Art and Merchandise in Keith Haring’s Pop Shop 2020031061, 2020031062, 9780367858735, 9781003015437

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication Page
Contents
List of Figures and Illustrations
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1 Hitting the Streets: Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising
2 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops of the 1980s
3 The Pop Shop
4 Art Merchandise and Mass Media as Activist Strategies
5 The Post–Pop Shop: Its Life After Haring’s Death
6 Pop Shop Chain Reaction: Artist Merchandising in the 2000s
Epilogue: Populist Art for a Populist World
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Art and Merchandise in Keith Haring’s Pop Shop

As one of the first academic monographs on Keith Haring, this book uses the Pop Shop, a previously overlooked enterprise, and artist merchandising as tools to reconsider the significance and legacy of Haring’s career as a whole. Haring developed an alternative approach to both the marketing and the social efficacy of art: he controlled the sales and distribution of his merchandise, while also promulgating his belief in accessibility and community activism. He proved that massproduced objects can be used strategically to form a community and create social change. Furthermore, looking beyond the 1980s, into the 1990s and 2000s, Haring and his shop prefigured artists’ emerging, self-aware involvement with the mass media, and the art world’s growing dependence on marketing and commercialism. This book will be of interest to scholars or students studying art history, consumer culture, cultural studies, media studies, or market studies, as well as anyone with a curiosity about Haring and his work, the 1980s art scene in New York, the East Village, street art, art activism, and art merchandising. Amy Raffel, Ph.D., is an independent scholar who currently works in museum interpretation and education. Cover image: Tseng Kwong Chi, Pop Shop, New York, 1986. Art © The Keith Haring Foundation. Photo © Muna Tseng Dance Projects, Inc.

Routledge Advances in Art and Visual Studies

This series is our home for innovative research in the fields of art and visual studies. It includes monographs and targeted edited collections that provide new insights into visual culture and art practice, theory, and research. Dialogues Between Artistic Research and Science and Technology Studies Edited by Henk Borgdorff, Peter Peters, and Trevor Pinch Contemporary Art and Disability Studies Edited by Alice Wexler and John Derby The Outsider, Art and Humour Paul Clements The Contemporary Art Scene in Syria Social Critique and an Artistic Movement Charlotte Bank The Iconology of Abstraction Non-Figurative Images and the Modern World Edited by Krešimir Purgar Liquid Ecologies in Latin American and Caribbean Art Edited by Lisa Blackmore and Liliana Gómez Contemporary Art, Photography, and the Politics of Citizenship Vered Maimon Contemporary Art and Capitalist Modernization A Transregional Perspective Edited by Octavian Esanu Art and Merchandise in Keith Haring’s Pop Shop Amy Raffel For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/RoutledgeAdvances-in-Art-and-Visual-Studies/book-series/RAVS

Art and Merchandise in Keith Haring’s Pop Shop

Amy Raffel

First published 2021 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Taylor & Francis The right of Amy Raffel to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Raffel, Amy, author. Title: Art and merchandise in Keith Haring’s Pop Shop / Amy Raffel. Description: New York : Routledge, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020031061 (print) | LCCN 2020031062 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367858735 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003015437 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Haring, Keith—Criticism and interpretation. | Pop Shop (Retail store) | Artists and community. | Art, Modern—20th century— Economic aspects. Classification: LCC N6537.H348 R34 2021 (print) | LCC N6537.H348 (ebook) | DDC 700.1/03—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020031061 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020031062 ISBN: 978-0-367-85873-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-01543-7 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC Keith Haring text and artwork © Keith Haring Foundation

To Keith Haring, whose career has been a rich and endlessly interesting topic to research—still just as engaging as when I started several years ago. Even though I came to his work almost 23 years after he passed, his generosity, passion, and love for his fans and for art shine through in his many interviews and writings. It has been a privilege to write about him and his work.

Contents

List of Figures and Illustrations Acknowledgments

ix xi

Introduction

1

1

Hitting the Streets: Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

18

2

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops of the 1980s

48

3

The Pop Shop

85

4

Art Merchandise and Mass Media as Activist Strategies

124

5

The Post–Pop Shop: Its Life After Haring’s Death

163

6

Pop Shop Chain Reaction: Artist Merchandising in the 2000s

184

Epilogue: Populist Art for a Populist World

213

Bibliography Index

216 235

Figures and Illustrations

1.1 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1982. 1.2 Keith Haring, two pages from A Personal Mythology, An Essay: For Semiotics Class (SVA), 1980. 1.3 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1981. 1.4 Keith Haring, Untitled (recto and verso), c. 1980. 1.5 Keith Haring, Reagan: Ready to Kill, 1980. 1.6 Stills from Painting Myself into a Corner, 1979. 1.7 Tseng Kwong Chi, Keith Haring Drawing in New York City Subway, New York, 1983. 1.8 Keith Haring, Radiant Baby button, c. 1982. 2.1 Keith Haring, Fun Gallery postcard, 1983. 2.2 Times Square Show shop, 1980. 2.3 Kiki Smith, Untitled (Cigarette Pack), 1980. 2.4 A. More Store at White Columns, 1980. 2.5 Christy Rupp, Rat Ornament, 1980–83. 2.6 Tom Otterness, A. More Store advertisement, 1980. 2.7 A. More Store advertisement, 1981. 2.8 Fashion Moda Store, Documenta 7, 1982. 2.9 Fashion Moda T-shirt and detail for Documenta 7, 1982. 2.10 Objets Vend’art by Vendona, Quad Cinema, 1985–89. 2.11 Patricia Malarcher, A Piece of the City, c. 1986–88. 2.12 Joey Castolone, Span-Yid Productions, The Music Box, c. 1986–88. 3.1 Tseng Kwong Chi. Pop Shop, New York, 1986. 3.2 Keith Haring, Untitled (Pop Shop jumpsuits), 1987. 3.3 Pop Shop merchandise, foldout catalog created by Keith Haring, 1988. 3.4 Pop Shop postcard, 1986. 3.5 Pop Shop drawstring bag, c. 1986. 3.6 Pop Shop merchandise, foldout poster and catalog created by Keith Haring. Tseng Kwong Chi, Pop Shop, New York, 1986. 3.7 Pop Shop merchandise, foldout catalog created by Keith Haring, 1988. 3.8 Tseng Kwong Chi, Pop Shop, Tokyo, 1988. 3.9 Keith Haring painting a mural on the roof of the Tokyo Pop Shop and Pop Shop Tokyo sign, 1987. 3.10 Keith Haring, Pop Shop Tokyo Fan, 1987. 3.11 Keith Haring, Pop Shop Tokyo Bag, 1987. 4.1 Keith Haring, Pope Killed for Freed Hostage, 1980.

20 23 27 30 31 33 35 37 52 56 57 59 61 62 63 66 67 69 72 72 87 89 91 92 93 94 95 102 103 104 105 127

x

Figures and Illustrations

4.2 Film still from Sign on a Truck, 1984, by Jenny Holzer et al. 4.3 Keith Haring, Poster for Hiroshima, 1988. 4.4 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1982. 4.5 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1988, United Nations 3rd Session on Disarmament. 4.6 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1981. 4.7 Keith Haring, Talk to Us, The AIDS Hotline, 1989. 4.8 Keith Haring, AIDS: Trading Fear for Facts, 1988. 4.9 Keith Haring, Stop AIDS, 1989. 4.10 Keith Haring, Safe Sex!, 1987. 4.11 Keith Haring, Together We Can Stop AIDS, 1989. 4.12 Keith Haring, Once Upon a Time, 1989, in The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center, New York. 4.13 Keith Haring, Ignorance = Fear, Silence = Death, 1988. 4.14 Keith Haring, Silence = Death, 1989. 5.1 Page from Interior Design Magazine featuring Pop Shop redesign in the 1990s. 5.2 Uniqlo, Keith Haring T-shirts and merchandising, March 2013, in New York. 5.3 Keith Haring, assorted posthumous products and merchandise created through licensing agreements. 5.4 Pop Shop ceiling, 1986. 5.5 Keith Haring, Pop Shop installation from the Pop Life: Art in a Material World exhibition, Tate Modern; October 1, 2009– January 17, 2010. 6.1 Kenny Scharf, Television Customized by Van Chrome, 1983. 6.2 Kenny Scharf, Scharf Schak, 1995. 6.3 Kenny Scharf with Jeremy Scott, 2014. 6.4 Shepard Fairey, OBEY icon. 6.5 Women’s March in Washington, DC, 2017, featuring We the People Are Greater Than Fear. 6.6 Shepard Fairey, Bernie Sanders design, 2016. 6.7 Keith Haring × OBEY graphic for OBEY Clothing, 2012. 6.8 KAWS, assorted dolls in 2019 in shop in Paris, France. 6.9 Murakami Takashi’s exhibition at a shopping mall in Shanghai, China, with art merchandise for sale, 2017.

129 133 134 135 139 143 144 145 146 147 148 151 152 165 168 169 173

174 187 188 189 190 193 194 195 197 200

Acknowledgments

As a project that stemmed from my doctoral research, this book has been seven years in the making. Countless individuals have supported this effort, many more than I can include here. I thank my original doctoral advisor, Dr. Siona Wilson, and my doctoral committee, including Dr. Emily Braun, Dr. Edward Miller, and Dr. Jonathan T.D. Neil, for their invaluable feedback. Without the access, assistance, and images provided by the Keith Haring Foundation and their archives, I could not have completed my research. I am profoundly appreciative of the Foundation’s archivists, Anna Gurton-Wachter and Elen Woods, for their answers to my many inquiries and for their in-depth knowledge of Haring’s life and work. I also thank Julia Gruen and Matthew Barolo for their time to answer questions about the Pop Shop and Haring’s life, and Annelise Ream’s assistance in securing images. Jeffrey Deitch, Jose Matos, Fran Rubel Kuzui, Kenny Scharf, and Alan Herman also gave me invaluable first-person accounts and information about Haring and his life. I would like to thank Marvin Taylor of the Fales Archives at the New York University for his assistance and insight as well as the access provided to me by Dr. Marc Miller to objects and ephemera by Colab. The knowledge given to me by several Colab members was indispensable. I thank Jane Dickson, Mike Glier, Stefan Eins, Becky Howland, Alan Moore, Tom Otterness, Cara Perlman, Walter Robinson, Christy Rupp, Kiki Smith, Jolie Stahl, and Jack Tilton for their time and insights into Colab projects. Michael McKenzie and Carlo McCormick, as well, were crucial contacts to better understand the East Village scene and Haring’s career. Carlo, thank you for your ongoing advice and support as I have navigated this process. I also thank Ona Lindquist, whose ceaseless enthusiasm, unwavering assistance, and constant availability introduced me to one of the most interesting art projects in the 1980s. I am also eternally grateful for the personal and professional support of my fellow art history colleagues, friends, and family. I thank, especially, Gary Raffel and Paul Tabor as readers and editors at various points of the process. Dad, you are one of the best copy editors I have ever worked with. Thank you for helping me get this book across the finish line. I am indebted to my fellow graduate students and alumni from CUNY Graduate Center Community art history department, who have generously given me advice on everything from image permissions, publishing, editing, and proposals. Karen Shelby, I would not have been able to get this book noticed by a publisher without your help. Matthew Christensen, thank you for your advice and developmental-editing feedback.

xii Acknowledgments For the use of images, I thank the Keith Haring Foundation, Dr. Marc Miller and Gallery 98, Lisa Kahane, Ona Lindquist, and the Photo Archive of Tseng Kwong Chi. I thank Isabella Vitti for seeing promise in this topic and agreeing to invest her time and energy into the process of publishing my book. I also thank Katie Armstrong, Editorial Assistant at Routledge, for her endless patience and guidance in dealing with the complex and arduous process of obtaining image permissions.

Introduction

“I just want to be taken seriously.” —Keith Haring1

In the 1980s, Keith Haring (1958–90) put his work on the most unlikely of objects—a T-shirt—capturing the popular imagination and introducing a new distribution strategy into the art world. Since his emergence from the East Village art scene in the early 1980s, Haring pushed the conventions of art making and circulation by experimenting with spaces outside museums and galleries: in nightclubs and the streets, subways and hospitals, as well as mass consumerist and media channels.2 Crafting his own instantly recognizable imagery through constant repetition in public spaces, Haring learned to make contemporary art accessible—physically and conceptually—to many who were excluded from fine-art culture. By the mid-1980s, Haring advanced this populist agenda even further by inviting a broad public to participate in something they never could before: art ownership. These efforts culminated in his Pop Shop in 1986 at 292 Lafayette Street in New York, at which he sold cheap mass-produced objects, including apparel, buttons, magnets, and watches.3 The store was an immersive Haring environment, painted all over in black geometric lines, with products tacked to its walls and an ongoing soundtrack of loud hip hop music. It sold thousands of items printed with several of Haring’s recognizable drawings, characters, and political slogans—advocating for issues such as safe sex, anti-apartheid, and UNICEF. In this Pop Shop, Haring attracted new audiences to interact with art through affordable objects they could own and use, as well as pass on. Wearing a Haring button was a performative act that spread his work like walking billboards, and indicated a sense of self-identification with Haring and his art. Although this enterprise has not been, for the most part, “taken seriously,” in the artist’s own words, it serves as the cornerstone of his career and was an astute response to a shift in the United States’ advanced capitalist society of the 1980s. This assertion is fairly radical, considering that Haring’s Pop Shop and merchandise are typically the most underappreciated—even disdained—aspects of his career. By selling cheap merchandise through the Pop Shop, Haring worked against the elitism of the contemporary art world that he felt disregarded much of the population and so harnessed new channels to spread political messages. Furthermore, looking beyond the 1980s, after Haring’s premature death in 1990 from an AIDS-related illness, his shop prefigured artists’ increasing involvement with promotion and merchandising in the 1990s and 2000s, as well as the art world’s growing acceptance of overt marketing and commercialism.

2

Introduction

Haring’s philosophy was in part shaped by his personal experiences and by the populist and do-it-yourself (DIY) approaches of many artists in New York’s 1980s Downtown scene. In New York, after a severe recession in the 1970s, the art market boomed in the 1980s along with the economy at large, dramatically increasing the number of galleries and collectors. To pull the country out of the 1970s’ recession and stimulate the economy, U.S. neoliberal policies pushed for a free market unhindered by government intervention.4 Under the platform “Reaganomics,” commencing in 1980, President Ronald Reagan passed legislation that lowered taxes (usually for those with higher incomes who would then purportedly invest these savings), created smaller government, restructured international trade, encouraged investment through business deregulation, and cut federal programs for the poor.5 These policies freed the forces of finance but, in effect, allowed only a few at the top to accumulate wealth, and made it difficult for citizens at the lower end of the economic spectrum to escape poverty; consequences that were exacerbated by further reductions in government programs and corporate deregulation in subsequent decades.6 This unequal dispersal of capital was prevalent throughout the country but was even worse in New York, which, after World War II, was at the tail end of a shift toward urban deindustrialization. By the 1980s, the city had become the center of the new service economy, shifting its business staples from manufacturing and production to finance, banking, advertising, and entertainment—industries that benefited mainly white-collar workers and displaced opportunities for the working class.7 Due to this, as well as Reagan’s deep cuts in social welfare programs and new policies that made it difficult to unionize, New York’s growing underclass was marred by urban decay, homelessness, crack cocaine, and AIDS.8 The period was a paradox of coinciding growth and decline: ground zero of the financial boom on Wall Street and, conversely, a site of increasing poverty. Not surprisingly, within these conditions, many were excluded from the high-end luxury art market as it took off in the 1980s. At the beginning of the decade, this included many younger Downtown artists, like Haring, who piled into apartments and worked several odd jobs to make ends meet. Ignored by the rarefied art world and disenfranchised by the art market, these artists took control of the display and circulation of their work, leading to an outburst of DIY exhibitions and methods. Building from these strategies, in addition to benefiting from New York’s newfound economic boom, the East Village developed into a prosperous art district. Only a few select galleries and artists, however, reaped the success—including Haring, who joined Tony Shafrazi’s gallery in 1982 and rose to prominence by the mid-1980s. Recognizing his privilege, bolstered by his status as a white middle-class male, Haring created work and opportunities—like the Pop Shop—to address the widening wealth gap and to share his platform with other artists and audiences who did not have social access to the fine-art world and its networks (access that underpinned and supported its economy).9 In addition, Haring adopted an easily understandable cartoon-like aesthetic to counter the art world’s emphasis on highly conceptual contemporary art that alienated outsiders. More than any artist of his generation, Haring demonstrated that, to stay relevant, an artist needs to move beyond the limits of the art world and engage with dominant public channels of consumerism and communication. In fact, he edged protocol and found fame first with the public through his street works, giving him the exposure that led to exhibitions in galleries. Enabled by television’s new ubiquitous presence and

Introduction

3

impact, in conjunction with methods of targeted public promotion and advertising, this is perhaps the first decade that an artist’s work could be validated by the masses before—and even despite—the art establishment. Coinciding with the art world’s obsession with Roland Barthes’s Death of the Author, adopting it as a proclamation to question and dismantle notions of authorship and originality (while at the same time ironically praising individual artists who espoused these ideas in their work), Haring’s career is a perfect example of Barthes’s insight that the birth of the reader brings meaning to a text or a work. Haring was an artist whose work was made for, and then made popular by, millions of “readers,” who could freely interpret his work with or without any art knowledge. In this scenario, Barthes’s Death of the Author was really the death of the art critic (the middleman). The birth of the reader was the birth of a public with a newfound capacity to popularize fine art without permission or mediation. Rather than dismissing this new phenomenon outright as hype, as many in the 1980s did, it represented a new and significant way for a public to have a measure of agency in fine-art culture. Haring understood the power of the public and continued to engage with it even after his rise in the art world, experimenting with several tactics to broaden his own celebrity platform as an artist and activist. By the time Haring opened the Pop Shop, he had a sophisticated and productive understanding of mass promotional and circulation techniques and used them to promulgate his social, political, and populist beliefs. While the Pop Shop was an explicit appropriation of everyday consumer culture, it rarely made money. Haring donated any profits it did make to various charities, or reinvested it back into the shop, making a living instead from his gallery sales.10 Counter to the accusations of selling out leveled by Haring’s critics in response to the Pop Shop, accessibility, activism, and recognition, not wealth, were the main driving forces behind its inception. This is not to say financial success would have detracted from the Pop Shop’s status as an artwork, nor its impact on its audience. Yet, in its life, as well as its reception since, the Pop Shop’s engagement with common commercialism and its perceived financial success have been cited as excuses to sideline its significance. For this reason, it is important to show that these assumptions do not hold up against Haring’s actual intentions or the Pop Shop’s history and are instead based on a hypocritical bias against art that intersects with everyday commercialism, rooted in the scholarship and criticism of the period. Unable to completely ignore art-world expectations and attacks by his critics, Haring pursued mainstream market and media activities with a degree of reluctance, hyper-aware that they could ruin his perceived credibility as a fine artist. In fact, in the 1980s, the term “sellout” was often paired or interchanged with the term “commercial,” both words used by art-world types to disparage Haring’s participation in everyday commercial contexts but, notably, not his participation in the higher end art market.11 Even though he continued in spite of this, the lack of critical support bothered him. Haring craved validation and wanted to be understood and accepted by the art establishment; at the same time, he felt that the contemporary art world was elitist and strove to open its closed culture by breaking down the perceived barriers between everyday commercial activities and fine art. Never reconciling this contradiction completely, Haring regularly expressed mixed feelings in his journals and interviews and maintained an ambiguous attitude toward commercialism until the end of his life. He was aware of not only its ability to amplify his ideas but also its potential to compromise his status as a fine artist.12

4

Introduction

Largely because of his overt commercialism, museums and art criticism ignored Haring in his lifetime and several relevant accounts and histories of 1980s art, activism, celebrity culture, the art multiple, and the artist-run shop have marginalized Haring and his Pop Shop, or omitted them altogether.13 Although a few curators and scholars have since revised Haring’s absence from many of these histories in several important catalog essays and exhibitions, most of the writing on Haring emphasizes the development of his deceptively simple style from street to gallery artist or the highly sexual and political content of his work. When the Pop Shop is mentioned, its inclusion is mainly descriptive and limited, superficially compared to other artist practices that do not relate in terms of geography, production, intention, or reception. This exclusion has been perpetuated even decades later, such as in the 2018 exhibition Brand New: Art and Commodity in the 1980s at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, in which neither Haring nor the Pop Shop was exhibited or discussed in any meaningful capacity.14 In addition, reconsidering the Pop Shop as the nexus of Haring’s central populist philosophy and using it to reevaluate his popular commercial activities, as well as his work overall, reveals other understudied and overlooked contributions of Haring’s career. It also begins to provide an alternative narrative of New York 1980s art history, shedding light on the populist-driven artists of the Downtown scene, who have been up until recently eclipsed by the dominant histories of Neo-Conceptualism, NeoExpressionism, the Pictures Generation, and Neo-Geo artists. Most of all, framing the Pop Shop and Haring’s merchandise within other disciplines, such as consumer culture, sociology, and media studies, requalifies the lasting significance of Haring’s career, as well as provides a more complete view of the art market and everyday commercialism in art history.

