “From Full Fathom Five,” Parkett 19 (1989):44-47.
22 Reckhenrich, Jö, Martin Kupp, and Jamie Anderson. 2011. "Made in Heaven - Produced on Earth: Creative Leadership as Art of Projection." The Journal of Business Strategy 32 (4): 12-24. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02756661111150936. http://search.proquest.com/docview/873619910?accountid=14723.
23 Grace McQuilten, ‘Art, design, mis-design’, in Art in Consumer Culture: Mis-Design, Ashgate, Farnham and Burlington, 2011, pp. 9-45.
to the art world, as it has been a common practice for less successful artists to work for and create
the objects that embody the ideas of more successful artists. John Powers is an artist who worked
for Koons in 1995 and painted the Cracked Egg from the ‘Celebrations’ series, however although
Powers was paid $14.50 an hour, the painting later sold at Christie’s in London in 2003 for
$501,933.25 Koons did not physically paint Cracked Egg, he ‘designed’ the work and paid others with
the skills to create it with machine-like precision, while also facilitating the work to be promoted and
sold for much more then Powers himself may have been able to.26 Cracked Egg lays testament to
Koons’ business sensibility, where he has strategically incorporated what he has learned from his
experiences with the free market.27 Koons’ works are at home in a neo-liberal free market, as they
are produced by a large cohort of workers that rely on the salesman to design products for happy
consumption and a healthy profit margin.
Stainless steel, wood (at Arolsen only), soil, geotextile fabric, internal irrigation system,
live flowering plants,
1234.4 x 1234.4 x 650.2 cm
24 “I’m basically the idea person,” Jeff Koons once told an interviewer. “I’m not physically involved in the production. I don’t have the necessary abilities, so I go to the top people.” John Powers. 2012. I was Jeff Koons’ Studio Serf, Reflections of a Studio Serf, The New York Times. Aug 19 2012. P.50
Puppy (1992) was installed in Arolsen, Germany, and is Koons’ first work that depicts the
change toward a more pleasing aesthetic and less overtly challenging representation. Puppy is a 12
metre high Behemoth West Highland Terrier, built to appear as a sculpted hedge with thousands of
multi-coloured flowers. At its least significant it is whimsical and playful, and at its most, it is a living
sculpture, natural and alive like us.28 Puppy was critically accepted by the ‘high art’ world of
institutions and critics and the ‘pop culture’ audiences took to it just as enthusiastically. The
acceptance and popularity of Puppy was demonstrated by its recreation in front of the Sydney
Harbor at the Museum of Contemporary Art in 1995, in 1997 it was brought and installed in front of
the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, in 2002 it was brought and installed by Brant Foundation in
Greenwich Connecticut and in 2000-2001, was installed at the Rockefeller Center in New York City
for a temporary exhibit.29 These sites of installation are all privately funded institutions of their own
right, and most interestingly, the Rockefeller Center is a symbol of the neo-liberal private enterprise.
Not only did Puppy gain support of the ‘high art’ crowd, but it also gained the recognition of private
enterprise and ‘pop culture’. The accolades for Puppy come about because of its ability to span the
cultural divide appealing to the consumer, the economic market, pop culture, and the old guard of
In accordance with a consumer ethic, Puppy’s appeal to the consumer is expressed by its
physical appearance, where no elements of disgust are incorporated nor a negative question asked
of the viewer, and they are not made to feel rejected or belittled. Koons’ giant puppy made of
thousands of flowers is embodied in a medium that is also happy and pleasing for the viewer. The
consumer is not alienated from experiencing this work, as it does not require a degree nor a working
history of the visual art nor an understanding of the evolving theory of art to enjoy a giant puppy
made of thousands of flowers. Koons’ work never drives away a customer.
28 “What they found was a shocking simplicity, accessibility and pleasure. Puppy was intensely lovable, triggering a laugh---out---loud delight that expanded your sense of the human capacity for joy. It was a familiar, sentimental cliché revived with extravagant purity, not with the enduring materials like marble of bronze but with nature at its most colourful and fragile. The flowery semblance of fur made Puppy almost living flesh, like us.” Roberta Smith, “Public Art, Eyesore to Eye Candy,” New York Times, August 24, 2008.
