Fiore 1

Cara FioreMay 12, 2011History 498/KurhajecRevised Final Draft

Sixties Art: The Art of Nothing

The sixties were the age of youth, where there was a dramatic movement away from

the conservative fifties to revolutionary ways of thinking about American values, lifestyles,

entertainment, and laws. Terms like “groovy” and “psychedelic” were used later to describe

the sixties and the counterculture movement. The definition of psychedelic is, “a profound

sense of intensified sensory perception, sometimes accomplished by severe perceptual

distortion and hallucinations and by extreme feelings of either euphoria or despair.”1 The term

psychedelic described art, music, and drug experiences, and explained the state of mind that

many young people were in as they struggled to accept the society they lived in. It was a

turbulent time politically and socially, but it was also a period of excitement.

Uncertainty filled the air as young people left their homes to see what life could be like

outside their suburban homes with white picket fences. Robert Roskind explains this feeling in

“Memoirs of an Ex-Hippie”, where he gives his personal account of living in a constrictive

society. Then he elaborates on how free he felt when he began living an alternative lifestyle,

traveling across the country in a bus for seven years beginning in 1968. At the start of his trip,

he describes how, “The idea of the alienated youth rejecting the values of their culture

appeared menacing to many. We were not embracing the system as was expected, but shaking

it to its foundation…This was not just a march. It was the turning point of the decade. The

1 David S. Rubin, Psychedelic: Optical and Visionary Art Since the 1960s (San Antonio Museum of Art, 2010), 15.

Fiore 2

social conflicts of the 60s were on vivid display.”2 The sixties saw radical change in almost every

aspect of American life thanks to the work done by civil rights leaders, feminists, and gay and

lesbian advocates. Individuals involved in these movements were no doubt pivotal actors in the

making of history in the sixties. However, there has been one actor who has not received as

much credit for its contribution: the artist.

Sixties artists were equally as radical compared to other radical leaders of the time

because of their ability to draw the public’s attention to issues that counterculture activists

demonstrated against, for example violence, prejudice, hatred, and conformity. For that

reason, this essay with demonstrate how the sixties experienced a decadence of new art that

propelled the counterculture movement across the United States; influencing all Americans

who were willing to observe, to seriously reconsider the values, and norms of society.

Psychedelic posters and pop art proved to be an effective persuasive new style of art that

offered skeptics of the counterculture movement a visual meaning more efficient than words

alone. Counterculture activists were defined as,

A group of people who are opposed to some aspects of the established culture in which they live. Historically, they are members of a society who, through education or moral enlightenment, find fault with the government under which they live… Counterculture views are not always completely valid, yet they may express an important objective opinion of an established culture that had become jaded or corrupt.3

They exercised disobedience against the established gender roles, war, racial inequality, and

consumerism. Artists mirrored these ideas in their work, but in a unique way. Art produced

during this time was characterized as being extremely objective, artists claimed that their art

2 Robert Roskind, Memoirs of an Ex-Hippie (North Carolina: One Love Press, 2001), 22.3 John Bassett McCleary, The Hippie Dictionary (Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press, 2002), 114.

Fiore 3

had no real purpose, and denied having any emotional connection to their work. However, this

essay will argue that their artwork was rich with social commentary, encouraged audiences to

challenge their personal beliefs, and form new opinions on the demonstrations that were

playing out in the streets and on television. Artists began to challenge the viewer to experience

art in a new way by making their work less predictable. An example of this was Wes Wilson and

his posters that caught the public’s attention because of the florescent colors, psychedelic

patterns. In addition, Andy Warhol was one of the most popular and influential artists from the

time, whose bold art put a spotlight on American issues. Artists were more in tune with current

events than they led on because it was impossible to ignore the instability within social norms

and the bitterness towards the Vietnam War. As the sixties progressed, artists became more

radical, active in politics, and openly supported the counterculture movement. Ultimately, they

educated society by making it more aware of the social contradictions and inequalities in

America. Therefore, art became an outlet to think critically about one’s place in society and

break from conformity and conservatism.