The Art Multiple: Pop and Fluxus Haring’s career is an important but unrecognized link between the practices of the art multiple and art merchandising. As an acknowledged and legitimized facet of fine-art production, the tradition of artworks in multiple—in existence since the invention of printmaking techniques—provides an entry point to understand the art historical significance of Haring’s innovations. At its most basic, an art multiple is an artwork produced by a fine artist that is not unique (existing in numerous copies) and is not a reproduction, standing as an artwork in its own right.15 Many kinds of art multiples exist—from prints to magazines, posters, castings, mail art, photographs, and artist books—in various-sized editions. For the Pop Shop, what is most pertinent is the subset of the multiple that is typically in small-object form, produced in editions that could number a few or into the hundreds.16 These threedimensional art multiples can be produced by hand or by industrial methods and are then often distributed cheaply by the artists themselves, usually with the intent of reaching audiences outside of the art world.17 In the history of this type of multiple, Marcel Duchamp’s Boîte-en-valise of the 1940s is an important foundational precedent, in which he collaborated with fabricators to produce seven editioned boxes of small, easily portable miniature copies of his artworks. This led to the object multiple of the 1960s, the most pertinent examples by Pop and Fluxus artists, including Andy Warhol’s silkscreens and Brillo boxes, Claes Oldenburg’s The Store sculptures, and George Maciunas’s Fluxkits.18

Introduction

5

Many of these artists in the 1960s perceived the art multiple to be more “democratic,” disseminated on their own terms. By bypassing traditional art institutions and selling art objects at lower prices than their gallery works, their art and ideas could be more accessible to more people.19 This idea worked in theory albeit often not in practice, with multiples typically only available for a limited time, since they usually lacked sustainable funding, production, and retail strategies.20 In addition, even if Warhol, Oldenburg, and Maciunas offered art multiples at a lower price, these objects were seldom physically or conceptually attainable to a large audience. Therefore, despite any romantic notions of democratic access, these multiples were usually only of interest to an insider art-world audience. Furthermore, these earlier projects also tended to critique and satirize everyday consumerism rather than co-opt it as a legitimate approach. What is more, decades later, art multiples’ scarcity has increased their value exponentially. Traditionally, the objects have repeatedly outgrown their original purpose, ending up in the upscale art market. Haring developed this subset of the art multiple into a new, previously unobserved art form—art merchandise—and more successfully achieved the populist goals of the art multiple of the 1960s.21 Instead of recontextualizing or appropriating the commodity into an art context, as DaDa, Fluxus, and Pop artists did, Haring brought art into everyday usage and established a more sustainable, long-term model of art merchandising. This is in part due to his historical context. In the 1980s, Haring benefited from a more mature consumer society, which provided more avenues to manufacture products en masse and had already primed an audience to consume. Compared to the 1960s, media outlets such as television (no longer a novelty) had become a staple of everyday life and allowed for an unprecedented circulation of information and culture. These circumstances allowed Haring to streamline the means to produce and distribute both his popularity and his art. Art merchandise as a product and strategy differs from the art multiple, as well as artwork souvenirs and reproductions marketed in a museum gift shop. Incorporating his highly readable images and designs, he manufactured these items solely through industrial methods, erasing his hand but not his style. And, unlike a souvenir produced anonymously and sold as a commemorative token, Haring deemed these items authored, artistic products, his work; they were not derivative. Through cheaper reproduction methods and techniques more closely aligned with commonplace consumerism, and offering everyday functionality such as wearability, his art merchandise was sold at a much lower price than what his art sold for in galleries, and was more accessible and useful to a wider audience. In short, Haring combined the art multiple with a deeper and more normalized understanding and appropriation of everyday consumer and popular culture. Compared to Haring, Oldenburg and Warhol may have represented everyday consumption and popular culture in their work, but they ultimately drew distinctions between art and the mass market, typically selling their art and their multiples as luxury objects to art collectors. Warhol, for instance, sold several art multiples in his lifetime, including silkscreens, shopping bags, and wallpaper, and branded found objects such as Campbell’s soup cans and Brillo boxes. These objects, however, were displayed and sold in galleries, such as in Warhol’s installation American Supermarket (1964) at the Bianchini Gallery in New York. Oldenburg’s The Store (1961) is a much closer model to the alternative, self-run space of Haring’s Pop Shop, though in the end, it had the same insular results as

6

Introduction

Warhol’s efforts. Oldenburg converted his studio to look like the small discount shops that surrounded him on the Lower East Side. For two months, he sold sculptures that emulated the cheap consumer products such as clothing, shoes, watches, and food that were sold in the neighborhood. Handmade and deformed, and covered with gloopy drips of paint and plaster, these objects may have resembled the commodities of the neighborhood, but they would never be mistaken for them.22 They were one-of-a-kind art objects that were bought, almost exclusively, by art-world insiders in a space that was partly funded by his gallery.23 Tellingly, Oldenburg did not attempt any advertising or explanation to attract a neighborhood audience.24 Therefore, any notion that The Store was meant for everybody—beyond the art world—was an “illusion” (in Oldenburg’s words).25 He never considered it to be a real store.26 Even if The Store was physically separated from a gallery or a museum, it was still very much an extension of it. Haring’s shop departed from the derivative approaches of Oldenburg and Warhol. It was the thing itself, an independently run brick-and-mortar location in SoHo selling mass-produced, functional consumer objects.27 His art became popular culture itself, rather than a representation of it, reaching an international audience over several years. Pop art may have provided conceptual access for a broader public through its adoption of everyday and popular subject matter, but Oldenburg and Warhol’s multiples, and their art more generally, did not transcend the art world or the economically privileged in terms of ownership or use. Especially now, their once relatively inexpensive art multiples have become sought-after art pieces, sold for millions of dollars. Oldenburg’s Yellow Girl Dress, for example, originally sold at his store for $249.99 and in 2008 was resold to Sotheby’s for $1.72 million.28 For all intents and purposes, Warhol and Oldenburg wanted to remain, firmly, artists, operating solely within the art market.29 Marking this difference, Haring distanced himself from the Pop art movement, saying that Pop was “not a good label to describe what I do.”30 Though, he also acknowledged the movement’s impact on his career, naming his store the “Pop” Shop. Unlike Warhol and Oldenburg, and more like Haring, the retail activities of Fluxus, as directed by George Maciunas, attempted to work in channels independent of the art world. Maciunas produced hundreds of multiples by Fluxus artists that he organized into boxes called “Fluxkits” and sold in the Fluxshop and Mail Order Mailhouse, established in 1964. In the vein of the “democratically” minded intention of the art multiple, he had hoped that these Fluxkits would realize his desire to spread Fluxus ideas to everyone and challenge the exclusive bourgeois idea of art and, more practically, help fund future Fluxus events and projects.31 Like Haring, Maciunas used the Fluxshop and its multiples to undermine traditional notions of art by incorporating various levels of interaction and engagement. On the whole, however, Maciunas’s project was financially inefficient, lacked investors, failed to make a profit, and could not last for very long.32 Moreover, most Fluxkits were sold to collectors, friends, or other artists—and, apparently, not a single item was sold during the first year that the store was open.33 Therefore, Maciunas’s intentions went unrealized, and similar to the Pop artists, his Fluxshop failed to have a significant impact outside art circles. Additionally, while Fluxus multiples were originally sold cheaply, they have since dramatically increased in value, widening the gap between art and accessibility that was meant to be blurred. Like the Pop multiples, due to short-term production and smaller editions, these multiples have now become scarce and expensive.34

Introduction

7

Advancing the lessons of the 1960s, Haring inserted his art into everyday mass consumption and adapted the art multiple to the new cultural context of the 1980s through a keen understanding of the wants, needs, and expectations of the public.35 In Haring’s words, It’s 1985! An Artist has to deal with its being 1985! You don’t communicate the same way you did 20 years ago, or 50. You can’t just stay in your studio and paint; that’s not the most effective way to communicate.36 And so, rather than appropriating mass imagery for display in a gallery, he appropriated existing consumer networks and pushed the already malleable defnition of the multiple into merchandise, achieving what his predecessors only evoked or aspired to: widespread accessibility of his ideas. Continuing to reach a large international audience even after his death, his art-merchandising model still delivers affordable and functional art objects in everyday contexts. It should be noted that Warhol’s influence on Haring extended well beyond his work from the 1960s due to Warhol’s continued presence in New York in the 1980s, and their friendship. In fact, once Warhol learned of the Pop Shop, he convinced Haring to ignore his critics and open the shop, effectively giving it his stamp of approval.37 Warhol also set an important precedent in the commercialization of his public image, becoming one of the first celebrity artists of the 20th century to successfully bridge the elitism of American “high” culture to popular culture at large. He did this by single-handedly absorbing the mechanisms of celebrity into the production of fine art. Following Warhol’s lead on several fronts, Haring also courted the spotlight, surrounded himself with celebrities, participated in popular commercial endeavors, and compulsively archived his life and career for posterity.38 As opposed to Haring, Warhol both welcomed and evaded the spotlight through a passive and detached persona, manipulating his celebrity in ironic and satirical ways. By contrast, Haring rarely took on the subject matter of his own celebrity in his art and frequently infused his work with a spirit of joy and sincerity. Regardless of these differences, Haring regularly cited Warhol as a direct inspiration and welcomed comparison between their bodies of work.39 As Haring put it, Warhol was “the precedent for the possibility of my kind of art.”40 In an art world that rejected overtly commercial art, Warhol gave Haring the confidence to proceed. Nonetheless, in the process, Haring’s common commercialism caused him to lose credibility to many in the art world.

Keith Haring’s Critics The critical reception of Haring in the 1980s generally followed two opposing trajectories: those who disavowed his career versus those who ardently supported and celebrated his work.41 Although Haring was greatly admired by a large public and his career has been more or less canonized in museum retrospectives, publications, and the art market since the early 2000s, select critics who disliked, disparaged, or ignored Haring’s career in the 1980s have shaped his legacy, preventing serious scholarly interest in his work up until relatively recently.42 Yet, compared to the art world of the 1980s at large, these negative accounts were in the minority, with only a relative few authors overtly voicing their opinions.

8

Introduction

Ivan Karp of the O.K. Harris Gallery called Haring’s work “ripened doodles” that “will not leave a resounding impact on the history of art,” representing an often unstated view that his work lacked substantive subject matter or lasting, conceptual rigor.43 Robert Hughes referred to Haring as a “disco decorator” and the “Peter Max of the subways.”44 Discussing the East Village scene with Haring in mind as the prime example, Hughes continued, What finds favor here is young, loud, except for its careerism, invincibly dumb . . . [their inflated market] makes them unusually vulnerable to fashion and prone to seize whatever eye-catching stylistic device they can, no matter how sterile it may be in the long run.45 In a satirical poem Hughes wrote for the New York Review of Books in March 1984, he listed “Julian Snorkel,” “Jean-Michel Basketcase,” and “Keith Boring,” among others, as members of a corrupt art scene full of greed, hype, pretension, and fakeness.46 Critic Donald Kuspit wrote that Haring’s art has “neither age nor wisdom nor survival, only colorful cavorting infantile fgures.”47 According to Kuspit, all of Haring’s fgures were empty, an “Arcadia of the eternally immature,” and his “unenlightened fascination with the body comes at the expense of self-aware identity.”48 A few critics of the 1980s regularly denigrated Haring and his peers of the East Village, associating them principally with commercialism and opportunism. Craig Owens, for example, designated the East Village and, therefore, Haring as a “cultureindustry outpost” and the “enfant garde,” a group that fed the ever-expanding art market and stood as an infantile simulacrum of the avant-garde from the 19th century.49 Hal Foster used a similar argument to criticize East Village artists’ use of graffiti. In his essay, “Between Modernism and the Media,” he argued that Jean-Michel Basquiat and Haring co-opted graffiti from a lower, racially disenfranchised class, exploiting this originally “non-commercial” art form for their own financial gain and success.50 Outside the brief commentary of these art critics, a few others in the New York artistic community also targeted Haring negatively.51 As his fame grew, individuals would erase and deface his work or openly criticize him. One street drawing on a mattress, reproduced in a newspaper, depicted a crude imitation of Haring’s crawling baby giving a blowjob to a gallery owner for $100,000. The mattress was displayed across the street from a party celebrating Haring’s new book, Art in Transit.52 At his opening at the Leo Castelli gallery, a small group of artists attempted to literally tar and feather him.53 Within the art world, the explicit negative criticism reached a head with the Pop Shop, since the shop stood, and continues to stand, as the epitome of what his critics disliked about him: his blatant engagement with common commerciality. The largest indicator of antipathy toward Haring, especially given his international fame in his lifetime, was the lack of critical attention given to his work in the 1980s: many prominent art critics and historians did not feel it was even worth acknowledgment.54 This did not mean they did not know who he was. The conception that Haring was a sellout was commonly held and often documented indirectly through secondhand, colloquial testimonies from Haring and his supporters, or re-reported offhand in the mainstream press.55 Haring felt that this omission was due to resentment in finding popularity with the general public first, rather than taking the conventional, acceptable route from art school, to small and then large galleries, and finally to museums and auction houses. While this rationalization may hold some weight, especially

Introduction

9

regarding jealous and struggling artist peers, the omission of Haring from art history stems from a larger framework of faulty conclusions about 1980s culture in general. Many writers have come to associate the 1980s—and by extension artists like Haring—with money and careerism. These factors were seen to threaten the integrity of the avant-garde, causing it to become complicit with commercialization to varying degrees.56 Isabelle Graw, in her book High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture, discusses the shift in acceptance of an artist in terms of the art market from the 1980s into the 1990s and 2000s. Graw argues that at the beginning of the 1990s, market success was disreputable for an artist’s career, “viewed as a rather conflicting and certainly dubious affair,” but in the years after, market success became more of an asset to an artist’s viability.57 To demonstrate the rooted suspicion of the market in the history of art, Graw cites philosopher and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Within the context of late 19th-century France, he wrote: “The artist can triumph on the symbolic terrain only to the extent that he loses on the economic one.”58 While apprehension continues to exist over overtly commercial or populist art, Graw argues that since the early 1990s, market and media success has increasingly generated prestige and respect for many artists. The shift from the inadequate institutional attention given to Haring’s work to the rise in appreciation by the late 1990s and early 2000s mirrors this change.59 In one of the first books that challenge the dominant critical discourse of art in the 1990s, Unpackaging Art of the 1980s, Alison Pearlman argues that the actual reception of some artists of the decade has been skewed toward the strong, and at times inaccurate, views of a vocal minority.60 Building on Irving Sandler’s Art of the Postmodern Era, Pearlman offers an alternative take, framing her discussion around the work of three sets of artists who stand for the movements Neo-Expressionism (Julian Schnabel and David Salle), Graffiti (Jean-Michel Basquiat and Keith Haring), and Simulation (Peter Halley and Jeff Koons), all of whom polarized supporters and critics in the 1980s. To study the uneven and negative treatment of these artists, Pearlman chronicles and analyzes writings by scholars, including Hal Foster, Craig Owens, Donald Kuspit, Thomas Lawson, Robert Hughes, Douglas Crimp, and Benjamin Buchloh. Their collective early writings in the 1980s typically took a polemical and theoretical approach and, because of this, often omit the aforementioned artists. Especially since Haring’s work at times shares characteristics with all three of these debated movements, the lack of critical attention given to his work was compounded threefold. These art critics have come to embody the authoritative versions of 1980s history, in part because of their outspoken manner, their ensuing posts and relationships in academia, and the canonization of these views through the publication and republication of their work.61 Because university systems have significantly reinforced these critical polemics and are the entry point for future scholars to learn about 1980s history, these few scholars have had an enduring and highly influential legacy.62 History has tended to disfavor all three groups of artists, all of whom Pearlman redeems in her writing by complicating their dismissal by these scholars and returning to an analysis of their artwork and an engagement within their historical context. She proposes that rather than attacking or reforming previous art movements—the governing mode of the artistic avant-garde in the 20th century—these artists uniquely responded to the new consumer and marketing culture of their contemporary moment.63 She concludes that for these artists, “Distinctions of cultural value did not disappear. They simply shifted grounds,” in that these artists contributed an “unprecedented

10

Introduction

analysis of marketing and consumption as a communication system” that has not been adequately recognized.64 Their detractors may have been accurate in connecting these artists’ work to mass culture, although missing the more sophisticated critical motivations and intentions involved in their engagement. The blanket aversion to the intermixing of art with consumer culture “blinded them to the very changes in this relationship that make this era of American art so distinctive and significant.”65 Therefore, the anticapitalist discourse that has come to define the 1980s is not in sync with the practices of the artists themselves and does not represent the full breadth of their reception at the time.66 In his analysis of the critical landscape of the 1980s, Scott Rothkopf also argues that these few critics have been selectively transmitted in academia. He writes: [T]he art criticism of the ’80s was quickly subsumed within a totalizing, if heterogeneous, discourse, only to become co-opted by legions of graduate students. . . . We swallowed whole an official “history” of “the ’80s” that wasn’t actually a history at all, but rather a selective corpus of mostly primary criticism canonized in anthologies such as Hal Foster’s The Anti-Aesthetic and Brian Wallis’s Art After Modernism.67 In contrast, many writers who supported East Village art did not enter academia or publish their collected works, choosing instead to remain art critics or change direction and pursue fne art, curatorial, or gallery careers. Much of their writing, in addition, tended to be more journalistic, less theoretical and intellectually ambitious, and, therefore, less appealing to an academic audience.68 And so, without an academic platform or impetus to republish or disseminate these alternate 1980s accounts, these narratives did not become part of the art historical canon, in effect creating a “somewhat lopsided historical record” of the 1980s.69 In Rothkopf’s words, “It became hard to see the forest through the theory.”70 Taking my cue from Pearlman and Rothkopf, I explore alternative approaches to the 1980s to reassess Haring’s contribution to art history by refocusing attention on his career through the lens of the Pop Shop. Utilizing consumer culture and media studies, as well as a more traditional art historical methodology, Haring’s merchandising proves to be a productive model to create identities and unify groups, attributes that can contribute to political change through activism. I also investigate the changing attitudes to commercial activities by Haring, his critics, and the art world at large. Space does not permit the same exhaustive and nuanced analysis as Pearlman, who comprehensively assesses the complicated landscape of art criticism of the 1980s. Instead, I build on the parts of Pearlman’s argument most relevant to my discussion of Haring to demonstrate and then critique the often-negative reactions of his common commercial work. Artists like Haring represented a new alignment with mass culture in the arts— a trend widespread among many artists in the 1980s but suppressed, opposed by, or misunderstood by many art critics. The art stars of the decade, including Haring, “aroused American art critics’ most explicit fear of the time: that art no longer opposed consumer culture.”71 The misplaced antipathy to this type of work was generally reinforced by the increase in mainstream news around artists’ careers, art auction results, and corporate materialism.72 Popular publications such as The New York Times, Vogue, Vanity Fair, the New York Post, and Rolling Stone magazine reported