29 .” Harker, Elizabeth. 2011. Jeff Koons. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. p. 16
Puppy is also located outside for the people, rather than being shut away in a ‘high art’
institution. Its existence outside allows the work to appeal to the larger ‘pop culture’ audience as it is
displayed to the public in the public realm, not inside the rules of the ‘high art’ institution. Its
content doesn’t sever a connection or alienate the audience, it embraces them with joy in the public
space. Working as a giant eye catching billboard advertising the Koons’ art business and the
institution that it is associated, Puppy greases the wheels for the private business’s to continue with
the influx of customers gained by the appeal to a broad audience.30
Puppy elicits the acceptance of the ‘high art’ audience as it engages the knowledge of the
audience not only through the visual pleasure it causes, but through reference to the endeavours
and beliefs of elitist communities.31 This is achieved by the works’ engagement with the past and the
present, as Puppy is created with advanced computer modelling, while also referencing the past
through its similarity to the aesthetic of 18th-centurary formal European garden’s sculpted hedges.32
The sugary iconography of flowers and puppies is described by the ‘high art’ audience as a
monument to the sentimental.33 ‘High art’ acknowledges the amalgamation of the audiences
through the inclusion of seemingly elite endeavours such as topiary, breeding dogs with Chia pets
and hallmark cards of the lower class.34 The Puppy sculpture instils ‘confidence and security’ for the
elite as it is dignified and loyal to ‘high art’ while it stands guard at these institutions.35
30 “It’s a really big world… People are used to looking at larger things. You just have to Compete with the rest of the world.” 1 David Bowie, “Super-Banalism and the Innocent Salesman,” Modern Painters (Spring 1998): 32
31 “Do you want to reach the snobs? Try things like these: Find a striking curve in some Cezanne and put a close approximation of it in your painting. Take the mystic chord from Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy, transpose it into a different key, and then sound it in your next sonata. In your next short story (or novel), name two of your characters, one after one of the more obscure characters in Joyce's Ulysses, and one after someone from a novel by Virginia Woolf. When the snobs find these things-and they will: they come looking for them-they will be
delighted in self-congratulation.” Cohen, Ted. 1999. High and low art, and high and low audiences. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57 (2). P.140
32 “With Puppy, Koons engaged both past and present, employing sophisticated computer modeling to create a work that references the 18th-century formal European garden.” Guggenheim Bilbao. n.d. Puppy Jeff Koons, Guggenheim Bilbao. http://www.guggenheimbilbao.es/en/works/puppy-3/ (accessed 12/05/2016)
33 “A behemoth West Highland terrier carpeted in bedding plants, Puppy employs the most saccharine of iconography—flowers and puppies—in a monument to the sentimental.” Idib
34 “Imposing in scale, its size both tightly contained and seemingly out of control (it is both literally and figuratively still growing), and juxtaposing elite and mass-cultural references (topiary and dog breeding, Chia Pets and Hallmark greeting cards), the work may be read as an allegory of contemporary culture.” Guggenheim Bilbao. n.d. Puppy Jeff Koons, Guggenheim Bilbao. http://www.guggenheimbilbao.es/en/works/puppy-3/ (accessed 12/05/2016)
35 “Koons designed this public sculpture to relentlessly entice, to create optimism, and to instill, in his own words, "confidence and security." Dignified and stalwart as it stands guard at the museum, Puppy fills viewers with awe, and even joy.” Guggenheim Bilbao. n.d. Puppy Jeff Koons, Guggenheim Bilbao. http://www.guggenheim-bilbao.es/en/works/puppy-3/ (accessed 12/05/2016)
Koons’ design of Puppy appeals to the free market as a product of its economic
environment, as the collective appeal of the work’s content, its medium, delivering for the public, its
gigantic scale and its interaction with ‘high art’ allows the work be beneficial to the beneficiaries of
the work (this can be seen as a credo of the neo-liberal corporate world). This is achieved because of
Puppy’s broad appeal to all audiences, as it aims to please the consumer audiences of contemporary
art.36 Koons’ effort to create art that is a perfect art product for easy consumption in a neo-liberal
free market is beneficial to the institution as the spectacle of the work attracts crowds, which allows
private institutions and enterprises to further capitalise off audiences for increased profit and
funding.37 The attention initially gained by Puppy’s first installation provided Koons with a greater
audience as its commercial appeal drove the Jeff Koons art business into overdrive, which lead to the
replication of works conceptually similar to Puppy in the series celebration, and this simultaneously
increased the prices of the sale of his work on the secondary market.38 39
The artwork of Jeff Koons exemplifies the impact that economic neo-liberalism has had on
the globe, as well as its impact on the way in which an artist creates artwork and its interaction with
audiences. The perceived collapse of ‘high art’ into ‘popular culture’ has occurred as a result of the
effects that neo-liberalism has had on the economic globe and class-liberation of the contemporary
arts audiences. Jeff Koons consciously changed his approach to art as a result of the need to meet
these neo-liberal ideals and the impact of the economic free market, and these ideals are also
evident in broader approaches to popular contemporary art in general.