Susan Sontag was referenced in David Chalmers’ And the Crooked Places Made Straight

by saying, “It [art of the 1960s] was based on sensation, not ideas. The theater and the movies

—which were, along with rock, the prime art forms of the young—became sexier, nuder, more

political, more violent, and more cruel.”4 However, this does not support the main point of this

essay that art did indeed have a central idea that artists were trying to convey. Not to mention,

it is more common to first be intrigued by an idea, then feel some sort of emotion or sensation.

In addition, art did not become “violent, and cruel”, even when artists were the most radical

4 David Chalmers, And the Crooked Places Made Straight (Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 1991) 96.

Fiore 4

towards the end of the sixties when they were actively participating in politics. Yes however,

art became more sexual, but artists were never violent or cruel in their imagery. The current

events surrounding the sixties were violent and cruel so artists of the sixties developed new

styles of art to show that change was possible and within reach peacefully. In a way, it became

optimistic, empowering, and motivating. A significant portion the research that supports these

ideas comes from Irving Sanders’s American Art of the 1960s and Eliane Elmaleh’s American

Pop Art and Political Engagement in the 1960s. These resources examined the sometimes-

puzzling actions by artists, as well as how they became politically involved. In general, artists

are the type of people who contradict themselves sometimes. Probably because part of their

job is to experiment so it should be expected that artists may change their mind. An example of

this comes from the Elmaleh article. Jasper John was an artist who was opposed to the

Vietnam War, and his painting US Flag in Complementary Colors reflected his feelings that it

was an unnecessary war. He remained objective by painting just an image of an American flag,

but it was radical in how he colored it with instead orange, green, and black. Elmaleh described

it as, “the political symbolism of the flag, its redundant identification with the letters US, its

denatured coloration desecrating the American colours, as well as the presence of black

strongly suggested that the country was mutilated and in mourning.”5 This showed how far

artists had come, and how they gained the confidence to believe they could enact social

change. Irving Sandler discusses how just a few years earlier, “To most sixties artists it did not

seem that art could be an effective instrument, not to mention a weapon, to effect social

betterment—so why bother?”6 Therefore, it was almost as though artists had reached their

5 Eliane Elmaleh, “Pop Art and Political Engagement in the 1960s” European Journal of American Culture 22, no. 3 (2003): 182, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.

6 Irving Sandler, American Art of the 1960s (New York: Harper and Row, 1988), 293.

Fiore 5

breaking point with the government just as many other Americans did. They were all American

citizens who felt some connection to the war, and artists eventually had to ignore the

emotional disconnect they had built between themselves and their artwork. Although, before

artists became radicals, it is important to understand that there was an extreme separation not

involving an artist’s personal beliefs in their work, and this was on purpose as a backlash against

1950s art.

Before pop and poster art in the sixties, abstract expressionism was the most recognized

and practiced art form beginning after World War II. Jackson Pollock led the abstract

expressionism movement into the fifties with “action painting”. This meant that, “artists

moved across a large canvas spread on the floor and dripped, squirted, and flung paint onto the

surface, using such simple instruments as house-painting brushes, meat basters, and trowels.”7

Therefore, artists during the fifties had an intense relationship with their work; viewers could

see the artist’s emotion and physical outburst on the canvas. Unfortunately, Pollock was a

known alcoholic who was killed in a car accident in 1956. After his death, art took a radical

change in both technique and attitude.8 The death of Pollock hit the art community extremely

hard so artists were distancing themselves from his kind of work as they mourned. It seems as

though they were hoping that by taking art in a new direction they would avoid his same tragic

end. That explains the reason why artists claimed their art was strictly objective, and they

wanted to use mechanical, machine-like techniques. Once this mourning phase ended, and the

pop art movement was well-known among other artists, this was when underlying social

commentary began.

7 Bob Batchelor, "Art in the 1960s." In Pop Culture Universe: Icons, Idols, Ideas. ABC-CLIO, 2010-.. http://popculture2.abc-clio.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/.