Introduction

11

on trends and money in the East Village, creating a media frenzy with Haring as a central protagonist.73 The critical opposition to the East Village and to artists such as Haring was in many ways a reactive backlash to this publicity, rather than to the artists’ work itself.74 Haring was fully aware of this kind of attitude, acknowledging: The art criticism isn’t about the art. It’s about this other thing—about the hype and the way the work is marketed and how much it costs and how fast it happens and how long it’s going to be around. They’re not talking about the art but about the phenomenon—increasingly making the phenomenon the thing.75 These critics saw the increase of consumer culture in everyday life as the culprit for cultural stagnation in the arts, responsible for the loss of artistic standards and the conditions necessary for critical subversion.76 Critics impulsively dismissed any overtly commercial art as a symptom of the overall decline of culture, rather than a response or an extension.77 Again, the positions of these more polemical and negative critics were in the minority in the 1980s, though they have come to stand as the final word on the artists’ works—why?78 To a large degree, this version of 1980s’ history has been preferred, since it perpetuates the ingrained dialectics of the correct way to make art: resisting and critiquing commercialization, a rule that has governed art historical scholarship for decades.79 In part, this view stemmed from the deep-rooted ideas put forward by art critic Clement Greenberg and the ongoing influence of the scholars of the Frankfurt School, represented by critical theorists Theodore Adorno and Herbert Marcuse.80 While these two schools of thought diverge and even oppose each other in very significant ways, they have both come to similar conclusions on the foreboding effects of mass culture and its infringement on fine art.81 They consider commercialism to be a corrosive and superficial force that encourages complacency, to the detriment of society and the arts. These formative texts continue to place a pronounced emphasis on academia and so continue to create anxiety about art’s collusion with consumer culture. Their dominance is one reason why the more polemical, anticommercial scholarship of the 1980s has dominated academia as well, reinforcing these already entrenched stances. Commercialism, therefore, has been repudiated as a valid art strategy without considering its potential relevance or contributions to contemporary society. Along the same lines, scholars are also wary of art that incorporates populist strategies. Julian Stallabrass, in his 2013 essay, “Elite Art in an Age of Populism,” categorizes Haring’s art as populist and argues that street art was the populist phenomenon that preceded the spectacle populism of the 1990s and 2000s.82 Stallabrass defines populism as “an art of simple character, wide popular appeal, and an enthusiastic engagement with commercial mass culture delivered through branded artistic persona.”83 While this characterization of populist art is a suitable description of several aspects of Haring’s practice, Stallabrass then concludes that populist art “[lays] the ground for the erosion of elite culture,” associated with the rise of big business and branding in museums.84 Stallabrass is right to be wary of the negative effects of populism in art. Populist art can exploit, mislead, misinform, propose overly simplistic answers to complex problems and superficially satisfy desires. In his totalizing view against it, however, Stallabrass echoes some of same closed considerations and conclusions as those who spurn commercialism. On the contrary, populist goals and simple styles

12

Introduction

can incorporate and encourage other forms of depth, as well as respond to complex, historical contexts—such as opening access to an insular art world and challenging its often hypercritical and hypocritical views of capitalism. The Pop Shop’s common commercialism and populism may explain the lack of documentation on it thus far but by refusing to acknowledge its impact on Haring’s career, critics avoided a broader set of questions that he raised about art and economics. The Pop Shop lays bare the fact that fine art is a commodity beholden to a market—a market that is highly inaccessible to the majority of society. All art is implicated in commercialism, though within the art world, some transactions are perceived to be more tolerable, like those only obtainable by the very rich or those that operate discreetly. By expanding art to a different market, one available to a wider socioeconomic audience, Haring critiqued and counteracted the exclusivity of the art market by expanding and promoting access, although these intentions are often mischaracterized. Reexamined here, Haring’s deliberate, career-long engagement with popular culture and consumption has proven to be an innovative and highly influential artistic approach.

Notes 1. Peter Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground (Berkeley, CA: Last Gasp of San Francisco, 1985) 111. 2. The term “mass media” has lost currency in contemporary media studies but is still used to an extent in art history and writing. See Laurie Ouellette, “Introduction: Mapping Media Studies,” in The Media Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 2013) 2–3. The term was widely used in the 1980s (by Haring, as well as scholars and critics who have discussed his work) and so is used in this book, albeit sparingly. Generally, the term refers to print, broadcast, and outdoor media. When possible, I use more specific designations. 3. The New York Pop Shop remained open until 2005, and so I address its existence during Haring’s lifetime and its life thereafter as two similar, but separate, entities. Haring opened another Pop Shop in Tokyo in 1988, but this store was short-lived. 4. John Hull Mollenkopf and Manuel Castells, Dual City: Restructuring New York (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1991) 3. 5. See William Niskanen, Reaganomics: An Insider’s Account of the Policies and the People (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). 6. See Jeffrey Frieden, Global Capitalism (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006) 373; David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 1–2, 13–19, 29–31, 45–48, 88; and John H. Mollenkopf, New York City in the 1980s: A Social, Economic, and Political Atlas (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1993) 6, 43. 7. Joshua Freeman, Working Class New York: Life and Labor Since World War Two (New York: The New Press, 2000) 167; Sharon Zukin, Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982) 1–22. 8. See Isabel Sawhill, “Reaganomics in Retrospect: Lessons for a New Administration,” Challenge, vol. 32 (May/June 1989): 57–59 and Michael Yates, “The Great Inequality,” Monthly Review, vol. 63 (March 2012): 1–18. 9. Elizabeth Currid, The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art, and Music Drive New York City (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007) 66–86. 10. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. Financial records for the Pop Shop are lost, unavailable, or incomplete. 11. See Andrew Yarrow, “Keith Haring, Artist, Dies at 31, Career Began in Subway Graffiti,” The New York Times (February 17, 1990). The art market was only cited as a problem by art critics when an artist’s success was deemed overt and excessive—such as the financial success of Neo-Expressionist painting— since their artwork called attention to art’s function as a commodity. See Alison Pearlman,

Introduction

12. 13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24.

13

Unpackaging Art of the Eighties (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2003) 12. Any overt participation in the market was looked down upon, but participation in lower markets was arguably perceived to be worse, losing the symbolic, cultured associations of “high” art. For some of his inner debates on commercialism, see Keith Haring Journals (New York: Viking, 1996) 65, 158–159, and 188. The fundamental source of this period, Irving Sandler’s Art in the Postmodern Era, does not mention the Pop Shop. Sandler discusses Haring’s work in the streets and art more generally. Irving Sandler, Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s (New York: Harper Collins, 1996). The Downtown Book, a seminal book on the East Village scene, only mentions the Pop Shop in passing. Marvin Taylor, ed., The Downtown Book: New York Art Scene 1974–84 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006) 85. Also see John Walker, Art and Celebrity (Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2003); Douglas Crimp, AIDS Demographics (Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1990); Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, Benjamin Buchloh, and David Joselit, Art Since 1900: Modernism, Anti-modernism, Postmodernism (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2011); and Brian Wallis, Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation (New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1984). The Pop Shop is mentioned twice in the catalog’s timeline and in a reference to General Idea’s Boutique. In the exhibition, two small images of Haring in the Pop Shop and a Pop Shop bag are in a timeline display. Gianni Jetzer, et al., Brand New: Art & Commodity in the 1980s (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2018) 33, 37, and 76. For a discussion on the meaning of the art multiple, see Emily H. Davis Gallery, Mass Production: Artists’ Multiples & the Marketplace (Akron, OH: The University of Akron, 2006) 6 and Daniel Buchholz, ed., International Index of Multiples from Duchamp to the Present (Cologne, Germany: W. König, 1993) 13–18. See Harry Ruhe, Multiples, et cetera (Amsterdam: Tuja Books, 1991) for a discussion of different multiple categories. Artist Daniel Spoerri, Swiss artist and creator of Edition MAT (Multiplication d’art Transformable) in 1959, coined the term “multiples” in the late 1950s in regard to three-dimensional small objects reproduced in multiple. Gallery, Mass Production, 11. Ibid., 10. Esther Schipper considers the art multiple to be a “genre” like painting and sculpture. See Buchholz, International Index of Multiples, 11. See Glenn Constance, The Great American Pop Store: Multiples of the Sixties (Santa Monica, CA: Smart Art Press, 1997) 7–13 and Oceane Delleaux, “The Artist’s Multiple,” in One for Me and One to Share: Artists’ Multiples and Edition, ed. by Gregory Elgstrand and Dave Dyment (Toronto, Ontario: YYZ Books, 2012) 91–93. Another 1960s art movement that is relevant, but not discussed here, is conceptual art’s investigations of alternate distribution. See Alexander Alberro, Conceptual Art and the Politics of Publicity (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003) and Jeffrey Deitch, “The Public Has a Right to Art,” in Keith Haring (New York: Rizzoli, 2008) 17. Dyment and Elgstrand, One for Me, 15. Ibid., 15. Jonathan Shaughnessy is perhaps the first and only scholar to contextualize the mass production of Haring’s objects within the history of the multiple, but he uses the term “multiple,” not “art merchandise,” and does not register or elaborate on the differences between them. Jonathan Shaughnessy, “The Multiple and the Mainstream,” in One for Me, 170–180. An image of Haring’s merchandise appears in Ruhe, Multiples, et cetera, 79, contextualized as art multiples. However, there is no discussion of Haring in the text, which focuses on Fluxus. See Cécile Whiting, A Taste for Pop: Pop Art, Gender, and Consumer Culture (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 26–27 and Claes Oldenburg, Store Days: Documents from the Store (New York: Something Else Press, 1967) 150. The Store was originally meant to be installed in a museum or a collector’s home. The Green Gallery also took a portion of its profits and re-exhibited items from the store within a year. Ibid., 150. Benjamin Buchloh, “Three Conversations in 1985: Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Robert Morris,” October, vol. 70 (Autumn 1994): 36.

14

Introduction

25. Lawrence Alloway, Modern Dreams: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Pop (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988) 96. 26. Buchloh, “Three Conversations,” 36. 27. Haring recognized Oldenburg’s store in relation to his Pop Shop but believed Oldenburg created “individual works of art.” Alan Jones, “Keith Haring Art or Industry,” NY Talk (June 1986): 45. Oldenburg did create industrially produced (nonfunctional) multiples after The Store, but not at a quantity comparable to Haring’s. His later multiples are also nonfunctional. See Claes Oldenburg and Hayward Gallery, Claes Oldenburg: The Multiples Store (London: The South Bank Centre, 1996) 7. 28. See Constance, The Great American Pop Store, 88 and Sotheby’s, Lot 29, May 14, 2008, www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2008/contemporary-art-evening-auctionn08441/lot.29.html, accessed July 6, 2016. 29. Walker, Art and Celebrity, 27. 30. “Evening Magazine,” KHA-0564, 9 minutes 4 seconds, KHF Online Video Archive. 31. Thomas Kellein, “Fluxus Consumption: A Strange form of Happiness,” in Shopping, a Century of Art and Consumer Culture, ed. by Christoph Grunenberg and Max Hollein (Liverpool: Tate Gallery, 2002) 191–192. 32. Ibid., 190. 33. Owen Smith, “Fluxus: A Brief History and Other Fictions,” in In the Spirit of Fluxus, ed. by Elizabeth Armstrong (Minneapolis, MN: Walker Art Center, 1993) 33. 34. A Fluxkit was auctioned at Christie’s in 2011 for $104,500. See Christie’s, Lot 199, September 21, 2011, www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/george-maciunas-fluxkit-5478019-details. aspx, accessed December 13, 2016. 35. Paula Span, “Graffiti’s Scrawl of Success, Drawing for Millions,” Washington Post (December 30, 1985): D1. 36. Ibid. 37. David Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” Rolling Stone (August 10, 1989): 64. 38. The size of Warhol’s archive is legendary. He began collecting materials for his personal archive in 1974, depositing them in over 600 boxes that he called “time capsules.” 39. Jason Rubell, “Keith Haring: The Last Interview,” Arts Magazine (September 1990): 55. 40. Quoted in Alexandra Kolossa, Keith Haring 1958–1990 A Life for Art (Los Angeles, CA: Taschen, 2009) 51–54. 41. The main supporters of Haring in the 1980s included Francesca Alinovi, Peter Belsito, Edit DeAk, Diego Cortez, Jeffrey Deitch, Carlos McCormick, Nicolas Moufarrege, Rene Ricard, Walter Robinson, and David Shapiro. Most of these authors’ contributions are articles or monographic exhibition essays published after Haring’s death. For a select few positive articles written during the 1980s, see Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground; Diego Cortez and Edit DeAk, “Baby Talk,” Flash Art, no. 107 (May 1982); Jeffrey Deitch, Keith Haring: Paintings, Drawings and a Vellum (Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum, 1986); Nicolas Moufarrege, “Lightning Strikes (Not Once But Twice): An Interview with Graffiti Artists,” Arts, vol. 57, no. 3 (November 1982); Robert PincusWitten, Jeffrey Deitch, and David Shapiro, Keith Haring (New York: Tony Shafrazi Gallery, 1982); Rene Ricard, “The Radiant Child,” Artforum (December 1981); and Walter Robinson and Carlo McCornmick, “Slouching Toward Avenue D,” Art in America (Summer 1984). Those who generally did not support Haring’s career in the 1980s included Robert Hughes, Hal Foster, Hilton Kramer, Donald Kuspit, Kay Larson, and Craig Owens. Benjamin Buchloh and Douglas Crimp did not support Haring’s career through omission. A common textbook of 20th-century art history written by some of these scholars omits Haring. Art Since 1900, op. cit. Haring noted several times in interviews and in journals that The Museum of Modern Art never showed or acquired his work. Keith Haring Journals, 207–208. He also lamented the fact that museums, like the Tate Museum, sold his work in their gift shops but did not show his work in their galleries (175). The bourgeois and the “critical art world” of dealers, museum professionals, and critics were not receptive to his work (176, 184, and 223).

Introduction

15

42. The value of Haring’s work has steadily increased, regularly reaching six and seven figures. Museums began to feature Haring’s work in the late 1990s, and he has had several retrospectives since then. In chronological order, some major museum exhibitions and publications on Haring after his death: Barry Blinderman, ed., Keith Haring: Future Primeval (New York: Abbeville Press, 1991); Bruce D. Kurtz, ed., Keith Haring, Andy Warhol, and Walt Disney (New York: Prestel, 1992); Germano Celant, ed., Keith Haring (Milan, Italy: Charta, 1994); Elisabeth Sussman, ed., Keith Haring (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1997); Götz Adriani, Ralph Melcher, and Museum für Neue Kunst, Keith Haring: Heaven and Hell (New York: D.A.P. Distributed Art Publishers, 2001); Marc Gundel, Keith Haring: Short Messages (New York: Prestel, 2002); Pearlman, Unpackaging, 2003; Keith Haring: Journey of the Radiant Baby (Piermont, NY: Bunker Hill Publishing, 2006); Beate Reifenscheid ed., Keith Haring: Life as a Drawing (New York: Prestel, 2007); Jeffrey Deitch, Suzanne Geiss, and Julia Gruen, eds, Keith Haring (New York: Rizzoli, 2008); Elisabeth Sussman, Keith Haring (New York: Skarstedt Gallery, 2008); Raphaela Platow, et. al. Keith Haring, 1978–82 (Cincinnati, OH: Contemporary Arts Center, 2010); Dieter Buchhart, ed., Keith Haring: The Political Line (New York: Prestel, 2014); Gianni Mercurio, Keith Haring: About Art (Florence, Italy: Gamm, Giunti, 2017); and Darren Pih, ed., Keith Haring (London: Tate, 2019). In addition to this book, another one of the first academic books published on Haring is Ricardo Montez, Keith Haring’s Line: Race and the Performance of Desire (New York: Duke University Press, 2020). 43. Span, “Graffiti’s Scrawl of Success,” D1. 44. Robert Hughes, “Careerism and Hype Amidst the Image Haze,” Time (June 17, 1985): 79. Also see Robert Hughes, “Art and Money,” The New Art Examiner (October and November 1984) and “On Art and Money,” The New York Review of Books (December 6, 1984): 20. In 1988, Haring countered, calling Hughes an “asshole” and writing “Robert Who Cares” in Keith Haring Journals, 207. In his interview for Rolling Stone, David Sheff asked Haring directly about Hughes’s comparison. Haring said, The Peter Max thing is a way of saying that it may be commercially interesting and even reflective of the time, but it has no value beyond that. . . . It’s frightening how much power critics and curators have . . . [the] . . . power to write you out of history . . . Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 64 45. Hughes, “Careerism and Hype,” 79. 46. Robert Hughes (byline Junius Secundus), “The SoHoiad: Or, the Masque of Art: A Satire in Heroic Couplets Drawn from Life,” New York Review of Books (March 29, 1984): 17–18. 47. Donald Kuspit, “Of the Immature, by the Immature, for the Immature: Keith Haring and Cindy Sherman,” Art New England, 19 (December 1997/January 1998): 13. 48. Ibid., 13. Also see Donald Kuspit, “Keith Haring,” Artforum (February 24, 1986): 102–103. 49. Craig Owens, “Commentary: The Problem with Puerilism,” Art in America, vol. 72, no. 6 (Summer 1984): 162. 50. See Hal Foster, “Between Modernism and the Media,” in Recordings: Art, Spectacle, Cultural Politics (Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1985) 34–35 and Pearlman, Unpackaging, 18. Dan Cameron took a similar stance as Foster on the East Village in 1984, discussing the privileged artists who exploited a lower-class neighborhood for their fame. Dan Cameron, “East Village USA,” in Neo-York: Report on a Phenomenon, ed. by Phyllis Plous, Mark Looker, and Carlo McCormick (Santa Barbara, CA: University Art Museum, 1984) 10–13. For a defense, see John Gruen, Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991) 98. 51. Haring encountered negativity from some graffiti writers and other artists, but those who disliked him were in the minority, similar to the critical perspective of his work. Overall, he was widely admired and loved. 52. “Gentrification” (December 10, 1984) 14, KHF Archives, 1984 press box.

16

Introduction

53. Stephen Hager, Art After Midnight: The East Village Scene (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986) 129. Hager went on to say, Their vehemence seemed strangely misplaced. Haring, the most compassionate of the artists who had emerged from the club scene, had devoted considerable time and money to political causes, had supported the careers of many artists around him, and had brought a new populist fervor to the art world. (129–131) 54. Op. cit. 55. Haring said, “To the people that attack me for selling out, I always answer them, ‘What did they think the alternative was?’” in Tim Higgins, “Selling, Not a Sell Out Keith Haring Draws a Line Between Himself and The Art World,” The Morning Call (September 18, 1987). Michael Small wrote, Dubbed “the Peter Max of the subways” by art critic Robert Hughes, Keith has been snubbed by culture mavens who feel his work lacks high seriousness. Keith’s other critics come from an unexpected camp: avant-garde New York artists accuse him of selling out for fame and money. Michael Small, “Drawing on Walls, Clothes, and Subways, Keith Haring Earns Favor With Art Lovers High and Low,” People Magazine, vol. 20, no. 23 (December 5, 1983)

56.

