Andy Warhol, the king of the pop-art movement, compromised within his life one of the most subtly diverse oeuvres immediately recognizable within the latter half of the twentieth century. Warhol’s “Disaster Series” lies in stark contrast with his earlier works, which consisted of popular imagery such as the bust of Marilyn Monroe, Brillo boxes and Campbell’s soup cans. Warhol’s “Red Disaster”, currently on view at the Museum of Fine Arts, was crafted in 1963, using silkscreen ink on synthetic polymer paint.
The piece consists of two panels: one a large canvas painted a deep blood red, the other a haunting twelve-fold repetition of a black and red tinted image of an electric chair. Within the images of the chair, there seems to be absolutely no life, human or otherwise, in the room; no criminal, no executioners, no chains. The only facet of the image that speaks candidly is a small sign in the upper-right hand corner, reading: “Silence”. The composition of the piece is …show more content…
Was it an admonition or simply a comment? Censure or grim witticism? Either way, it was certain that Warhol had something to say, and he was doing so in a far more direct manner than he previously had. Of “Red Disaster” Andy noted: “When you see a gruesome picture over and over again, it really doesn’t have any effect.”. While stated casually, this remark has withstood the trial of time in its deeply unsettling comment on mass media and the public’s attitude towards disaster. The images of the electric chair in “Red Disaster” seem striking, even disturbing at first glance, but as the viewer settles into the piece the chair’s hostility diminishes exponentially, until it seems as if normal chair. Perhaps this derealization was Andy’s intent; an intrusive attack on the manner in which we view the
The piece consists of two panels: one a large canvas painted a deep blood red, the other a haunting twelve-fold repetition of a black and red tinted image of an electric chair. Within the images of the chair, there seems to be absolutely no life, human or otherwise, in the room; no criminal, no executioners, no chains. The only facet of the image that speaks candidly is a small sign in the upper-right hand corner, reading: “Silence”. The composition of the piece is …show more content…
Was it an admonition or simply a comment? Censure or grim witticism? Either way, it was certain that Warhol had something to say, and he was doing so in a far more direct manner than he previously had. Of “Red Disaster” Andy noted: “When you see a gruesome picture over and over again, it really doesn’t have any effect.”. While stated casually, this remark has withstood the trial of time in its deeply unsettling comment on mass media and the public’s attitude towards disaster. The images of the electric chair in “Red Disaster” seem striking, even disturbing at first glance, but as the viewer settles into the piece the chair’s hostility diminishes exponentially, until it seems as if normal chair. Perhaps this derealization was Andy’s intent; an intrusive attack on the manner in which we view the