8 Ibid.

Fiore 6

Art was labeled “cool art” as artists detached themselves from their inner emotions,

making their art look radically different from previous decades. Gene Davis remarked that

“coolness, passivity, and emotional detachment seem to be in the air.”9 Similarly, the

technique associated with creating pop art employed a machine-like process, eliminating

contact by the artist on canvas. For example, Andy Warhol’s technique of silk-screen printing

“Permitted him to eliminate the personal brushstroke or ‘signature’ of the artist, to depict the

life and images of our time without comment or emotion. Using this technique for mechanical

repetition further emphasized his desire to become removed from the creative process. ‘The

reason I’m painting this way is that I want to be a machine,’ he claimed.’”10 Warhol was known

to have a flamboyant and imaginative personality so it was not uncommon to hear outrageous

comments from him. More importantly though, this change in art with new techniques and

attitude is essential when explaining pop artists as being radicals because these two strategies

proved to be effective in displaying American life. According to Elmaleh, “To Americans, Pop

Art was an artistic manifestation which reflected their own culture. The artists used popular

culture as it was transmitted by the media; they showed a preference for stereotypes, clichés

and common places connected to the American way of life.”11 Art spoke to people more than

ever before, even through its objectivity and the artists’ ambiguity in their meaning. While, pop

art was the most widely recognizable art form coming out of the sixties, artists who designed

posters were equally as important when going against the norm and following the

counterculture movement.

9 Sandler, American Art of the 1960s, 60.10 Mark M. Johnson, "PRINTS BY ANDY WARHOL." Arts & Activities 120, no. 3 (November 1996): 30,

Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost.11 Eliane Elmaleh, “Pop Art and Political Engagement in the 1960s” 181.

Fiore 7

Posters were an important form of art because they were mass-produced, and served as

an advertisement for psychedelic art. Typically, posters in history have been associated with

propaganda because of its ability to communicate information to a country quickly. For

example according to Sandler in Art of the Postmodern Era, the Constructivism movement, which

was a Russian artistic movement that favored art facilitated toward social change, rejected

traditional paintings because they were “inadequate as revolutionary tool”. Instead,

photography, film, typography, and poster design were employed because of its propaganda

qualities. However, the Russian people did not appreciate their abstract art at the time, and

neither did Stalin when he rose to power, so he suppressed the movement in 1922.12 This just

showed how influential posters could be because they made a graphic statement with eye-

catching details. Furthermore, that was why posters were effective in the 1960s to introduce

the youth of America to the music scene.

During the 1960s music and art were closely associated with the counterculture

movement and youth culture. For this reason, creative posters and album covers grew

increasingly more important to draw crowds to concerts to raise cultural awareness. Folk and

rock musicians, “all gave running commentary through their inspired songs, improvised guitar

riffs, and politicized lyrics that augmented an omnipresent revolutionary fervor.”13 Soon artists

were needed to make posters and album covers to publicize these events by branching out of

the San Francisco music hub, and reach young kids all across America. Wes Wilson was one

artist who gained popularity for his work with Bill Graham and the famous Fillmore Auditorium.

Graham was the most influential music promoter for the Fillmore, and he would go on to work

12 Irving Sander, Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 336.

13 David S. Rubin, Psychedelic, 42.

Fiore 8

with the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, and Live Aid.14 In addition, the Fillmore Auditorium was, a

revolutionary rock concert hall in San Francisco sought after by all musicians to perform.15

Wilson became famous for introducing, what is today known as, psychedelic typography to rock

posters, as seen in his posters for Grateful Dead, Otis Rush Chicago Blues Band, and Canned

Heat Blues Band (left) and Jefferson Airplane, Butterfield Blues Band, and Muddy Waters (right)

who performed at the Fillmore.