57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

Another reporter wrote, “The public loved the souvenirs; the critics cried ‘sellout.’” “Keith Haring, Shop Art,” The Economist (July 24, 1997). Also see Yarrow, “Keith Haring, Artist, Dies at 31.” See Donald Kuspit, “Sincere Criticism: Decadence of the 80s,” Arts (November 1990): 62; Hilton Kramer, “A Note on the New Criterion,” New Criterion (September 1982); 1–2 and “Modernism and its enemies,” New Criterion (March 1986): 4, 6–7; and Pearlman, Unpackaging, 16. For a critical account of Haring’s commercial practices as opportunist, see Kay Larson’s articles, “Masters of Hype,” New York (November 19, 1986): 100 and “Love or Money,” New York (June 23, 1986): 65–66. For a review of art theory and criticism of the 1970s and 1980s, see Sandler’s chapter “Postmodernist Art Theory,” in Art of the Postmodern Era. Sandler explains the rise of the New Art Association in 1970, a group of critics and scholars who focused on the use of critical theory, as well as leftist and sociological approaches. Scholars such as Douglas Crimp, Craig Owens, Benjamin Buchloh, and the October group tended to favor conceptual and photographic approaches and were typically at odds with the conservative formalists of the 1980s, including Hilton Kramer and David Bourbon—whose discourse stemmed from the mid-20th-century seminal writings of Clement Greenberg. Isabelle Graw, High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture (New York: Sternberg Press, 2009) 41. Ibid., 41. Quoted from Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996) 83. Op. cit. Pearlman, Unpackaging, 19. Ibid., 1–31. Ibid., 6. Ibid., 30. Ibid., 152–153. Also see 30. Graw, High Price, 2. Pearlman, Unpackaging, 2. Scott Rothkopf, “Other Voices: Scott Rothkopf Four Critical Vignettes,” Artforum International, vol. 41, no. 7 (March 2003): 43+. Pearlman, Unpackaging, 6. Rothkopf, “Other Voices,” 43. Ibid., 43. Pearlman, Unpackaging, 9.

Introduction

17

72. Ibid., 19 and 23–25 and Lisbet Nilson, “Making It Neo,” ARTnews, vol. 82 (September 1983): 62–70. 73. Pearlman, Unpackaging, 17. 74. Ibid., 19 and 24. 75. Nilson, “Making It Neo,” 68. 76. Pearlman, Unpackaging, 152. 77. Ibid., 152. 78. Ibid., 2–9. 79. Ibid., 10 and 12. Also see Donald Kuspit, The Cult of the Avant-garde Artist (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1993), Suzi Gablik, Has Modernism Failed (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1984), Hilton Kramer, “The Age of the Avant-Garde,” Commentary (October 1972); and Robert Hughes, Nothing If Not Critical (New York: Penguin Books, 1992), and “The Rise of Andy Warhol,” in Art After Modernism. Although groups of 1980s critics held opposing arguments on many subjects, the majority condemned commercialism. See Pearlman, Unpackaging, 14 and Thomas Lawson, “Last Exit: Painting,” in Art after Modernism, 153–154 and 159. Also see Kramer’s articles from the New Criterion, op. cit. 80. See Deborah Cook, The Culture Industry Revisited (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996) 90–91. 81. Pearlman, Unpackaging, 27–28. Also see Clement Greenberg, “Avant Garde and Kitsch,” in Art and Culture, Critical Essays (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1961); Max Horkeimer and Theodor Adorno, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” in Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1994); and Cook, The Culture Industry Revisited, 90–91. Pop art was also heavily resisted in its time for its associations with everyday commercialism. See Paul Taylor, Post-Pop Art (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989) 13–14; Christin Mamiya, Pop Art and Consumer Culture: American Super Market (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1992) 150–151; Max Kozloff, “Pop’ Culture, Metaphysical Disgust, and the New Vulgarians,” Art International, vol. 6, no. 2 (March 1962): 36; and Harold Rosenberg, “The Art World: Marilyn Mondrian,” The New Yorker, vol. 8 (November 1969): 167. 82. Julian Stallabrass, “Elite Art in an Age of Populism,” in Contemporary Art: 1989 to the Present, ed. by Alexander Dumbadza and Suzanne Hudson (Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, 2013) 43. 83. Ibid., 42. “Populism” as a term has been used in a variety of contexts, most often in politics with negative connotations. Rather than referring to politics, I generally use the term to describe artistic practices that attempt to appeal to and engage with a general audience who are generally excluded financially from the high-end art market and conceptually from theoretical discourse. 84. Ibid., 43–44.

1

Hitting the Streets Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

“The public needs art, and it is the responsibility of a “self-proclaimed artist” to realize the public needs art, and not to make bourgeois art for a few and ignore the masses. Art is for everybody. To think that they—the public—do not appreciate art because they don’t understand it, and to continue to make art that they don’t understand and therefore become alienated from, may mean that the artist is the one who doesn’t understand or appreciate art and is thriving in this “self-proclaimed knowledge of art” that is actually bullshit.” —Keith Haring, 19781

In 1978, one year after moving to New York City and enrolling at the School of Visual Arts, Keith Haring wrote this journal entry, already thinking about the disconnect between fine art and the public. As a young adult, Haring had encountered a variety of ideas that made him determined to become a fine artist, but that also made him question the art world, finding it to be closed and high-minded. Once he arrived in New York, he tried to pinpoint what being an artist meant to him, experimenting with conceptual videos, collages pasted on street posts, immersive installations, and chalk drawings in subway stations. At first glance, Haring’s early experiences might appear to have nothing in common with a store that sells T-shirts. On closer inspection, they each contributed toward the ultimate manifestation of the Pop Shop and shaped Haring’s populist philosophy, as well as his complicated ambivalence of commercialism. As a teenager, Haring was introduced to populist concepts through the Jesus Freaks, the artist Robert Henri, and the band the Grateful Dead—influences he often cited in interviews and in his journals. When he moved to New York, his early work at the School of Visual Arts helped him learn the mechanics behind mass communication and display and how to interconnect his image and personality with his work. His subsequent street work in New York taught him the importance of a public audience and helped him to establish his signature style, as well as nurtured his skills as a selfpromoter. These early activities were formative influences on Haring’s Pop Shop and engagement with everyday commercialism, along with his pursuit of inclusiveness in art.2

Jesus Freaks, Robert Henri, and the Grateful Dead At age 13, Haring became involved with the radical, left-leaning Jesus Movement of the 1970s, whose followers were nicknamed the Jesus Freaks.3 Following Jesus’s

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

19

teachings of universal love and peace, a great deal of the Jesus Freaks’ purpose was to provide relief for the poor and to oppose unchecked institutional materialism and corruption.4 Distrustful of authority and resolutely anti-fundamentalist, they aimed to make their organization less elitist and hierarchical and welcomed anyone, irrespective of background or education.5 Mainly populated by a younger generation of hippies and ex-drug addicts who sought a continuation of 1960s’ counterculture, the movement took on a purposefully populist approach to Christianity and adopted vernacular language such as “dig it” and “groovy.”6 They aimed to attract a large following, with straightforward goals and beliefs that have been described as superficial and unsophisticated, judgments that have also been imposed on Haring’s work.7 The Jesus Freaks propagated and funded their ideas by selling inexpensive promotional materials: buttons, bumper stickers, and clothing, printed with their slogan, like “high on Jesus” and “If you’re saved and you know it, clap your hands,” circulated on their merchandise as a tactic to reinforce community identification and to fund the movement.8 When Haring was an adolescent growing up in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, he described himself as a “Jesus Person” and recounted that his parents “were frightened because I was obsessive with it. I was considered a freak—a Jesus freak.”9 While his direct interaction with the movement ended in his late teens, its philosophies and strategies remained with him, “stuck in his head.”10 Haring endeavored to invite a broader public into the exclusive and esoteric contemporary art world, in much the same way that the Jesus Freaks attracted newcomers by countering the authority of organized religion, as well as governmental and corporate institutions. In addition, his overt critique of religion spanned his entire career, evident in the Christian imagery he relied on and duplicated across multiple media. Crosses were a favorite. Beginning in 1980, he surrounded them with scenes of death and conflict, a symbol of clerical corruption.11 He said, “Religion can often be perverted, used for the wrong reasons. . . . [D]octrine has been used for some people to attain things, to control groups of people.”12 The Jesus Freaks also help explain Haring’s attitude against money and material things. In his work, he regularly depicted corruption caused by money, including dollar signs on televisions, hovering over dead figures, or overtaking a person’s insides (Figure 1.1). He also criticized the art market as “one of the most dangerous, parasitic, corrupt organizations in the world, next to the Roman Catholic Church or the Justice system in the U.S.,” opting instead at the start of his career to show his art in the street and organize his own shows in alternative spaces without dealer representation.13 To afford to create art full time, however, Haring eventually joined the Tony Shafrazi Gallery in 1982. But stemming from his inner (Jesus Freak) guilt, he continued to find alternate ways to spread his work to more people. Often noted for his generosity, he did many charitable events and art projects for free and spent much of his earnings on friends.14 He also invested in popular commercial activities, like art merchandising, in line with Jesus Freaks tactics. He was, nonetheless, fully aware that his intentions were easily misinterpreted. As he contemplated his rise, he explained, My introduction into the commercial side of things has been totally misunderstood and misrepresented, especially by art critics. . . . People do not understand that there could possibly be any other motivation to do something that reaches a lot of people or to communicate in a different new way, a new medium or technique.15

20

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

Figure 1.1 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1982. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

Haring’s populism and antimaterialism were also heavily influenced by the artist Robert Henri and his book The Art Spirit (1923), a book that “changed his life completely.”16 He cited it as the reason for leaving the Ivy School of Professional Art in Pittsburgh in 1977 after only six months, a school that taught commercial art skills. Calling the school “terrible,” Haring decided that he wanted to become a fine artist instead.17 Henri, also a New York artist, is well known for his early-20th-century portrait and genre paintings, his active role in the Ashcan School of American Realism, and as the organizer of the Eight, a group of Ashcan artists who protested the restrictive exhibition practices of the National Academy of Design by staging their own exhibitions.18 After encountering socialist ideas in late-19th-century French art, Henri began to paint scenes of everyday life, such as portraits of the lower class—a radical subject matter in American painting at the time.19 His contemporaries saw this work as informed and influenced by his left-leaning political views of liberalism and institutional corruption, views acquired by Haring.20 Widely known for his talent as a teacher, Henri was regarded in the early 20th century as a huge influence in American art, inspiring a younger generation of artists who felt restrained by the art academy.21 The Art Spirit is based on a series of lectures Henri gave at the Art Students League of New York from 1915 to 1927, where his most prominent advice is to follow one’s

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

21

own passion and artistic talent. It mentions and derides commercialism in the following terms: “art study should not be directed towards a commercial end. Educational institutions should assist the student and the public to a better understanding of the meaning of the word ‘art’ and the need of study and individual development.”22 And: “in a commercial world there are thousands of lives wasted doing things not worth doing. Human spirit is sacrificed.”23 Henri clearly saw art as a salve for capitalism. Yet he did not aim to sever art from the world at large but to imbue it with a critical and social purpose. The Ashcan School, for example, depicted urban life without idealization to challenge accepted conventions of the American art academy and to elevate everyday life to the status of art—in Henri’s words, “art for life’s sake,” rather than “art for art’s sake.”24 Above all, Henri emphasized creative independence and individual artistic expression. More than 60 years later, these ideas fostered Haring’s aversion to commercial work for hire and shaped his desire to pursue his own voice and passion as a fine artist. He specifically recited Henri’s philosophy in one early interview, saying, “[A]rt schools are totally useless and they should be used as a service to you instead of letting the art school use you.”25 Henri also, to a lesser degree, promoted a populist approach in art. The very first sentence of his book states, “Art when really understood is the province of every human being.”26 To Henri, art is a necessary and important part of everyday life, and to help enact this, the artist has a responsibility to share and explore their gift.27 Haring believed that these lessons could be adapted to his contemporary environment, which was an environment that at times also reinforced these ideas, such as the novel strategies used by musicians Haring venerated. A self-professed “Dead Head,” Haring went on a road trip in 1977 to follow the Grateful Dead, bringing the Henri book as “his bible.”28 The Grateful Dead believed that the best way to promote themselves and connect with their fans was to give their music away for free and allow unauthorized copies of records. They also offered thousands of free posters and stickers as giveaways and handled their own ticket sales.29 Influenced by the rock band’s modus operandi, Haring self-funded many free giveaways during his career and pursued projects—like the Pop Shop—independently. The band also inspired him to design and produce his first merchandising to help fund his 1977 road trip: two different T-shirts to sell to fans. One pictured the Grateful Dead, their signature skull emblem with a lightning bolt through it, and the other showed Richard Nixon sniffing marijuana.30 Together, the Jesus Freak movement, Robert Henri, and the Grateful Dead contributed to Haring’s philosophy and attitudes toward populism and commercialism— habitually acting as the voice in his head, telling him that widespread reach was a worthy goal and the pursuit of financial success was not. Because of this, Haring convinced himself that he was not commercial, or at least not in the bad sense of “selling out,” a separation he insisted upon even on his deathbed.31 To him, primed by Henri’s philosophy in self-cultivation and expression, he believed that commercialism meant creating designs or objects for others at the expense of authorship and creativity. These ideas were then hardened by his encounters with the art world’s distrust and disparagement over overt, everyday commercialism in art.32 Haring was commercial, just like any artist who sells their work, but he differed in that he sold his work across multiple markets. Due to this double standard, it is no wonder that Haring distanced himself from the term and its cultural implications for his entire life.

22

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

School of Visual Arts At the School of Visual Arts (SVA) from 1978 to 1979, Haring was described by his classmate Kenny Scharf as “incredibly directed” and as a person who “took advantage of just everything he could.”33 Haring worked nonstop and widely publicized his student shows by posting hundreds of xeroxed advertisements all over the campus. Haring’s whirlwind of activity got him noticed. It also caused animosity from his peers, as he recognized: “I was already stepping on some people’s toes, and making some people jealous, because I was starting to be too active and doing too much.”34 Scharf agreed, “A lot of people were really appalled by Keith Haring.”35 In school, Haring was put off by oil painting, since he felt that oil and canvas’s long and loaded history inhibited his experimentation.36 Instead, he turned to video and then later painted or drew on cheap materials like vinyl, tarp, or paper. Scholars have charted the influence of semiotic theory on Haring’s early work, learned at the SVA, in which he broke down language through poems that he then performed on stage and in video.37 During this time, Haring also used video to construct his own image, while learning the technologies and strategies behind broadcast media. As part of one of the first generations raised on television, he understood its pervasive presence. Before the personal computer and Internet, television was the primary device used by a mass audience to consume information, drastically changing how society could be shaped, disseminated, and controlled. Due to these factors, Haring believed that video was a medium “capable of reaching higher levels of communication—more involved than painting or sculpture.”38 Analogous to television, Haring thought video could be used to “require the participation and individual interpretation of the viewer.”39 To this end, Haring addressed the camera face on in his work, much like a television news anchor addressing an unseen audience, centralizing his image. This process taught Haring how to communicate directly to an audience that had become more accustomed to screens than canvases and, subsequently, how to build his public presence. In his early videos made while at the SVA, like He Said I Have a Dream (1978–80), Lick Fat Boys (1979), Painting Myself into a Corner (1979), and Machine (1980), Haring is the only actor. In He Said I Have a Dream and Lick Fat Boys, he even doubles and reflects multiple versions of himself with screens and mirrors to compound the effect of his presence. In another series, “concerned exclusively with sex,” Haring filmed close-up body shots of his penis and his buttocks, works described by Keith Sonnier as “the eye of Narcissus.”40 Haring’s arrival in New York coincided with the self-realization and exploration of his gayness. He spent “90 percent of [his] time being totally obsessed with sex,” and his work was entirely phallic, filled with repetitive patterns of cartoon penises and nondescript figures in explicit sexual acts.41 Turning the video camera onto himself and his sexuality demonstrated Haring’s early preoccupation with his own identity and inaugurated his career-long self-mythologizing, repeating his image until it became synonymous with his art. As early as 1980 in an assignment to create a personal mythology essay for his semiotics class, he repeated his photographic image throughout a few pages of typed text that describe concepts of the self (Figure 1.2). These early acts of self-promotion were followed by years of Haring’s conspicuous and performative presence in the making and distribution of his work, causing him to become a recognizable public figure. His intense efforts in this arena has meant that his celebrity—his public image—is bound up with the significance and understanding of his art.

Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

Figure 1.2 Keith Haring, two pages from A Personal Mythology, An Essay: For Semiotics Class (SVA), 1980. Collage, 11″ × 8.5″.