36 “I’ve tried to make work that any viewer, no matter where they came from, would have to respond to, would have to say that on some level ‘Yes, I like it.’ If they couldn’t do that, it would only be because they had been told they were not supposed to like it. Eventually they will be able to strip all that down and say ‘You know, it’s silly, but I like that piece. It’s great.” Jeff Koons and Robert Rosenblum, The Jeff Koons Handbook. (New York: Rizzoli, 1992), p.112.
37 “Little remains of [MoMA’s 1980’s] fun-fair atmosphere which today has made way for yet another temple to triumphant capitalism. Its new facilities include a de luxe restaurant sited above the upper exhibition galleries, a modern café leased to the group Costes, the Forum’s great bookshop run by a famous publisher and the design boutique operated by a great Parisian store.” Lorente, Jesús Pedro. 2011. The museums of contemporary art: Notion and development. Burlington, VT;Farnham, Surrey, UK, England;: Ashgate P1, 257
38 Although the project was realized in the early nineties, many of the works were never completed until the next decade. The excitement still stemming from the triumph of Puppy, aroused curiosity in Koons’ new project, but his exit from Sonnabend and cancellation of the Guggenheim show revived feelings doubt for Koons. See David Rimanelli, “Jeff Koons: a studio visit; it’s my party,” ArtForum 35, 10 (Summer 1997): p115.
39 “On November 14, 2007, Hanging Heart 1994---2006 (Figure 19), was sold at Sotheby’s for $23.6 million, setting a record for the most expensive work of art by a living artist.” Thomas, Kelly Devine. “The Ten Most Expensive Living Artists: Tracking the highest prices paid for contemporary artworks.” ARTnews 103, 5 (May 2004) p. 118-123.
Bockman, Johanna. 2013. Neoliberalism Context. 12.3. p. 14-15
Cohen, Ted. 1999. High and low art, and high and low audiences. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism 57 (2): 137-43.
Cowen, Tyler, and Alexander Tabarrok. 2000. An economic theory of avant-garde and popular art, or
high and low culture. Southern Economic Journal 67 (2): 232-53.
Danesi, Marcel, and Ebooks Corporation. 2015. Popular culture: Introductory perspectives. Third ed.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
B. Gaut & D. Lopes, 2005. "High Art vs. Low Art," in Routledge Companion to Aesthetics 2nd ed.
(London: Routledge Press, 2005), pp. 527-540.
Guggenheim Bilbao. n.d. Puppy Jeff Koons, Guggenheim Bilbao. http://www.guggenheimbilbao.
es/en/works/puppy-3/ (accessed 12/05/2016)
Harker, Elizabeth. 2011. Jeff koons.ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Harvie, Jen. 2013. Fair play: Art, performance and neoliberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
John Powers. 2012. I was Jeff Koons’ Studio Serf, Reflections of a Studio Serf, The New York Times.
Aug 19 2012. P.50
Julian Stallabrass, High ArtLite: British Art in the 1990s, Verso, London, 1999. P 130
Lorente, Jesús Pedro. 2011. The museums of contemporary art: Notion and development. Burlington,
VT;Farnham, Surrey, UK, England;: Ashgate P1, 257
Museum of Modern Art. High & low: Modern art & popular culture: Searching high and low.
1990. Moma 2 (6): 4-17.