16 17

Bands who played at Fillmore, for example, the Grateful Dead and Jefferson Airplane were,

“Well stocked with electric musical instruments, and elaborate state of the art amplification

systems, playing against a backdrop of strobe lights, colored light shows, and enlarged

photographic images displayed by multiple slide projectors.”18 Therefore, it was inevitable that

the posters promoting them would reflect their style of music. Music and art go hand-in-hand

14 John Bassett McCleary, The Hippie Dictionary, 218.15 Ibid, 179.16 Wes Wilson, BG-51, http://www.wes-wilson.com/?page_id=795, 1976.17 Wes Wilson, BG-29-OP-2, http://www.wes-wilson.com/?page_id=795, 1966.18 Nadya Zimmerman, Counterculture Kaleidoscope: Musical and Cultural Perspective on the Late Sixties San Francisco (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008), 96.

Fiore 9

when discussing the counterculture movement because they needed each other to keep their

momentum and continue to gain popularity in support of societal change.

Art of sixties was constantly evolving to reflect the changing viewpoints on social norms

and current events so posters were no different. Artists had the desire to stay away from

conventional and existing art. The sixties was a time of change, and art needed to change as

well. Art of the sixties was different because artists made, “a shift—from psychology to

physicality, from subjectivity to objectivity, from interpretation to presentation, from symbol to

sign—to seeing things as they literally are and ‘saying it like it is,’ a catchphrase of the sixties.”19

Wilson’s posters reflected this change in society based on his imagery of women in his posters.

He remained objective because, yes, it was just a woman, but she was sensual, she appeared

powerful, and free. Usually they were nude, and people could argue his posters were just that,

a poster advertising a band by putting a naked woman to grab people’s attention. However,

since artists were so objective with their work, that only made commentary inevitable. By

saying that they were saying nothing, they were in reality saying a lot about American society.

This was Wilson’s radical underlying message of the poster to glorify women by showing

that by joining this counterculture movement, more women can feel liberated. He showed the

sensual side of women, and how it could be acceptable to be a sexual person. Specifically, in

the fifties, people had to suppress their natural urges because that was not the social norm to

be overtly sexual, especially for women. Some might argue that Wilson shed a negative light on

women in his posters by making them sex objects, but he really just reflected how women were

questioning their role in society. Consequently, Wilson could be viewed as a radical because he

19 Sandler, American Art of the 1960s, 61.

Fiore 10

centered his work around relevant societal issues like gender roles. Counterculture advocates

demonstrated for more equality between men and women, and Wilson’s posters were

applicable resources in support of their cause. Even though his job was just to promote rock

band he still made a major contribution to the counterculture movement by using women as a

subject. Poster art may have been a lower quality of art, but it was still effective at

communicating a message to a wide audience. Rock posters were also crucial to the

counterculture movement because they created a collaboration between the music and art

world that would ultimately bring more people together to support one cause. It even gained

more creditability by becoming acknowledged by higher art artists, like Andy Warhol.

Andy Warhol was arguably the most famous, and outspoken artists during the 1960s.

Warhol was a printmaker, filmmaker, and manager of the rock band Velvet Underground. He

was considered a radical because he was a walking contradiction. More than any other artist,

he contradicted himself when he spoke about his work. He like most pop artists, claimed that

he distanced himself from his work, but he his over the top personality toppled the message of

artists not drawing attention to themselves. Bob Batchelor explains Warhol’s eccentric

behavior and how that influenced his work because, “…his images, such as Big Campbell's Soup

Can (1962), became instantly recognizable, but none as much as his own image, topped by his

bleached blond hair. He contributed to his fame with many self-portraits, associations with the

rich and famous, and flamboyant behavior. He famously claimed that everyone would be

famous for 15 minutes, but far exceeded that for himself.”20 This demonstrated how Warhol

was a radical who separated himself from other pop artists by interacting more with his