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising 23

24

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

Several video artists from the late 1960s and 1970s provide important precedents for Haring’s self-presentation in his video work, including Lynda Benglis, Vito Acconci, Paul McCarthy, Dennis Oppenheim, Bruce Nauman, Joan Jonas, Dan Graham, and Hannah Wilke.42 Scholars have discussed these artists in relation to the materiality of video, to representation via new technology and performance, as well as issues of temporality, simultaneity, and feedback.43 Haring’s use of video diverges from these practices in that he experimented with the medium in order to understand language and the tools of broadcast media, in addition to the formation of his own public image. In this way, Haring’s video practice relates best to Warhol’s films and videos. In his article, “The Producer as Author,” David James charts the shift of Warhol’s films from the 1960s to the late 1980s. The evolution of Warhol’s film and video career to an extent mirrors Haring’s relationship to video—beginning in a fairly meta, mediumreflexive, and conceptual mode in his early films and then ending with a more overtly commercial and self-promotional approach in later ones.44 Warhol was fascinated by films’ relationship to popular movies and, like Haring, operated simultaneously in both fine art and the popular spheres, intertwining the two. As his films became more mainstream by the early 1970s, Warhol’s role progressively shifted from “operator of a camera” to the “operator of an industry,” at times only becoming a celebrity name attached to the final product.45 James concludes that by the end, Warhol used film to increase his brand image to secure public attention.46 In fact, Warhol went on to produce and star in television shows such as Andy Warhol’s Fashion on Manhattan Cable (1979–80), Andy Warhol’s TV on the Madison Square Garden Network (1983–84), and Andy Warhol’s Fifteen Minutes on MTV (1985–87).47 He increasingly focused his attention toward commercial activities and a larger mass audience, similar to the progression of Haring’s career.48 Aside from Haring’s investigation of his own image, he also used video to investigate and critique the cultural effects of television. He not only valued the communicative power of the new medium but was also wary of its power to manipulate. For example, in his video Machine, Haring expresses anxiety about the new machine age’s capacity to control and turn viewers into passive consumers.49 Cropped up close to his lipstick-painted mouth for the duration of the film, Haring recites a jerky, mechanical back-and-forth conversation between a man and a woman, introducing each statement with “he said” and “she said” for five minutes: “You HAVE to think about it, he said, I’m going to just sit and wait, she said, machines do these things you don’t need people anymore, he said, what happens to the people? she said.” The narrative positions the man’s naive hope in technology against the woman’s skepticism.50 Haring said, he wanted to present the different misconceptions that “people have about the future,” expressing the nonsensical statements in a machine-like voice, perhaps to show the inescapable relationship one has with technology. Machine was originally shown on a television set placed on the sidewalk outside the SVA, demonstrating that as far back as art school, Haring sought out audiences who otherwise may never have encountered his work. In choosing this format—a screen, not a projection—Haring also emphasized the mechanism of the television: since the screen framed his mouth, it was as if the television itself spoke directly to the viewer. The self-reflexive conversation presented on the screen, a form of technology, ironically pointed to the delusion of technology’s utopian promise and its manipulative potential.51 A connection between machines and art

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

25

was famously perpetuated by Warhol, who sardonically said he “want[ed] to be a machine” and that “everyone should be a machine” in an age in which everyone “thinks alike . . . looks alike and acts alike.”52 Perhaps in homage, Haring titled his work Machine and then took on the machine’s voice as a warning: society is mechanized to the point that everyday conversation is unnatural and calculated; machines have replaced human interaction. Thus, Haring portrayed technology as a potential threat to society, and art as an antidote, in line with the lessons he learned from Robert Henri.53 The theme of corruptible power and dominance over the weak through technology more generally is pervasive in Haring’s work and writings.54 He wrote, “The artist of this time is creating under a constant realization that he is being pursued by the computers. We are threatened. Our existence, our individuality, our creativity, our lives are threatened by this coming machine aesthetic.”55 He also wrote later in Flash Art, that we live in a world increasingly dominated by purely rational thought and money-motivated action. The rise of technology has necessitated a return to ritual. Computers and word processors operate only in the world of numbers and rationality. The human experience is basically irrational.56 Stemming from Henri’s lessons, Haring felt it was the artist’s responsibility to preserve creativity and original thought, especially since he believed machines encouraged submission. Television had accumulated great cultural and political power in the 1980s, a power that Haring thought should be checked. Since the 1960s, a belief in the negative effects of technology had become a common concern. In 1971, sociologist Barbara Hargrove explained, There is a growing awareness in modern society that the basic assumptions of technical progress and scientific knowledge may be leading, not to Utopia, but to a loss of humanity if not total destruction . . . we are caught in an ever-descending spiral of our own making from which there is no escape.57 With the rise and access to video technology in the 1970s, artists could translate these concerns into their own work on the screen. Several, like Haring, were alarmed over the potential control politicians and advertisers could have on a large audience through television.58 Richard Serra and Carlota Fay Schoolman’s video work Television Delivers People (1973) features scrolling text to elevator music with phrases they quoted from various academic papers, such as “Television delivers people to an advertiser,” “The viewer pays for the privilege of having himself sold,” and “The new media state is predicated on media control.”59 The warnings are out of sync with the pleasant, pacifying elevator music, as if to covertly alert the viewer through silent text or to mimic the act of watching television, a mollifying experience that at the same time surreptitiously brainwashes its subjects. Aired late at night as a one-time commercial on a station in Amarillo, Texas, the video presented a tautological take on the controlling effects of television, using the medium against itself. By the end of the 1970s, anxiety over the influence of technology like television was exacerbated by the centralization of media and news outlets under the control of a small number of firms, led by wealthy and politically connected individuals.60

26 Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising This created an unprecedented amount of power over the content and distribution of information to a broad public, especially in New York. Conversely, New York was also one of the first major cities in the 1980s to have cable television, which provided access to several grassroots media outlets and groups (like artists) to control their own electronic channels of communication and to challenge the hegemonic forms that the media had taken.61 From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, Downtown artists like Jaime Davidovich, Colab, and Warhol used cable television to seek large audiences and to subvert control of the media system from within. In the early stages of his career, before he had a public platform, Haring was only beginning to think about expanding the visibility of his video work. But even then, he knew that to have any kind of effect, his work would need to be shown in unconventional spaces. Machine’s placement on the sidewalk also may have been inspired by Haring’s reading of William Burroughs. Haring’s early interest in the dissection of language dovetailed with an interest in Burroughs’s writings, in particular Burroughs’s discussion of language as virus and his cut-up technique (i.e., taking existing words, cutting them out of their order in a sentence, reordering them, and inverting their meaning). In his book, The Ticket That Exploded, Burroughs suggested using audio playback and the cut-up technique to manually break apart governing ideologies.62 He believed that his re-creations acted like a kind of “political virus” that could eradicate oppressive forces in the media. To implement the virus, “you want to start a riot, you put your machines in the street with riot recordings.”63 In other words, by scrambling existing language into tape recordings and then broadcasting it on the street, one could— according to Burroughs—start a revolution. Repeatedly referring to Burroughs as an influence in his journals and in interviews, Burroughs undoubtedly affected Haring and his creation and display of Machine, a work he injected virally into the streets of New York.64 Although Haring abandoned video as an artistic medium after 1980, he returned to the theme of television’s ability to both communicate and control throughout his career. In an early performance at Club 57 in 1980, he held a hollowed-out, screenless television frame over his head, again as if the television itself was speaking, reciting poetry. This head-as-television image became a standard motif in Haring’s later drawings and paintings. In one Untitled sumi ink on paper from 1981, he drew an oversized figure with a television as a head and a cartoon face. It runs while holding a marionette of a smaller figure, controlling its movements, suggesting the unprecedented influence of television on daily life (Figure 1.3). Especially among religious figures in the 1980s, television provided them an opportunity to wield a significant amount of cultural and political impact. Christian televangelist programming became a pervasive, mainstream pastime for over 20 million Americans.65 Many sermons frequently turned political, influencing large audiences and contributing to the conservative ethos of the decade.66 Reminiscent of his Jesus Freak days, Haring wrote, “When religion is used to control instead of to liberate then it becomes evil. . . . Religion can be the most evil, most wicked, most hypocritic[al] weapon against the individual and individual freedom and the imagination.”67 Along these lines, Haring repeatedly depicted television screens with figures holding crosses, at times paired with dead bodies, admitting that they came from his thoughts on the Moral Majority, a large American group associated with the Christian Right and Republican Party (Figure 4.6).68 As with his video Machine, these drawings focus on the indoctrinating influence that television (and religion) can have on a passive audience.

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

27

Figure 1.3 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1981. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

Compared to the Pop artists in the 1960s, who witnessed the introduction of television as adults, artists in the East Village scene grew up watching television on a daily basis. It was no longer a technological or cultural novelty; it was an ingrained influence and staple throughout their entire lives. Many artists contemporary to Haring also ruminated on the negative effects of television on society in their work. Several were included in the exhibit Television’s Impact on Contemporary Art at the Queens Museum in 1986, in which Haring loaned one of his television drawings from 1982 and a TV T-shirt (1984).69 Kenny Scharf, Haring’s close friend and roommate, contributed an object: one of his television set sculptures customized with neon Day-Glo painted objects (Figure 6.1). Artist Laura Watt said that it was “refreshing to see a TV set creating chaos on the outside,” as if its power had literally seeped out of its frame.70 Believing that for his peer group, television had become a part of their unconscious, Scharf called his style “pop surrealism.”71 In his paintings, he mutates characters from popular shows like the Jetsons and the Flintstones by giving them insect-like bodies and hypnotized-spiraled eyes and immersing them within drug-induced jungles. One could interpret his psychedelic paintings to be an image of the mind after watching prolonged television, brainwashing its viewers and their dreams. Reinforcing this reading, Scharf often recounted one of his earliest memories as a child, sitting an inch away from the box until the colored dots caused him to start hallucinating.

28

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

Like Scharf, Haring at first represented his critique of television in his work, but, later, representation turned to reflexive co-option in his street works and in the production of his merchandise, all which spread virally in their multiplication and physical dispersal (more fully implementing Burroughs’s ideas). Haring used public spaces and channels as media to criticize aspects of society and the market, reaching many more people than he could in a gallery. He also used it to promote himself, putting himself in front of the camera via television interviews and documentaries and outsourcing footage of him and his work to the news—taking advantage of the system from within. Before he ventured into television or merchandising, however, he infiltrated the strategies of the city’s streets.

Early Street Art Haring first intervened in New York City’s streets in 1980. He began by altering street advertisements and posting small collages on street lamps. This was followed by thousands of chalk drawings in the subways, and by the mid-1980s until the end of his life, he painted numerous large-scale public murals in several international cities. Through it all, he was motivated to reach a large nonart audience through his comprehensible style and messages unmediated by an art critic, museum, or gallery.72 Several East Village artists of Haring’s generation also worked within the public space of the city, both legally and illegally, to create and display art for a broader audience, including Colab, Ona Lindquist, Scharf, ABC No Rio, Fashion Moda, Barbara Kruger, Jenny Holzer, John Fekner, Richard Hambleton, Art Worker’s Coalition, Gran Fury, and Group Material. Posting their art in public spaces (i.e., posters or leaflets), or engaging the community through artist-run events or political demonstrations, these Downtown artists, like Haring, turned to populist approaches in their art to inform and involve, not to alienate or confuse.73 In this way, these artists differed from the urban art performances of proceeding decades, such as Fluxus performances or Happenings, in that they were not overly enigmatic or geared toward in-the-know art audiences.74 This environment undoubtedly influenced and incubated Haring’s public strategies. In addition, although Haring and other street artists like Scharf have often been discussed in relation to graffiti—another prominent public art practice of the early 1980s that reached its peak in 1978–79 just when Haring arrived in New York—their intentions were markedly different.75 Generally, graffiti encompassed a closed subculture at the social margins of New York that excluded East Village artists both socioeconomically and racially. As a white, academically trained artist, new to New York, Haring was at most an attentive bystander.76 Even he understood the difference, saying that he felt that was not [his] territory, or [his] right really. It was important to do it in a way that [he] had their respect as a graffiti writer, and not as an outsider who was trying to copy them or rip them off.77 His whiteness afforded him privilege in his public (and illegal) work and allowed him to operate more freely between the street and galleries. Haring may have faced negative criticism in the art world, in part because of his affinities with graffiti (perceived as a “lower” art form), but it was nothing compared to the racialized barriers experienced by graffiti artists of color, whose practices were time and again framed within problems of public policy and crime.78 When Haring

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

29

gained traction in his art career, he recognized his own privilege and used it to help make space for graffiti artists, organizing exhibitions, introducing them to gallery owners, and insisting that his collaborators—most notably the graffiti artist LA2— were paid equally on projects they worked on together.79 This went hand in hand with Haring’s overarching philosophy, sharing his access to the art world to those who were excluded. Before his more famous subway drawings and style evolved, his earlier street works often incorporated or manipulated found imagery from the mass print media, similar to the appropriation of other artists at the time, such as Kruger, Holzer, or Richard Prince. While Haring stopped appropriating once he started working in the subways, this early work nonetheless furthered his understanding of the persuasive power of provocative print and photo layouts, as well as the importance of location and public visibility. Some of his first interventions were tongue-in-cheek, altering outdoor posters and advertisements, such as changing ads for Chardón Jeans to “hard on Jeans.”80 In 1979, with the musician and artist John Sex, he created and posted 500 Xeroxes on the street of an outlandish quote about gay sexuality from the book, The Sex Guide to Married Life.81 Written in 1931, this book targeted a conservative and homophobic audience with instructions, for example, on how to spot a homosexual.82 In another series of street works, Haring created small collages and pasted them all around the city on walls and lampposts. Some were small fragments ripped from larger abstract drip paintings. Others were collages of ephemera found in everyday visual culture, such as a magazine image of two men kissing and an image of a naked woman on a ten of diamonds playing cards, combined with handwritten or typed text (Figure 1.4). One handwritten text, “SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES,” critiques print media’s capacity to control, in line with his video works. Yet, no matter what materials Haring put into these collages, their small size; low, visual impact; and esoteric messaging were ineffective in drawing public attention. Their torn and uneven edges could easily be mistaken for leftover posters or debris. Even in photographs meant to document these works in situ, they are hard to spot. On a city street, messages need to be short and to the point to catch the attention of passersby. These were not. Within months, in the summer of 1980, Haring began to make work that more explicitly engaged with current events with provocative and eye-catching messages. He created eight large collages with content appropriated from the New York Post, creating new headlines, such as: REAGAN SLAIN BY HERO COP, REAGAN: READY TO KILL, POPE KILLED FOR FREED HOSTAGE, MOB FLEES POPE MARRIES (Figures 1.5 and 4.1).83 In the late 1970s, just as Haring moved to New York, the Post was the only afternoon daily in New York, a news source widely available in street kiosks. Learning its communicative benefits of outdoor media tactics to ensure visibility, like repetition and graphic readability, he xeroxed his collages by the hundreds and taped them all over the surfaces in Lower New York. For this series, Haring acknowledged the influences of Holzer’s xeroxed flyers of her manifestos, the poetry graffiti of Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Colab’s Real Estate Show, as well as an understanding of semiotic theory.84 More than any of these sources, Burroughs was again Haring’s biggest inspiration.85 In his book The Electronic Revolution (1971), Burroughs advocated using the cutup technique to counter the manipulative aspects of the mass media, a technique mentioned earlier that he invented with Brion Gysin.86 According to Burroughs, with clear debt to Futurist words-in-freedom and Surrealist automatist techniques, “Cut-ups

30

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

Figure 1.4 Keith Haring, Untitled (recto and verso), c. 1980. Collage. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

establish new connections between images, and one’s range of vision consequently expands.”87 The cut-up can range from physically cutting up text into sections and then reordering the text to create new meaning, to the nonmaterial juxtaposition of having an unexpected thought while physically experiencing something else. It can even include “all writing . . . a collage of words read heard overheard.”88 The technique is meant to operate beyond the “mental mechanisms of repression and selection” that work against an individual’s state of mind and offer a new way to see things through chance.89 Burroughs recommended this technique to thwart oppression in the mass media, since, as he put it, “The control of the mass media depends on laying down lines of association. When the lines are cut the associational connections are broken.”90 Burroughs’s first cut-ups used texts from newspapers and letters, including the Saturday Evening Post and Time, which fulfilled his directive to “cut the mutter line of the mass media and put the altered mutter line out in the streets.”91 Haring adapted Burroughs’s model for his own Post collages, finding and rearranging articles that reflected the current increase in conservative values in politics and religion in the United States and then cutting and reordering their headlines to offer revelation and critique. Like Burroughs, Haring wanted to undermine the influence and power of the press, which he felt was dominated by conservative politicians and

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

31

Figure 1.5 Keith Haring, Reagan: Ready to Kill, 1980. Newspaper fragments and tape on paper, 8.5″ × 11″. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

religious leaders. In 1976, the Post was bought by Rupert Murdoch, a well-known wealthy conservative who had also acquired several other large publications, such as New York Magazine and The Village Voice. This represented the trend described previously, in which news sources were monopolized by media moguls, who often used their power to push their own political ideologies. Under Murdoch, the Post’s content swerved to the right, criticized by many for its sensationalism and conservative bias.92 It is no surprise then that Haring’s new Post headlines took on the two figureheads of the conservative movement—the Pope and Ronald Reagan—to expose their hypocrisy and imagine their downfall. Haring cut up the phrases, pasted them on paper, and then erased their edges by xeroxing them. He then distributed them en masse, which, in line with Burroughs, acted like a virus by infiltrating its host (society) to alter it from the inside. Maintaining the same look as the newspaper and displayed in the same environment, these countercultural messages could confuse the viewer and pass as real stories.93 Therefore, Haring appropriated not only the newspaper’s headlines but also its street-level circulation method, hitting a small portion of the Post’s audience on the streets. In contrast to his earlier collages, Haring’s Post collages resembled an advertising campaign (mass produced and displayed, and appropriating text from a popular

32 Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising newspaper) and were much more noticeable. Reflecting on unsanctioned advertising in the city, Haring said, There are so many advertisements. . . . It wasn’t an idea that I invented, it was the spirit of the time, and I just took it one step further. That was the first time that I saw how doing something could have real effect and become part of people’s consciousness in a real way.94 Diving deeper, Haring admitted to “studying the manipulative aspects of advertising and what the effect was of the growing overload of images around us,” while at the SVA, learning that public advertising was an effective strategy to communicate his art to a broader audience.95 In his early career, Haring also experimented with billboards. In 1982, artist and friend Jane Dickson invited Haring to participate in her Spectacolor billboard project in Times Square, funded by the Public Art Fund.96 Dickson felt that the simplified and animated format of the 800-square-foot LED board would perfectly fit Haring’s now familiar aesthetic, which at that point had matured in the subways. The billboard presented Haring’s drawings as a 30-second animation, including a baby that radiated, a dog jumping through a man’s stomach, and a figure running up and down steps. Along with submissions from a select group of other artists, his work was repeated every 20 minutes for one month. As one of his first large-scale public works, Haring again used advertising techniques: it was screened repeatedly in one of the highest visible sites for branding. Furthermore, this public presentation predicted his careerlong practice of public murals, and eventually the design and display of billboards on Houston Street that promoted his Pop Shop. Haring’s early interests in street art and advertising also went hand in hand with the development of his public image and presence, increasingly making his public work performative. In 1979 and 1980, Haring began making large-scale installations of cut and painted paper. In these environments, he assembled and reassembled his own paintings and drawings on walls, hung pieces of paper, wallpaper, lithographs, and phone books from pipes on the ceiling, and painted on paper on the floor. Applying the cut-up technique, a big part of his process was recycling old works, ripping, reshaping, then combining them in new ways.97 Wanting to share these works with an outside audience, he worked in an SVA studio that opened out onto 22nd Street’s sidewalk, where his immediate presence became an important part of the work, contributing to his lifelong pursuit of one-on-one public interaction. In addition, these installations’ immersiveness and scale prefigure Haring’s first gallery show at the Tony Shafrazi Gallery in 1982, which was covered from floor to ceiling with paintings, as well as other interiors and walls he painted, such as the Fun Gallery in 1983, the Fiorucci Store in Milan in 1984, and the allover interior design and style of his Pop Shop in 1986. Pursuant to his populist goals, he believed installation was a universal way to experience art that could be enjoyed by anyone, anywhere, regardless of education or status, because of its ability to affect an individual bodily.98 After experimenting with these cut-up environments, Haring began a series of large paintings on single pieces of paper. Even though he did not have a live audience watch him make these works, he captured the performative aspect of these paintings on video. In one work, Painting Myself into a Corner (1979), he recorded himself painting abstract, interlocking shapes with thick black lines onto a large piece of paper on the floor, nonstop until he wedged himself into the corner (Figure 1.6). Here, the video

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

33

Figure 1.6 Stills from Painting Myself into a Corner, 1979. Video, 33 minutes. Source: Collection Keith Haring Foundation. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

and not the finished painting itself constitutes the work, again emphasizing process and performance.99 This performative aspect of Haring’s practice came to fruition in his subway drawings in New York (1980–85), in addition to his large-scale public mural commissions (1982–89).100 Especially once Haring had developed a reputation and style, he often attracted an audience when he worked in public. Pulling back the curtain on what an audience usually does not get to see—the act of art creation—these public demonstrations made his art more transparent and engaging and gave viewers a glimpse of the artist behind them. In other words, he performed his works to make his art more accessible and also to centralize his image, gradually increasing his public familiarity. Part of the thrill for onlookers was that when Haring painted or drew publicly, he never had a plan or preparatory drawing, nor did he start over or make noticeable mistakes. He always scaled his work in his head, creating massive and complex imagery instantaneously. In addition, his murals remained in these locations after he left—acting as permanent, public reminders of Haring. Once his career began to take off in the mid-1980s, he said, in reference to his public murals, I insist that when I go to be present at any exhibition in whatever country or city I also want to do something lasting and meaningful that will remain . . . because fortunately people value them not for their art market value but for their spirit.101 Even when he was not immediately present, Haring’s murals promoted him on an international stage. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that before he was a worldwide celebrity, he was a local celebrity—generating fame through his renowned subway drawings.

Subway Drawings From 1980 to 1985, Haring drew over 5,000 chalk drawings in New York City subway stations, the most famous and celebrated work of his career.102 While passing through a station one day, he noticed that whole panels along the wall were covered with black, matte paper to conceal ad space when subscriptions expired. This gave

34

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

Haring an idea, and he rushed out to buy chalk. Thus began a daily and repetitive obsession, in which he would ride the subway, look for black paper, quickly improvise a chalk drawing, then leave on the next train (Figure 1.7). The subway became Haring’s laboratory of sorts, where he perfected his highly recognizable and simplified style, along with the streamlined and lively content that characterized his style for the rest of his career.103 Simplification was practical in these conditions: he needed to complete his drawings within minutes to avoid arrest. He used this time restriction to his advantage, practicing his movements and lines to refine his expanding inventory of signs and images. Eventually, he learned his pictographs so well that he would let muscle memory take over and move both arms, “as a piano player can.”104 Having studied semiotics at the SVA, Haring understood the theory of arbitrariness of the sign and, therefore, the sign’s dependence on its context to generate meaning. As he put it, “I had made these symbols that were nonverbal, but were signs that could have different meanings at different times,” depending on their configuration.105 He used this knowledge to further his own goals of mass communication, surmising that images, through repetition and a controlled, simplified vocabulary, could be more comprehensible and direct than words. Most notably, he created characters such as the Barking Dog and the Radiant Baby that exist on flat planes of a single color with no spatial depth, with only an occasional horizon line or staircase to suggest space. Their contexts could deliver pointed messages or carry multiple connotations. The Radiant Baby itself, for instance, could represent birth, purity, or Christ but could also be read as a symbol of nuclear energy, death, or bodily corruption depending on what he drew around it.106 By 1981, he started to incorporate more objects and figures into his drawings (without any indicators of gender, race, or age), sometimes organized into episodes condensed into a frame, adding a narrative component. Although Haring did not readily identify himself as a graffiti artist, his well-defined style of shapes, symbols, and patterns benefited from its culture, which offered many lessons in how to make graphic images and text stand out in a cluttered urban environment. Graffiti influenced Haring’s calligraphic style and fluidity of line and taught him the importance of motion, speed, and improvisation, as well as tagging—creating a logo-like sign that acted like a signature. His subway drawings diverged from graffiti, however, in terms of medium, location, timing, accessibility, and reception (contextualized as “art” largely because of his academic training and skin color). In the subways, for example, Haring used white chalk instead of spray paint or marker as a way to make his own unique contribution to the scene and because he liked its effects.107 Yet chalk could be considered a passive choice, exceptionally ephemeral and therefore only rebellious to a point, undermining the subversion at the heart of graffiti. On top of this, Haring intentionally sanitized his subject matter, leaving out any overt sexual and political imagery.108 He aimed to attract a broad audience—which included children—and he wanted them to enjoy his works, producing only a few that could possibly provoke or offend. This motivation stood in contrast to many graffiti artists, whose work was typically made to be viewed by fellow writers and mostly detested by the mainstream.109 Haring’s self-censorship made his drawings more ambiguous to an extent but also more outwardly positive and universal in theme, and so more popular. His subway drawings, while seemingly straightforward, did incorporate some darker, generalized themes of power and oppression in society—such as mounds of lifeless bodies or figures tied down with leashes, but these themes were typically codified for ambiguity through pared-down forms.110

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

35

Figure 1.7 Tseng Kwong Chi, Keith Haring Drawing in New York City Subway, New York, 1983. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation. Photo © Muna Tseng Dance Projects, Inc.

36

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

While graffiti artists of color worked at night to avoid arrest, Haring worked during the day. Although he was arrested or ticketed over 50 times, this choice did not risk the same police brutality that many graffiti artists faced, most infamously demonstrated by the murder of Michael Stewart. Haring even described encounters with policemen who were self-professed fans of his work.111 Indeed, Haring’s timing had less to do with thrill seeking and law agitating than with enabling him to draw in front of people.112 The subways, especially, allowed Haring to reach to a different kind of audience than in a gallery. He said, The kinds of people who were talking to me and encouraging me were really what pushed me to keep doing it, because I was suddenly meeting people who are generally ignored by our system. They’re not people who go to galleries or even think about art, but they really relate to art as much as anybody else, and in a more profound way.113 In line with his early experiences, Haring felt it was his job as an artist to offer the public an unintimidating, all-inclusive approach, a sentiment that stayed with him for his entire career. He used simplifed imagery in the subways that the uninitiated could appreciate and understand, and to try to reach as many as he could, he performed daily and interacted with individuals while he worked. Eventually, he felt a public expectation to continue to put up new content unabated, especially since new ads or black paper would cover his old drawings after a few days.114 By building on the performative and promotional strategies of his previous works, the subway drawings brought Haring his first mass fame and recognition. This is not simply due to the accessibility of his style but depends in part on where he chose to locate the work: the New York City subway, a sprawling network of public spaces frequented by millions. Also key is the extraordinary abundance and frequency of the work: he made several drawings every day over many years with the “stamina and discipline of an athlete,” to the point where they became part of the fabric of the subway experience.115 Haring said, “I can meet anyone in New York and the response is, ‘You mean you’re the one who’s been doing those drawings.’”116 One art critic wrote that “[t]he anticipation of each new drawing was great, especially because one could never predict which character would be born next.”117 The more his images were seen, the more recognizable and beloved they became, and over time, they increased Haring’s reputation as an image maker. Since Haring’s subway drawings occupied the spaces of actual blank advertising spaces, they also critiqued advertising’s prevalence in the city. They brought attention to the square footage devoted to outdoor marketing and played on the spaces’ ambiguity; people could have assumed they were advertisements themselves. By the 1980s, the New York subway system brought in $100 million a year in media-buying business.118 Subway advertising appealed to companies because of its mass reach and low cost, the same circumstances that also attracted Haring. But Haring co-opted the commercial function of the subway platform and promoted himself and his art in advertising spaces for free, creating a onemanned advertising campaign of his style. As he grew even more popular with the public, people began to rip down the drawings and boards from station walls to keep or to sell. By 1981, the success and recognition from his subway drawings led to increasing sales of his work to art collectors. Though, at this time, Haring still had ambivalence toward the gallery system, and even as his career began to take off, he resisted joining a gallery and only exhibited in galleries if it was a group show. Recalling his anti-institutional, antimaterialistic Jesus Freak days, Haring felt that “the traditional

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising 119

37

art-dealer gallery represented a lot that I hated about the art world.” When he finally conceded and obtained gallery representation with Tony Shafrazi in 1982, it was to give him a buffer from the art market.120 To counteract, or balance, this engagement with the higher-end, more exclusive art market, he continued to draw in the subways and used his gallery earnings to design buttons to hand out for free to subway riders.121 With the image of his Radiant Baby and Barking Dog, these buttons constituted his first public giveaway (Figure 1.8). Haring’s dual approach, distributing his art simultaneously in the art market and in popular channels like the subways, proved to be a dominant, career-long methodology to reach as many people as possible.122 Thus, his work inside art galleries and outdoors in the streets had a symbiotic relationship, creating a new model in which the fine-art world funded his time to create populist works, and his populist works allowed access to a larger audience. Working together, both strategies reinforced his reputation across multiple markets and venues. Haring’s buttons were extremely popular. He started to understand the logic and advantages of a giveaway as a promotional practice—initially introduced to him by the Grateful Dead, saying, “People wearing them started talking to each other. I suddenly realized the power of the button!”123 At first, he created over a thousand of the Radiant Baby and then ordered more of his Barking Dog. Acting like logos, these images would then travel outside the station attached to shirts and bags, compounding the visibility of Haring’s drawings.124 His promotional buttons were so successful that in one instance it backfired: four 13-year-olds mugged him for the ones he was carrying.125 By 1985, Haring had ordered almost 160,000.126 Eventually, in response to the constant removal of his subway drawings by fans, Haring stopped. His popularity had reached such a level, he said, “At a certain point it was bigger than I was and I was riding it like a horse and trying to steer it in a direction.”127 But he liked it: “Yea, overexposure is the risk I take. The success feels wilder all the time.

Figure 1.8 Keith Haring, Radiant Baby button, c. 1982. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

38

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

It’s exhilarating.”128 Since he no longer drew in the subways, he reconciled his increased participation in galleries and the art market by using his merchandise to fill the gap.

Meteoric Rise to Success Haring claimed that in an ideal world he would have created work without selling in galleries, but it offered him one important advantage: financial security, enabling him to create art full time and to pursue more popular, but unprofitable art projects.129 Even when his gallery works began to sell for five figures or more, however, he gave away or donated most of his earnings or invested in expensive projects like the Pop Shop.130 Although this success could have made Haring rich, he was not interested in financial excess. He regularly turned down opportunities to work with large retailers and did many commissions for free.131 Most explicitly, Haring wrote: Money doesn’t mean anything. I think money is the hardest thing for me to deal with. It is much easier to live with no money than to live with money. Money breeds guilt . . . and if you don’t have any conscience, then money breeds evil. Money itself is not evil, in fact it can actually be very effective for “good” if it is used properly and not taken seriously.132 Many have frequently misunderstood and labeled Haring as a sellout, an artist who betrayed his values for money. But his main motivation for doing commercial things— whether low-cost merchandise or high-end gallery paintings—was not for fnancial gain but rather to further his deep-rooted artistic philosophy: making his work as available as possible. Money helped make access possible; it could be used for “good.” Still, because he did not have to worry about money, he was able to pick and choose his projects freely and pursue ideas without fnancial gains. Haring knew that he had gained an international audience, a fan base more akin to a Hollywood movie star than a fine artist, and even if it did not necessarily change his artistic ideals, he liked his fame and welcomed it. But he blamed his broad popularity for the lack of museum and scholarly support of his work, worried “if the museum world will ever embrace me, or if I will disappear with my generation.”133 Haring wanted to be taken seriously and remembered as a fine artist, a status that could not be given to him by a mass audience.134 The art-world gatekeepers who could grant him legitimacy instead had an “ongoing obsession with the phenomena of money and success” that surrounded his work.135 Haring’s brand of celebrity—mainstream celebrity—was viewed as crass self-promotion. Haring had broken the rules and found fame first with the public, not through the endorsements of art writers, collectors, or museums.136 Waiting for institutional acceptance weighed on him, something that was largely not given to him in his lifetime. To try and balance his reception, Haring sought to shape the discourse of his work and the formation of his public image. In 1983, he wrote a personal essay in Flash Art to describe his practice.137 He emphasized chance, performance, public work, antielitism, and a need for artists to embrace creativity in a world dominated by technology. Haring also pointed to his use of alternate distributional and media channels to effectively connect to a nonart audience.138 By the mid-1980s, like a music or movie star, wherever Haring traveled, he was met with enormous publicity. Between the years 1984 and 1986, he had given over 80 press interviews (in mass publications such as

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

39

Rolling Stone, The Village Voice, and The Associated Press, as well as in more obscure publications such as New York Talk, Defunct! and the Yale Vernacular and art publications such as Interview, Flash Art, and Arts Magazine) and made several appearances on network television (ABC, NBC, and CBS).139 In 1982, for example, CBS News broadcasted a nationwide special on Haring, which included footage of one of his arrests for drawing in the subway.140 The special was described as a “thoughtfully produced portrait of a maverick American artist.”141 In these instances, Haring’s early self-presentation in his personal mythology essay, video work, and street art evolved into a concerted mass media strategy, another kind of “performance” in his words.142 In a 1987 journal entry, he referred to these efforts in the third person, as if he were a commodity. He wrote, “It is . . . the phenomena of photography and video that have made the international phenomenon of Keith Haring possible.”143 To ensure that his fame would extend past his lifetime, Haring also compulsively collected materials on his work and his life. He understood the importance of documentation, writing that art “is temporary and its permanency is unimportant. Its existence is already established. It can be made permanent by a camera.”144 Haring took over 1,600 Polaroids throughout his career to record mural commissions and public works, friends, parties, artworks, and events. Haring is usually in the shot, and as his career progressed, there is a noticeable shift in subject matter. Earlier Polaroids are of himself and his friends, his boyfriends, kids whom he met, or himself working. As he became more successful, his Polaroids increasingly feature him and his celebrity friends (such as Madonna, Andy Warhol, John Sex, Bill Cosby, Duran Duran, RunDMC, Boy George, Grace Jones, Brooke Shields, Princess Caroline, Nick Rhodes, Christie Brinkley, and Pee-wee Herman). In the Polaroids, Haring seems star struck, but also delighted to be one within the pantheon, collecting his image alongside other celebrities as a kind of long-term self-legitimization of his success.145 Along with his Polaroids and other photographs, Haring collected books, videos, and articles, materials that now make up a large portion of the Keith Haring Foundation archive. He also filled several journals that were condensed and published in 1996, with some entries self-consciously written as if someone someday might read them.146 From 1981 to 1989, his friend, photographer Tseng Kwong Chi, traveled with Haring on a regular basis to document him in action and photographed Haring’s subway drawings for his book Art in Transit.147 Since the 1980s, several of Tseng’s photographs and Haring’s Polaroids have been used in exhibition catalogs and publications. Not only do these images serve as important records of Haring’s everyday process and life, and his public works that no longer exist, they have also defined his image. They reveal Haring’s incessant need to capture and promote himself, crafting a narrative of his life and work for his contemporary audience and for history. Through these avenues of promotion, Haring conformed to John Walker’s definition of an art star. In his book Art and Celebrity from 2003, Walker characterized an art star as one who takes part in “social rituals and enjoys the status of celebrities,” has enough “coverage that enables them to become famous far beyond their principal profession,” and whose life “becomes as important (or even more important) as their work”—Warhol, a preeminent example.148 In the mid-1980s, the art market was incredibly lucrative and included high-profile events and media coverage, fueling the status of the art celebrity.149 Artists were “the celebrities now in the same way fashion designers were in the ’70s and rock stars in the ’60s,” and more and more appeared not just in art newspapers and magazines but also in news broadcasts and advertising

40

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

campaigns.150 Julian Schnabel, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and Jeff Koons were just a few artists who amassed big money and celebrity status in the 1980s art world.151 Haring likewise established himself as a public figure, but because of his populist aims, his celebrity emerged among a different and wider audience. Possibly because of his brand of celebrity—not a media darling of the art world but of popular culture—he is not included in Walker’s account of the artist celebrity. Also recognizing a difference, Haring distanced himself from other art stars like Koons, describing them as becoming exactly what the elitist art world wants and needs to separate itself from the masses and the rest of the culture—because it’s so anal and self-referential. What’s interesting is that this movement purports to be conscious and reflective of the whole consumer aspect of the art world, which, of course, I had been doing all along with ideas like the Pop Shop. But these people have the blessings of the museums and the critics because they played the game and went through conventional art channels as opposed to starting on the streets.152 Koons, Schnabel, and others stuck to fne-art market that only catered to an art-world audience. When they did surface in the public eye, it was typically due to exorbitant auction prices, media stunts, or shocking subject matter.153 Haring never did anything outrageous enough to be covered by tabloids, and while he had a fair for performance while he painted, his public image refected his own personality, often described as shy, quiet, and sensitive. Reporters and fans came to watch Haring paint, or to talk to him about his work, not to witness a spectacle. Haring’s sincere and positive spirit contributed immensely to his celebrity and public reception, an approach that went hand in hand with his exposure to countercultural populism early in his life and in his career, from the Jesus Freaks, the Grateful Dead, and Robert Henri, and creating street art in New York. To make art available to everyone, Haring recognized that the combination of his fame with the distribution of an idea, whether via an outdoor mural, merchandise, or free publicity, was more effective than a painting hung unnoticed in an art gallery. Additionally, he learned that his message and his public persona could be further amplified by employing techniques derived from print, broadcast, and outdoor media. A sophisticated mass communicator from the outset, Haring solidified his artistic brand with a two-pronged approach. He repeated his own image and signature style, keeping both readily visible until they became recognizable, and he displayed his work via nontraditional strategies in public places. This turned Haring into an art star and culminated in his most lasting, but unacknowledged legacy—his art merchandise.

Notes 1. Keith Haring Journals (New York: Viking, 1996) 13. Also see Keith Haring Journals, 62. 2. The diverse formal influences usually cited include Jean Dubuffet, Pierre Alechinsky, graffiti, hip-hop culture, African art, Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, and Walt Disney. 3. Haring was raised in the Protestant United Church of God, went to church camps, avidly read the Bible, and attended church until his preteen years. See David Galloway, “Marriage of Heaven and Hell: Keith Haring,” in Keith Haring: Heaven and Hell, ed. by Götz Adriani (New York: D.A.P. Distributed Art Publishers, 2001) 54. 4. See David di Sabatino, The Jesus People Movement: An Annotated Bibliography and General Resource (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999); Larry Graybill, “The Jesus

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27.

28. 29. 30.

41

Movement: Its Common Tenets and Its Word to Brethren,” Brethren Life and Thought, vol. 17, no. 3 (1972): 149–160; and James Drane, A New American Reformation: A Study of Youth Culture and Religion (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1974). See Natalie Phillips,“The Radiant (Christ) Child,” American Art, vol. 21, no. 3 (2007): 54–56. See Ronald Enroth, Edward Ericson, and C. Breckinridge Peters, The Jesus People (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972) 102, 153, and 161–178. Ibid., 162–163. Ibid., 153–154 and 161–163. John Gruen, Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991) 16. Ibid., 16. Natalie Phillips discusses at length the religious and apocalyptic scenes in Haring’s work and the religious iconography in the Radiant Baby. Phillips, “The Radiant (Christ) Child,” 54–73. John Romine, “Interview,” Upstart (1983): 29. Keith Haring Journals, 176, and Peter Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground (Berkeley, CA: Last Gasp of San Francisco, 1985) 103. See Steven Hager, Art After Midnight: The East Village Scene (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986) 129–131 and Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 105. Quoted from Drawing the Line: A Portrait of Keith Haring, produced and directed by Elisabeth Aubert, Biografilm Associates, 1989, documentary. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 24. Robert Henri, The Art Spirit (New York: Harper & Row, 1923). In interviews, Haring did not dwell on this brief part of his life and said that the Ivy School “wasn’t great.” See Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 24 and Barry Blinderman, ed., Keith Haring: Future Primeval (Normal, IL: Illinois University Gallery, Illinois State University, 1990) 92 and 95. His commercial training obviously influenced his graphic style and adoption of advertising strategies, but he did not cite this influence. See William Innes Homer, Robert Henri and His Circle (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969) 126–164. See Homer, Robert Henri, 5 and 126–156 and Kimberly Orcutt, Painterly Controversy: William Merritt Chase and Robert Henri (Greenwich, CT: Bruce Museum, 2007). Helen Appleton, Robert Henri (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1931) 9. Ibid. Also see Homer, Robert Henri, vii and John Sloan, Catalogue of a Memorial Exhibition of the Work of Robert Henri (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1931) xi–xii. Henri, The Art Spirit, 158. Ibid., 178. Henri continued, “‘What’s the use of it if you are not making money out of it?’ is a too common question.” Helene Barbara Weinberg, American Impressionism & Realism (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2009) 44–45. Blinderman, Future Primeval, 95. The interview is from Spring 1981. Henri, The Art Spirit, 5. Henri also wrote that the artist “goes to the market place, to the exhibition place, wherever he can reach the people, to lay before them his new angle on life” (100). Haring learned other lessons from Henri’s book, including creating work with an emphasis on “simple expressions” (28), and “Paint like a fiend when the idea possesses you” (166). Henri believed that, “All art that is worthwhile is a record of intense life,” a mantra that accurately describes Haring’s obsessive work ethic. Henri, The Art Spirit, 220. Also see, Germano Celant, ed., Keith Haring (New York: Prestel, 1992) 116. In addition, many pages in Haring’s journals are just lists of things he did that day—not enough time to write an actual entry but trying to keep track of what he did and when. In another interview, he described how often he works, “Almost every day . . . usually it’s like an obsession.” Mark Fuller, “Whizz Bam Keith Haring at the Stedelijk Museum,” (1986): 5, Keith Haring Foundation (KHF) Archives, 1985 press box, 5. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 25. Raphaela Platow, “Holding up the Frame,” in Keith Haring: 1978–1982 (Cincinnati, OH: Contemporary Arts Center, 2010) 91. For the Nixon T-shirt, Haring laid out the words SAN CLEMENTE GOLD with little designs on top. SAN CLEMENTE GOLD is a type of marijuana, and San Clemente is where Nixon retired to his “western white house.” Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 25.