20 Batchelor, "Art in the 1960s".

Fiore 11

audience. His personality was not cold or detached, which made him an influential figure to

follow because he kept his audience in suspense with what his next work would be, or what

outlandish thing he would say next. Having a charismatic and interesting figure or leader like

this is important for any radical movement in order to bring attention to the cause, and draw

more people into the movement. Warhol was efficient at bring attention to the counterculture

movement because his silk screen process allowed him to use a stencil and quickly make copies,

similar to posters just not printed to the same extent. He was also a radical because he had the

ability to take mundane, everyday objects like soup cans, soda bottles, dollar bills, and make a

bold statement. Some of his more recognizable prints that contributed to the counterculture

movement that this essay will discuss includes Race Riot and 100 Soup Cans. These prints

specifically dealt with race and consumerism, which were topics that counterculture advocates

fought hard to change these issues, and break from the norm that existed in the country. This

kind of art was perfect for the viewing pleasure of average Americans because Warhol used

objects that they were familiar with and displayed events that most people had seen from the

media, or saw for themselves the many social injustices. The artwork became relevant and

people could relate to the artist’s message because they too had lived through it.

First, Warhol’s Race Riot was radical because it raised awareness of the civil rights

movement. Race inequality was a serious issue that plagued the country for far too long, and

for the first time the majority of the population was questioning their government and each

other what was fair, just, and equal. As a result, this print became a tool that people could use

to think about and reflect what was right, and what should be done to rectify this problem.

Even though Warhol experienced difficulties throughout his life, his art still illustrated a hopeful

Fiore 12

and positive outlook for America’s future. He argued, “‘Pop is a re-enlistment in the world. It is

shuck the Bomb. It is the American Dream, optimistic, generous, and naïve. Pop is love in that

it accepts all the meaner aspects of life. It is the American Myth. For this is the best of all

possible worlds.’”21 His Race Riot print was an example to show how pop art was an effective

medium to help raise awareness by showing the “meaner aspects of life”.

22

This particular image was constructive to the counterculture movement because it was another

case in point that illustrated the mistreatment of African Americans, and why equality was

essential. He printed these images in black and white or red and black, which this splash of

color made a huge impact. Elmaleh explains this significance, “By adding only one colour, red

for Red Race Riots, Warhol recalled the tragic outcome of the Watts’ riots. The artist’s political

commitment seemed clear: Warhol stressed the tragic side of the event, denouncing the police

repression and showing solidarity with the protesters.”23 This was a pivotal moment in pop art

because he was becoming more vocal through his art about his support of the counterculture

21 Sandler, American Art of the 1960s, 151.22Andy Warhol, Race Riot. In Movements in Art Since 1945 by Edward Lucie-Smith, 160. New York: Thanes and Hudson, 1964.23 Eliane Elmaleh, “Pop Art and Political Engagement in the 1960s” 184.

Fiore 13

movement and Civil Rights Movement. It was also a departure from an important defining

quality in the pop art movement. Television and newspapers were the standard for learning

about these kinds of events, but Warhol proved that art could be a valuable resource as well.

The art of depicting objects was another one of Warhol’s strengths. Objectivity was a

major defining characteristic of the sixties, and Warhol did this flawlessly. Similar to many

artists of the time, Warhol claimed there was nothing to his prints and, “What you saw was

what you saw. Nothing more, nothing deeper, nothing other.”24 However, here Warhol was

playing as devil’s advocate because there really was a heavy, deep meaning in all his painting.

By saying that there was not anything, would make people speculate even more. For example,

consider his 100 Soup Cans print,

25

Objectively, it is just Campbell’s Soup replicated one hundred times, but there really is more to

it. There is an underlying message about consumerism and the middle class in this print. The

interest in material things began in fifties when, “an economic boom accompanied by an

unprecedented growth of the mass media, notably television, whose primary function it was to

24 Sandler, American Art of the 1960s, 61.25 Andy Warhol, 100 Soup Cans. In Pop Art Redefined by John Russell and Suzi Gablik, 150. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962.