42

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

31. Ibid., 24 and 128. Just before his death in 1990, Haring maintained that “no matter what, I wasn’t going to be a commercial artist.” Also see Blinderman, Future Primeval, 92 and Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 98. 32. James A. Revson, “Haring’s Gift: Gifts,” Newsday, Section 1 (April 18, 1986): 2. Also see Robert Hughes, “Careerism and Hype Amidst the Image Haze,” Time (June 17, 1985): 79. 33. Quote by Kenny Scharf in Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 37. 34. Ibid., 42. Haring described an instance in which he hung several of his drawings and later found them on the floor, all torn up. He hung the torn pieces up again and said that they looked even better. 35. Ibid., 37. 36. Keith Haring Journals, 15–16. 37. See essays in Platow, et. al., Keith Haring: 1978–1982. 38. Synne Genzmer, “Performing the Signal: On Keith Haring’s Video Works,” in Keith Haring: 1978–1982, 123. 39. Keith Haring Journals, 42. 40. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 39. 41. Ibid., 39. 42. For other video works that relate compositionally to Haring, consider: Lynda Benglis, On Screen (1972), Paul McCarthy, Press (1973), Joan Jonas, Left Side, Right Side (1972), Bruce Nauman, Lip Sync (1969) and Pulling Mouth (1969), and Hannah Wilke, Gestures II (1974–76). 43. See Rosalind Krauss, “Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism,” October, vol. 1 (Spring 1976): 50–64; Amelia Jones, Self/Image: Technology, Representation, and the Contemporary Subject (New York: Routledge, 2006); and Nick Kaye, “Video Space/ Performance Space,” in Multi-Media: Video, Installation, Performance (New York: Routledge, 2007). 44. See David James, “The Producer as Author,” in Andy Warhol: Film Factory, ed. by Michael O’Pray (London: BFI Publishing, 1989) 138–139 and 144. 45. Ibid., 138. Also see Stephen Koch, Stargazer: The Life, World, and Films of Andy Warhol (New York: Marion Boyars, 1973) 19. 46. James, “The Producer as Author,” 144. 47. Andy Warhol’s TV even featured Haring in an episode. See Christian Höller, “Pop Art Television: MTV as a Creative Artistic Framework in the 1980s,” in Changing Channels: Art and Television 1963–1987, ed. by Matthias Michalka (Wien: Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig Wien, 2010) 253. 48. Michael O’Pray, introduction to Andy Warhol: Film Factory, 12. 49. Platow, “Holding up a Frame,” 92. 50. This work also invokes gender issues and sexual connotations unrelated to my argument. The lipstick, for example, could evoke the sexual allure in broadcast media. 51. Francesca Alinovi, “Twenty-first Century Slang,” Flash Art, no. 114 (November 1983): 29. 52. Gene R. Swenson, “What Is Pop Art?” ARTnews, vol. 62, no. 7 (November 1963): 24–25. 53. Keith Haring Journals, 17. Haring also said, [A]s Man becomes less and less valuable as opposed to technology, or the computer, the more important the role of art becomes. Art is one of the last areas that is totally within the realm of the human individual and can’t be copied or done better by a machine. Romine, “Interview,” 31 54. He said in 1981, “A lot of the drawings are about power and force: the transfer of power, power being used for different reasons. One of the biggest issues in the world now is the amassing or balance of power.” See Jeanne Siegal, Art Talk: The Early 80s (New York: de Capo Press, 1990) 188. 55. Keith Haring Journals, 17. 56. Keith Haring, “A Real Artist Is Only a Vehicle,” Flash Art (March 1984): 24. 57. Barbara Hargrove, Reformation of the Holy: A Sociology of Religion (Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Co., 1971) 281. Also see Theodore Roszak, The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and Its Youthful Opposition (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969) 19.

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

43

58. See William Kaizen, Against Immediacy: Video Art and Media Populism (Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press, 2016). 59. Ibid., 1–5. 60. See Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1987) 4. 61. Mitchell Moss and Sarah Ludwig, “The Structure of the Media,” in Dual City: Restructuring New York, ed. by John Hill Mollenkopf and Manuel Castells (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1991) 245–266. 62. William Burroughs, The Ticket That Exploded (New York: Grove Press, 1967). 63. Ibid., 215. 64. See Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 55, 58, 65, 182–184 and Keith Haring Journals, 31, 45, 47, 104, and 171–172. 65. Purposefully cropped tightly on a preacher’s face, the idea was to give the viewer a sense of intimacy, even though the preacher was talking to a stadium full of thousands of devotees. See Stewart Hoover, Mass Media Religion: The Social Sources of the Electronic Church (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988) 12, 20–21, and 63. 66. Ibid., 58–59 and 235. 67. May 29, 1987, KHF Archives, original journal. 68. Brian Kates, “Beneath the Ground, Chalking It Up to Art,” Daily News (Summer 1982): M3. 69. See Marc Miller, Television’s Impact on Contemporary Art (New York: The Queens County Art and Cultural Center, 1985). Several artists in the Downtown scene, who also grew up with television, experimented with many similar forms of media, including video. See Ann Magnuson, “The East Village 1979-1989, A Chronology: Ann Magnuson on Club 57,” Artforum, 38 (October 1999): 121. 70. Kenny Scharf (New York: Tony Shafrazi Gallery, 1998) 23. 71. Ibid., 10. 72. Cher Krause Knight, Public Art: Theory, Practice, and Populism (New York: Blackwell Publishing, 2008) 22–23. 73. See Lucy Lippard, “Moving Targets/ Moving Out,” in Art in the Public Interest (Ann Arbor, MI: U.M.I. Research Press, 1989) 217. This essay is based on three articles Lippard wrote in 1984 and 1988. 74. For example, street performances such as Fluxus street events in the 1960s, Adrian Piper’s 1970s Catalysis series, and Vito Acconci’s Following Piece (1969) operated in city spaces to affect a few unsuspecting individuals, but largely only impacted an initiated, art-world audience after the fact. Even site-specific installations such as Daniel Buren’s striped paintings of the late 1960s placed around cities or Alan Sonfist’s Time Landscape (1965) most likely created meanings that were lost to a general audience, especially without any mediation or framing. Lippard refers to these practices as “the nearly invisible alterations of the urban environment of the conceptual period.” Lippard, “Moving Targets,” 210. 75. Haring at times did call his street work graffiti, but he and others have more so separated him from the scene. See Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 65–68; Carlo McCormick, “Mass Transit & Transcendence in Keith Haring’s Subway Drawings,” in 31 Keith Haring Subway Drawings, ed. by Larry Warsh (New York: Art Issues Editions, 2012) 48; and Gianni Mercurio, “Keith Haring: In the Moment,” in The Keith Haring Show (Milan, Italy: Skira, 2005) 17–27. For a history of graffiti and Haring’s intersection with it, see Cedar Lewisohn, Street Art: The Graffiti Revolution (New York: Abrams, 2008). Haring said, In terms of graffiti, the one contribution I made was to stretch the definition of what it means . . . putting clothes on people, putting marks on things that people are wearing, painting on Grace Jones’ body, is maybe [graffiti] if you make the definition bigger. Quoted in Daniel Drenger, “Art and Life: An Interview with Keith Haring,” Columbia Art Review (Spring 1988): 48 Also see James Danziger, “A Corner on Street Art,” Week in View (October), KHF Archives, 1980s press box and “American Graffiti” The Face, no. 43, KHF Archives.

44

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising Graffiti became more popular with a mainstream and art-world audience after it was shown in the Times Square Show in 1980 and in the documentary Wild Thing. The Times Square Show is where Haring met Fab 5 Freddy and other graffiti writers. See Suzi Gablik, “Report from New York the Graffiti Question,” Art in America (October 1982): 36. Fab Freddy 5 said about Haring and graffiti: Haring wanted to be a part of the graffiti energy at that point, but . . . he felt very strongly that he, as this white guy, didn’t want to . . . take the shine and exposure away from the young, mostly black and Latin kids who were doing it . . . Keith Haring, The Message. Dir. Maripol. ARTE Creative, 2013, documentary

76. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 67. 77. Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 101. 78. See Dagmawi Woubshet, The Calendar of Loss: Race, Sexuality, and Morning in the Early ERA of AIDS (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015) 87–94 and Tricia Rose, Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1994) 44–47. 79. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 74. Haring’s efforts did not make the art world completely accessible to graffiti artists, and scholars have argued that galleries gave them only passing legitimacy. See Rose, Black Noise, 47. Also, even if Haring treated LA2 as fairly as he could manage, after Haring’s death, LA2 contends that he has not received credit and money on several occasions. See Nike Koppel, “Little Angel Was Here: A Keith Haring Collaborator Makes His Mark,” The New York Times (August 5, 2008). 80. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 67–68. Haring had seen someone else do this to the Chardón Jeans advertisements and copied them. 81. Blinderman, Future Primeval, 97. Interview from 1981. The exact quote that Haring and John Sex used has been lost, as well as the exact citation of the book in question. Haring said the book was written in 1941. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 56. 82. Ibid., 97. Haring also stenciled “CLONES GO HOME” on sidewalks, referring to the new batch of gentrified gay men in the neighborhood. See Hager, Art After Midnight, 75–79. 83. Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 100. 84. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 54–55. 85. Haring began following Burroughs’s work after meeting him at the Nova Convention in 1979. 86. William Burroughs, Electronic Revolution (Bonn, Germany: Pociao’s Books, 2001) 26–27. Electronic Revolution was originally published in 1971. Haring cited The Third Mind by both Burroughs and Gysin several times in his journal and in interviews. See, for example, Keith Haring Journals, 31. 87. William Burroughs and Brion Gysin, The Third Mind (New York: Viking Press, 1978) 4. 88. Ibid., 32. 89. Ibid., 4 and 13. Burroughs compares the method to the Dada manifestos by Tristan Tzara, Marcel Duchamp’s Rendezvous du Dimanche, and the exquisite corpse of the Surrealists— all examples very much in line with Haring’s reordered phrase poems and collages (14). 90. Burroughs, Electronic Revolution, 21. 91. Burroughs does not explicitly explain what “mutter line” means. Through context, it most likely means subliminal messages of control and illusion. William Burroughs, Gregory Corso, Colin Fallows, et al., Cut-ups, Cut-ins, Cut-outs: The Art of William S. Burroughs (New York: DAP Distributed Art Publishers, 2012) 34. Burroughs exhibited his cut-up collages mainly late in his life in the 1980s and 1990s. His cut-up technique also led to the publication of his three experimental novels: The Nova Trilogy, including The Soft Machine (New York: Grove Press, 1961/1992), The Ticket That Exploded (New York: Grove Press, 1962/1967), and Nova Express (New York: Grove Press, 1964). 92. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the Post was “irresponsible” and that it “play[s] on two emotions: fear and rage . . . It is a social problem—a force for evil.” See “Doing the Devil’s Work,” Columbia Journalism Review, vol. 18, no. 5 (January/February 1980): 22–23. 93. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 57. 94. Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 100.

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

45

95. Alexandra Morphett, “Keith Haring Above Ground,” Express (Fall 1982): 3. 96. Dickson had curated this show of lesser-known artists for the Public Art Fund to collaborate on the LED board that she had worked for since the early 1980s. She animated advertisements as a job but had the idea to apply for a grant from the PAF to do the project. She executed and animated the designs. Interview with Jane Dickson by author, March 13, 2015. 97. To Haring, “the ultimate consideration is the maximum effect. There is, naturally, a great risk involved in sacrificing many works for the completion of one unified work.” See Blinderman, Future Primeval, 25. 98. Keith Haring Journals, 26. 99. See Ibid., 13 and 15 and Blinderman, Future Primeval, 95. 100. Beginning in 1982, he painted and drew murals on outdoor and indoor walls of hospitals, schools, children centers, art institutions, and city streets in New York and around the world. See the KHF’s “Mural Map,” www.haring.com/!/archives/murals-map, accessed May 10, 2016. 101. The Universe of Keith Haring, directed by Christina Clausen, Arthouse Films, 90 minutes, distributed by New Video, 2008. 102. Blinderman, Future Primeval, 18. 103. Keith Haring: Journey of the Radiant Baby (Piermont, NH: Bunker Hill Pub., 2006) 34. Haring began to develop this vocabulary in the summer of 1980 in his studio. Many of these motifs were shown in works to the public at a PS122 exhibition later that year. Keith Haring Journals, 57. 104. Ibid., 20. 105. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 58. As early as 1978, Haring wrote in his journals about sign systems through words or images. Keith Haring Journals, 10. 106. See Phillips, “The Radiant (Christ) Child,” 54–56. 107. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 68. 108. Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 105. 109. Calvin Tomkins, “The Art World: Up from the I.R.T.,” New Yorker, vol. 60, no. 6 (March 26, 1984): 100 and Gablik, “Report from New York.” 110. For example, there might be larger figures stomping on smaller figures, figures standing on bodies or figures stabbing or chasing each other. See Keith Haring, Art in Transit (New York: Harmony Books, 1984) and Keith Haring: Journey of the Radiant Baby, 36. For a discussion on his work being intentionally open to interpretation, see Keith Haring Journals, 35. 111. Blinderman, Future Primeval, 103. 112. Haring’s interactions with the people in the subway were usually brief and, most of the time, consisted of strangers coming up to him and offering quick compliments or questions, or just watching. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 69 and KHF Online Video Archive; “Keith Haring Self Portrait” on CBS this morning, KHA-0671, April 11, 1988, 5 minutes, KHF Online Video Archive. 113. Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 102. 114. Haring said, “I was having all this contact with people in the subways that I never would have gotten to talk to otherwise. One thing led to another and it became more of a responsibility than a hobby.” Ibid., 102. 115. Ibid., 19. 116. Tullio DeSantis, “This Working Class Hero’s Making Subterranean News,” Reading Eagle (January 17, 1982): 20. 117. Blinderman, Future Primeval, 19. 118. See “The Growing Popularity of Transit Ads,” The New York Times (April 16, 1984), KHF Archives, 1984 press box. 119. David Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” Rolling Stone (August 10, 1989): 58–66. Also see DeSantis, “This Working Class Hero’s,” Reading Eagle, 16. Haring said, I think it is even more deceptive to pretend you are outside the system instead of admitting it and actually participating in it in a “real” way. There is no more “purity” in the art world than on Madison Avenue. In fact, it is even more corrupt. The Big Lie. Quoted in Harry Eugene Baldwin, “Drawing Outside the Lines,” Frontiers (October 16, 1998): 91 120. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 58–66. Also see Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 103. Since Tony Shafrazi was also an artist, and a friend, Haring felt

46

121. 122. 123. 124.

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising that he understood his work and was not just “interested in making a fast buck.” Ibid., 103. Haring had also worked for Shafrazi as his assistant and so knew him before signing on. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 58. Given Haring’s speed in the subways, the buttons also served as an efficient way to interact with admirers. If he did not have time to talk in depth, he would give them a button. Keith Haring Journals, 72. In one instance of overlap, for the opening of his first major solo show of paintings and drawings at the Tony Shafrazi Gallery in 1982, he handed out buttons, posters, and stickers. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 86. Haring quoted in Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 73. Haring says: [A logo] can say a lot to me about the power an image can have, to be able to make something that has that inherent impact. A lot of what I’ve been doing has to do with things I’ve seen in the idea of the logo. The baby that I’ve always drawn is a logo, and that has somehow a negative connotation to many people. Alan Jones, “Keith Haring Art or Industry,” New York Talk (June 1986): 44

125. Rene Ricard, “The Radiant Child,” Artforum (December 1981): 36. 126. This number is from an order form to B&R Promotional Products in New York City. From 1980 to 1988, he ordered a total of 345,500 buttons from this one vendor. Pop Shop Archives, KHF Archives. A large portion of these were sold for 50 cents in the Pop Shop. 127. Drawing the Line. 128. Valerie Gladstone, “Keith Haring: Art’s Bad Boy,” Daily News (March 1986). KHF Archives, 1986 press box. Also see Tulio DeSantis, “Haring Update: Subterranean Artist Rode Subway to the Stars,” National Press (1982), KHF Archives, 1982 press box. 129. Jones, “Keith Haring Art or Industry,” 44. Haring also said, If you sell your work cheaply, you just get used by the system; somebody else buys it and sells it for more. . . . Money’s like a drug, I see it in every walk of life so far; I’ve not found any way to make a dent in, or alter that. In some sense, I’m already addicted. It’s really hard not to be . . . when you don’t have to do something else to survive, it’s hard to want to work for somebody else at $2.50 an hour, just to maintain your integrity. . . . I’m just not in the same boat as I was when I was in nightclubs organizing shows. . . . I don’t feel that different, but I’m forced to be different. Gablik, “Report from New York,” 36 130. For example, he paid tens of thousands of dollars every year for his birthday party that he called Party of Life and invited hundreds. See Jones, “Keith Haring Art or Industry,” 44. Also see Hager, Art After Midnight, 129–131. Haring was also known to promote his friends, cover other’s expenses, donate to charity, and live cheaply. He said, I don’t have that big a desire for material things. . . . Actually, I’ve sort of gone beyond the point of having everything I want to having more than enough. Having to deal with that isn’t really as easy as it sounds. . . . I keep it in perspective as much as possible. As long as you make it work for you, it’s not necessarily a problem. Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 105 Several critics have commented on the fact that money did not change Haring. See Stephen Saban, “Meanwhile Back in New York City . . . Keith Haring . . .” Hamptons Newspaper/Magazine (June 30, 1983): 54 and Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 52. 131. Drenger, “Art and Life,” 45. 132. Keith Haring Journals, 99. In another article, he said: All people hear about is how much money I make, I hate having people hate me. . . . Success has brought a kind of guilt. You have to live up to it. I try to turn it around, to help people and give things. Paula Span, “Graffiti’s Scrawl of Success, Drawing for Millions,” Washington Post (December 30, 1985): D1.