Fiore 14

advertise the plethora of mass-produced goods. Naturally, there developed a widespread

interest in the field of communication.”26 Campbell’s Soup was a large company that has been

around since 1869 so participating in advertisement helped them continue to grow. The

company was and still is associated with selling an inexpensive product to satisfy busy

Americans. Therefore, this product was aimed specifically at middle class America, which

Warhol picked up on. As a result, this print is a reflection of the conformity that the middle

class submitted to, without really knowing it. First, it is just soup, but then it expands to other

products they have in their home, what they wear, and how they act. So this print was

arguably undermining the idea of the American dream, and how it really was not a dream to

have anymore. Going against the norm and conformity was a major case demonstrated by the

counterculture movement, and this was yet another example of how artists secretly showed

their support. Andy Warhol was just one example of how the artist could be sly about making

social commentary on American society, but as the sixties progressed, more artists became

even more radical.

Artists became more radical towards the end of the sixties because of their new sense of

political involvement being acceptable. However, an important distinction needed to be made,

even though they became more politically involved, it did not reflect in their work. Artists

continued to stay disconnected from their work to continue the idea of “cold art”. For example,

“An artist might burn his draft card or smoke pot and listen to rock music (and many sixties

artists did), become a disciple of some Eastern guru, participate in polymorphous sex, or even

use heavy drugs—and not reveal any of these practices in his or her work.”27 Artists kept their

26 Sandler, American Art of the 1960s, 147. 27 Sandler, American Art of the 1960s, 293.

Fiore 15

personal life separate from their professorial life so that they did not interfere with the

relationship that was established between artist and viewer. They were different from other

radical leaders because they did not explicitly tell people what to think or what to do. It would

be a more profound experience for the viewer, if they came to the same conclusions as the

artist on their own. This was important because it allowed Americans to really think critically

and analyze the society they lived in.

Before 1966, artists did not have an interest of getting involved with politics because

they never believed it was their place to intervene. Elmaleh described how, “As the 1960s

progressed, with their series of political assassinations, the escalation of the Vietnam War, the

confrontation with Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement, American artists, like many

intellectuals, felt the need to take sides.”28 These events made artists realize that their voice

was important and people would listen to them too. Edward Kienholz, Peter Saul, Leon Golub,

and Nancy Spero were all artists who felt deeply moved by society’s problems, and broke the

rule of “cold art”. These artists and many others became committed to going public about how

they opposed the Vietnam War. So a group of them, including the famous Roy Lichtenstein,

decided to erect The Artist Protest Tower in Los Angeles. The tower grew to be eighteen yards

high and quickly grabbed the media’s attention. When the tower was completed, it was just as

quickly taken down, all paintings and works of art that made up the tower were auctioned, and

the money was given to the Civil Rights and Peace Movements.29 This was another of example

of artists’ growing radicalism as they became more politically engaged. However, their political

28 Eliane Elmaleh, “Pop Art and Political Engagement in the 1960s” 184.

29 Eliane Elmaleh, “Pop Art and Political Engagement in the 1960s” 182.

Fiore 16

involvement was not well received by museum officials who had ultimate control over who

could see their art.

Museums during the 1960s even proved to be a place that discriminated against sex,

race, and did not allow artists to display works of art with political statements that were not

patriotic. As a result, artists were fed up with the lack of communication and consultation

between museum officials and the artists. The Art Workers Coalition (AWC) was formed in

1968 to negotiate with museums in favor of improving how artists were treated, as well as their

art. AWC composed a list of thirteen points that they wanted to bring before museum officials

at the Museum of Modern to have changed. The points demanded the “liberation” of women

artists (and women generally), black artists, Puerto Rican artists, greater attention given to the

cultural life of the ghetto and neighborhood art centers, and allowing anti-war artwork in

museums. Another major point they advocated for, was the establishment of a wing for black

artists that showed their accomplishments.30 On September 30, 1969 AWC members meet with

museum officials to discuss their demands. However, little was accomplished because the

museum refused to compromise on the points or give them a wing for black artists. By May 18,

1970 two thousand organizers decided to organize an Artists’ Strike Against Racism, Sexism,

Repression, and War, whose purpose was to close down all New York galleries and museums

for one day. Artists and supporters had reached a breaking point after the invasion of

Cambodia and the killing of four students at Kent State University. To keep the movement’s

strength, organizers decided to protest as one large group at a museum for a day. Each day

they would demonstrate at a different museum, for a total of five days. The strike went as

30 Sandler, American Art of the 1960s, 289-299.

Fiore 17

planned, peacefully with three hundred organizers, however, little was accomplished. This

would be AWC’s last major anti-war demonstration.

In conclusion, artists made a significant impact on American society during the 1960s.

First, poster art and music were brought together to promote gender equality for women

through the counterculture movement. Wes Wilson’s designs brought posters to a new

sophistication by interpreting how women were perceived in the counterculture movement as

being sensual and powerful beings. More importantly, Andy Warhol became a major figure in

the pop art scene by his depiction of commercial objects and the civil rights movement. More

artists became more radical as the decade came to close by publically expressing their political

views. Even though they were not successful right away at improving relationships between

artists and museum officials, they still brought light to the issue by demonstrating its flaws

within the system. Therefore, artists proved to be a radical proponent for social change, even

when they had nothing at stake, besides their involvement with museum officials. Artists were

never oppressed the same way compared to African Americans, women, or gay and lesbian

couples in the sixties, unless they were participants in the movement. They still made a bold

step by calling for social change because it was morally right. Even though they claimed

nothing was there, we can all now call their bluff.

Bibliography

Beaty, Bart. "Roy Lichtenstein's Tears: Art vs. Pop in American Culture." Canadian Review of American

Studies 34, no. 3 (October 2004): 249-268. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May

11, 2011).

Fiore 18

Chalmers, David. And the Crooked Places Made Straight. Baltimore: John Hopkins University,

1991.

Elmaleh, Eliane. “American Pop Art and political engagement in the 1960s.” European Journal

of American Culture 22, no. 3 (October 2003): 181-191. Academic Search Premier,

EBSCOhost (accessed May 11, 2011).

Gablik, Suzi and John Russell. Pop Art Redefined. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969.

Johnson, Mark M. "PRINTS BY ANDY WARHOL." Arts & Activities 120, no. 3 (November 1996):

29. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 11, 2011).

Lucie-Smith, Edward. In Movements in Art Since 1945. New York: Thanes and Hudson, 1995.

McCleary John Bassett. The Hippie Dictionary. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press, 2002.

Roskind, Robert. Memoirs of an Ex-Hippie. North Carolina: One Love Press, 2001.

Rubin, David S. Psychedelic: Optical and Visionary Art since the 1960s. San Antonio Museum of

Art, 2010.

Sandler, Irving. American Art of the 1960s. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.

Sanlder, Irving. Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s. New York:

HarperCollins, 1996.

Wilson, Wes. Wes Wilson’s Posters. http://www.wes-wilson.com/?page_id=795.

Fiore 19

Zimmerman, Nadya. Counterculture Kaleidoscope: Musical and Cultural Perspective on the Late

Sixties San Francisco. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008.

Notes on Revision:

I took into account pretty much all of your comments and Emma’s because they were pretty much the same. I tried to be more concise and explain my thought process for how artists were radicals. I took out some chunks of my paper from the last revision that I thought weren’t really relevant to my thesis. It’s pretty much the same length, I think I did a better job at explaining my argument and staying on track. I did take you advice on moving my thesis to earlier in my introduction. I’m just used to putting my thesis as the last sentence of my introduction, but hopefully it is more clear what I am trying to prove. I also tried to limit my Sandler evidence… As I was writing the previous version I knew that I was referencing him A LOT, but his one book, American Art of the 1960s just had so much useful detail that I thought was relevant to my paper. So this time, I tried to cut out some of that evidence, even though it was really hard because I liked all of it so much, and I found another article by Eliane Elmaleh who talked about their political involvement, even though she never called them radicals. So hopefully everything is more clear and concise.