Early Lessons in Populism and Advertising

47

133. Keith Haring Journals, xvii. In 1988, Haring lamented that The Museum of Modern Art had not shown even one of his pieces. See Janet Tyson, “Artist Stays One Step Ahead of Chic,” Time Tribune (December 1985), KHF Archives, 1985 press box. Also see Keith Haring Journals, 207–208. 134. Fuller, “Whizz Bam.” 135. Haring, “A Real Artist.” Also see Steven Hager, “Art on the Block: Keith Haring,” East Village Eye (October 1981), in which Hager talks about the general aversion of critics toward Haring and the East Village scene. 136. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 64. He talks about a successful show he had at the Tony Shafrazi Gallery in 1988 that was not covered by The New York Times or Artforum. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 194. His work was also not acquired by The Museum of Modern Art until the 1990s. Keith Haring Journals, xxiii and 207. 137. Haring, “A Real Artist.” 138. Also see, “Press Conference and Roof Painting for Pop Shop Tokyo Container,” KHA0805, KHF Online Video Archive; “Keith Haring Self Portrait” on CBS this morning, KHA-0671, April 11, 1988, 5 minutes, KHF Online Video Archive; and “NBC Evening Magazine,” KHA-0683, 1986, 11 minutes 48 seconds, KHF Online Video Archive. 139. Marla Donato, “Hanging Out,” Chicago Tribune (October 1985), KHF Archives, 1985 press box. 140. “Pop Goes his Easel,” KHA 0535, KHF Online Video Archive. 141. DeSantis, “Haring Update,” National Press. 142. “Artist at Work,” KHA 0565, KHF Online Video Archive. Haring said, “Drawing in public is a performance for me . . . this [meaning the interview] is a performance.” Haring also called the Pop Shop a performance in his journals. Keith Haring Journals, 115. 143. Ibid., 174. 144. Ibid., 16. 145. Many of the Polaroids show him and others wearing his T-shirts with his designs, compounding the publicity of his work. 146. See Keith Haring Journals, 21. 147. Haring, Art in Transit. 148. John A. Walker, Art and Celebrity (Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2003) 1 and 14. 149. See Rosie Millard, The Tastemakers: UK Art Now (London: Thames and Hudson, 2001) 74. 150. Deborah Phillips, “Bright Lights, Big City,” ARTnews (September 1985): 82. Also see Peter Frank and Michael McKenzie, New, Used, and Improved: Art for the 80s (New York: Abbeville Press, 1987) 6; Kay Larson, “Art of the Newest: Big Money, Superstar Painters Fuel the Fantasy Machine,” New York Magazine (December 25, 1989): 76; and Irving Sandler, Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s (New York: Harper Collins, 1996) 430. 151. Michael Auping, Urban Theater: New York Art in the 1980s (New York: Rizzoli, 2014) 24. 152. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 193. 153. Walker, Art and Celebrity, 228–239. Curator Jack Bankowsky lists the similarities between Haring and Koons but concedes that “Haring’s populism seems more authentic, more gentle than Koon’s lust for tabloid self-evidence . . .” Jack Bankowsky, “Pop Life,” in Pop Life: Art in a Material World, ed. by Jack Bankowsky, Alison Gingeras, and Catherine Wood (London: Tate Publishing, 2009) 28.

2

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops of the 1980s

“It has been commented upon more than once that the best attribute and the worst problem of the East Village is that it is too much fun.” —Carlo McCormick1

Keith Haring’s Pop Shop might be the most commercially viable artist-run shop of the 1980s, but it was by no means the first. In the years before it was established, the Downtown scene in New York fostered widespread, but largely unrecognized, populist practices of artist-run stores and multiples, along with other alternate circulation strategies.2 At the end of the 1970s, a younger generation of artists emerged in the East Village and created a space for themselves in galleries, warehouses, clubs, and on the streets, cultivating a range of do-it-yourself (DIY) approaches and interdisciplinary art making, blending poetry, music, performance, and the visual arts. After 1981, the site gained increasing attention and massive financial success. This allowed some of its artists—including Haring—to break out and succeed, ultimately changing the culture from one of community to one of competitive careerism. By 1984, the East Village’s market reached saturation, and the movement dissipated.3 Haring was an important figure of the period, interacting with several of his contemporaries across various groups (e.g., the artist collective Colab and artists associated with Neo-Geo, Neo-Conceptualism, Neo-Expressionism, and graffiti and street art practices). This flexibility exposed him to a wide array of art practices and opportunities and developed his already established sense of independence and countercultural impulses, primed by the anti-institutional lessons acquired in his youth. He learned to aggregate and present his work without a dealer or a curator, taking his career into his own hands. He also learned various ways to target and address audiences outside of the art world, most notably through the framework of the artistrun shop—which proliferated within the East Village’s cultural context of alternative spaces and DIY exhibitions. Some major examples include Colab’s Times Square Show shop (1980) and A. More Store (1980–86), Fashion Moda Store at Documenta 7 (1982), and Ona Lindquist’s Objet Vend’art by Vendona (1985–89). Participating in these ventures much more than previously recognized, they, along with the East Village at large, his own early work, personal experiences, and burgeoning celebrity, helped Haring formulate the concepts and mechanisms that then underpinned his Pop Shop and art merchandise. Like the Pop Shop, these artist-run stores have been discussed very little in scholarship, and much of the information on their existence has come from archives and interviews, plus checklists from a few small-scale exhibitions.4 In part, this is because

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

49

these stores were small, unprofitable operations, and by most considered to be fun, nonserious pastimes. Collectively authored and mostly peripheral to the artists’ individual careers, no one individual had a significant incentive to chart or document them in detail.5 Adding to the lack of written records, the cheap and utilitarian nature of many of the objects (e.g., T-shirts, notepads, objects made from cardboard) sold at these stores did not encourage long-term preservation or acquisition. These multiples were not intended to be displayed in an art gallery or museum, or beheld as precious objects by collectors. Instead, they were typically bought and enjoyed by the artists themselves or their friends. Except for some items saved by those involved and a few art collectors who were acquaintances with these artists or who hosted the A. More Store—such as Jack Tilton and Jeffrey Deitch—these objects have been largely scattered and lost.6 In short, as temporary collaborative efforts that produced mainly cheap, ephemeral objects, these experiences were left to be pieced together decades later. The general lack of consideration given to these artist-run shops could be due to the influential but narrow version of the 1980s put forth by the period’s ascendant voices. Apathetic to populist practices that engaged with common commercialism, the production of multiples and shops with low-price points did not fit into the narrative that favored Neo-Conceptualism, the Pictures Generation, and Neo-Expressionism.7 In fact, the only artists who have received substantial credit for their multiples—such as T-shirts—are Jenny Holzer and Barbara Kruger, who are often associated with these more critically acclaimed movements. Both Holzer and Kruger sold multiples at the A. More Store, the Times Square Show shop, and Documenta, but their connections to Colab or Colab’s stores are rarely highlighted.8 Similar to Haring’s posthumous reception, aspects of the East Village have also been overshadowed by the negative backlash of 1980s critics, who were put off by the scene’s explicit art-market success. Craig Owens attacked the East Village as an “enfant garde” and an extended market of the art world, rather than a scene or an avant-garde in its own right.9 Robert Hughes derided it for creating painter millionaires at 30, whose only real skill was “careerist maneuvering and a market quickening to reward it; the ascendancy of naïve and opportunistic collectors.”10 For decades, these polemics discouraged a deeper appreciation of those—like Haring—who found financial success and fame, and also treated the East Village homogeneously, precluding a more nuanced understanding of others who did not have breakout careers in the 1980s.11 In the last decade or so, some underrepresented aspects of East Village art production and culture have resurfaced and received more attention.12 Nonetheless, thus far, in-depth discussion has come almost exclusively from insiders directly involved at the time—including Dan Cameron, Diego Cortez, Edit DeAk, Steven Hager, Carlo McCormick, Peter McGough, Michael McKenzie, Alan Moore, Nicolas Moufarrege, Rene Ricard, and Walter Robinson—not yet a serious area of inquiry in academic programs (though this is currently changing).13 Additionally, while these writers have championed alternative histories of the scene, only a few have acknowledged the artist-run store and the production of multiples.14 Carlo McCormick, for example, briefly mentions the trend of the “subversive .  .  . mock shop” in The Downtown Book, in which he includes Keith Haring’s Pop Shop, along with Printed Matter, the shop at the Times Square Show, and the “annual More Store” at White Columns.15 However, these projects were not simply meant by all involved to be a satirical critique of consumerism; opinions vary within groups depending on whom you ask. Their

50 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops relationship to commercialism and the art world is complex and at times ambiguous or contradictory like Haring. Generally, these stores acted as both a critique and an embrace of both consumer and art-world cultures to varying degrees. Like Haring, many partook in these shops to widen art participation by selling cheap art and, therefore, bypassing inaccessible institutional hierarchies, like the art market.16 The artist-run stores discussed in this chapter all began in the early to mid-1980s and overlapped with Haring’s realm of experience. Other relevant examples could have been added, including the multiples sold at Jaime Davidovich’s Wooster Enterprises (1976–78) on Wooster Street or at General Idea’s Boutique (1980) shown at the 49th Parallel Gallery in New York City, but due to space and relevance, my focus here is on the artist-run stores most relevant to the scenes that shared Haring’s spirit of populism and had the potential to shape him the most.17 The stores by artists from Colab especially had direct but unexplored connections to Haring. Although Lindquist did not overlap with Colab or Haring, her project had many of the same philosophies and strategies and can therefore validate the special circumstances of the Downtown’s cultural context that encouraged this kind of artistic activity.

Downtown Scene: Relevant Themes and Philosophies Location, much more than aesthetics or style, united the artists of the East Village in the 1980s.18 The most exemplary characterization of this milieu was diversity—a freefor-all melting pot of experimentation that produced a wide range of art and culture.19 Artists, musicians, writers, and poets of different socioeconomic backgrounds mixed artistic forms, mounted their own exhibitions, and established their own alternative spaces and collaborative collectives. Many also tended to use the street as a stage and tested unconventional distributional and promotional techniques. In the mid-1970s, New York City was nearly bankrupt. Responding to the economic slump and the dearth of patronage in the art world at large, artists congregated in SoHo, which offered large loft spaces and cheap rent. New alternative and artist-run spaces arose, such as The Kitchen (1971), Artists Space (1972), Clocktower Gallery (1972), 3 Mercer Store (1973), and Printed Matter (1976).20 Art professionals from Upper East Side galleries followed the artist migration, establishing several new galleries that turned SoHo into a contemporary art hub and booming market. These changes revived the previously dilapidated area, fully gentrifying the neighborhood by the late 1970s.21 This caused artists, particularly the next generation, to be priced out and seek new places to live and work. Continuing the gentrification cycle of creatives inhabiting run-down areas in New York City for a bargain (and then revitalizing them), much of the alternative, artist-run culture shifted to the East Village.22 Without opportunities to show their work, many East Village artists took a cue from their predecessors and started their own galleries, such as the Fun Gallery (1981), Gracie Mansion (1982), Nature Morte (1982), and Civilian Warfare (1982).23 By and large, these spaces were pragmatic, offering a place for artists to collectively promote their work and to try and make a living. To an extent, they were placeholders until artists were noticed by the institutionalized art world, that is, the older, more established galleries and museums in the Upper East Side and the new galleries and art networks in SoHo.24 While they waited, they had a good time. According to Haring, “Everything that was done there was done for the love of doing it.”25 East Village artists’ initial freedom

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

51

from the art market and its pressures allowed them to expand the idea of art and its display, exhibiting art on the streets, in abandoned buildings, in nightclubs, or in artistrun stores, all venue types employed by Haring at one time or another. Infused with spontaneity and fluidity, many of these exhibitions were open to anyone and meant to be flexible and informal, sometimes with shows lasting just one night and artists adding works to walls in the last minute. In 1979, Peter Frank termed this ubiquitous, one-shot DIY-kind-of-exhibition as “guerilla gallerizing,” a new type of temporary, event-oriented art space.26 For many, these new art-viewing experiences went against art-world norms by circumventing the formality of a contemplative white cube, creating instead a fun, loud, and approachable atmosphere of social and artistic interactions: more nightclub than gallery. Incidentally, this generation’s need to exhibit coincided with the rise of punk and New Wave music, and the new burgeoning nightlife at clubs like Club 57, Area, the Paradise Garage, the Pyramid, Danceteria, the Mudd Club, and Palladium. These environments—of which Haring was an insatiable participant—catalyzed the community and its diverse culture through “dancing and sex and fun and craziness.”27 Club owners recognized the enormous value of the art-plus-nightlife formula to attract and keep clientele and encouraged the free reign of their venues as exhibition spaces, even commissioning site-specific artwork. Art critics Edit DeAk and Rene Ricard deemed the period “Clubism.”28 Clubs were galleries and galleries were clubs. Building his social network, Haring organized shows at clubs that exhibited his own work and work by a wide variety of other artists, usually friends or those who responded to open-call advertisements. At Club 57 in 1980, he invited submissions to a Xerox exhibition through an ad in The SoHo Weekly News.29 A perfect embodiment of fun guerilla gallerizing, one reporter described the show as: the children of Mickey and Goofy, the Beatles and the Stones, Marx and CocaCola showed their copier art . . . papered wall to wall, floor to ceiling with propaganda and artful statements. . . . The show was here today gone tomorrow, but if the New Wave is indeed endless, so is the supply of chemically treated paper.30 After Club 57, the Mudd Club hired Haring to organize a series of one-night exhibitions. For these artists, “The idea wasn’t to sell anything, but to make it into an event—a one-night opening,” again demonstrating the scene’s casual and feeting nature.31 The frst exhibition, the Lower Manhattan Drawing Show, in February 1981, included 77 artists from ABC No Rio, Fashion Moda, Group Material circuit.32 Haring also organized a graffti art exhibition in 1981 called Beyond Words, one of the frst graffti shows in the East Village. This show was so popular and chaotic, as well as destructive, that the Mudd Club fred him. Co-organized with Fab 5 Freddy and Futura 2000, the show introduced dozens of unknown graffti artists to the art world, who became the core group then shown at the Fun Gallery. Run by Patti Astor and Bill Stelling, the Fun Gallery’s exhibitions were also like parties. Astor asked, “Who says that a gallery has to be repulsive, uptight, or stupid?”33 In this same spirit, Haring created a poster and a T-shirt for a later solo exhibition of his at the Fun Gallery, contorting the bodies of his characteristic fgures to spell out “Fun” (Figure 2.1). He continued this lively approach for his frst opening at the Tony Shafrazi Gallery in 1982, an event that had blasting hip-hop music and a psychedelic Day-Glo basement of glowing artworks. Hundreds of people crammed into the space.

52 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

Figure 2.1 Keith Haring, Fun Gallery postcard, 1983. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

Part of the reason many East Village artists focused on fun and socializing was that they did not want their work to be taken too seriously. It was a conscious effort to pull away from the heavy theory imposed on art of the late 1960s and 1970s, which continued in the “over-determined art criticism that typified the early 80s.”34 Brian Wallis’s seminal book Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation (1984) is representative of this academic-theoretical type that proliferated.35 The dominance of its methods in scholarship has been perpetuated in academia, at times referred to as the “bible” of the period.36 While its significance in understanding postmodernism is uncontested and in its time was groundbreaking, its emphasis on theory leaves out the atmosphere of East Village artists who purposefully avoided intellectual debates, as well as the legacies of “stark minimalism and stringent conceptualism.”37 They opted instead to put forward a more accessible, nonintellectual kind of art with more readable subject matter—Haring a prominent example. Some expressed this accessible aesthetic through objects and strategies derived from daily life and consumer culture, like kitsch and junk, as well as the news media and advertising. In his book, Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s, Irving Sandler splits early 1980s art into two categories: one of “fine art,” or painting, that led to Neo-Expressionism, and the other—more descriptive of the work discussed in this chapter—“toward an extreme ‘bad’ painting,” based on “anarchic and infantile impulses, an anyone-can-do-it aesthetic.”38 This “backlash trash” and “bad art,” as some critics identified it, raised important questions about art and redefined how it could enter everyday situations.39 To these artists, it could take the shape

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

53

and function of common commodities, such as a zine, a poster, or a vending machine, and be used and disseminated outside of gallery spaces.40 The use of mass media channels and common consumerism in the 1980s was in part derived from an adapted legacy of Andy Warhol and 1960s Pop art, to the point that several art professionals have referred to artistic strains of the East Village as NeoPop.41 But Downtown artists, like Haring, recognized that they needed to adopt (and not just reference) certain traits of consumerism and advertising to reach new audiences and to find alternate paths to professional success—a reversal of Pop artists’ mostly unidirectional engagement with popular culture. As stated succinctly by artist and critic Nicolas Moufarrege: “[T]he 1960s brought pop into art, the 1980s are taking art to pop.”42 Furthermore, rather than positioning themselves as business artists with an air of irony and disinterestedness, like Warhol did, many Downtown artists carried on with their work as if consumerism was a matter of fact, uninterested in offering provocative or ironic commentary against it. These artists took for granted the idea of combining art with commercial systems: after all, art was a commodity like everything else.43 Common consumerism was not a negative phenomenon to critique or agitate; it was a tool to counteract the art market’s unaffordability. Taking this logic into account, along with the other major alternative and populist themes of the period, it is no surprise that many of these artists took on the artist-run store as an artistic practice.

Colab Stores and Art Multiples The collective Collaborative Projects Inc., known as “Colab,” formed in 1977 in Downtown New York City. Members of the original group, including artists Charlie Ahearn, Coleen Fitzgibbon, and Diego Cortez, had a mutual interest in filmmaking and formed Colab to share the cost of expensive film equipment.44 By 1979, the group’s focus shifted to the visual arts, attracting artists such as Tom Otterness, Kiki Smith, Jane Dickson, Christy Rupp, Jenny Holzer, plus many more. Although Colab was active for about ten years, its best-known activities occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period in which they hosted open-call, group exhibitions housed in derelict, multifloored spaces, characterized as “group-generated publicly sited art projects.”45 In Colab, membership evolved over time, and involvement varied from project to project, with officer positions rotated annually. Inclusive and open, one could obtain membership by attending three meetings, participating in a Colab project, or simply stating a desire to join.46 Striving for equal opportunity and democratic ideals, Colab tried to reach decisions through consensus in an argumentative process described by members as “messy.”47 By the early 1980s, Colab was so large, with about 50 individuals at any given time, that even artists not officially members of Colab, like Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Barbara Kruger, Jonathan Borofsky, and Group Material, participated in their exhibitions and projects. Following the Downtown ethos at large, Colab members were bound together by a mutual ethos of an artist-controlled art experience, taking charge of everything from scouting exhibition locations and fundraising, curating, and promoting to writing their own press releases and reviews. The diverse range of artists in the group were far from having a cohesive purpose and mainly came together for exposure, pragmatically using their status as a collective to pool funds from newly available government grants for artist groups (not individual artists).48 Some Colab members maintained that their independence was strategic, an intentional way to operate outside of art

54 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops institutions that perpetuated elitist notions of art. Still, on the whole, Colab artists often had one foot in the art world or hoped to eventually take advantage of what it could offer, with a selective blindness about the contradictions of capitalism or populism when it came to financial opportunities. Every Colab project was different. Varying widely in themes, some initiatives took on serious and political issues, while others were meant to be casual or amusing. Their most well-known projects were large-scale group exhibitions housed in multifloored spaces, in which individuals would contribute to a loose umbrella theme. In addition to their own exhibitions, Colab also varied their work’s distribution on other alternative platforms, like concerts, magazines (including X Motion Picture Magazine (1979–) and Bomb magazine (1981–)) cable television shows (including All Color News, Potato Wolf, and Red Curtain from 1978 to 1984), and the streets. Jenny Holzer famously wheat-pasted her covertly political Truisms on walls, and Christy Rupp left plaster and paper rats on sidewalks and dumpsters to bring awareness and respect to the wildlife of the city.49 According to artist Tom Otterness, A lot of us were looking for a place to show, and there was no avenue to get into galleries. Our impulse was to do work in the real world, outside galleries and museums. We did cable programs; we did a magazine. We would fight like cats and dogs over how to spend what little money we had.50 Colab infltrated the city through these myriad channels because of their lack of access to the more established art world and its publicity machine. But they also recognized the lack of access others had as well, and so with intentions bent toward populism and social action, they experimented with new approaches to connect with a larger audience. Many Colab artists felt a responsibility to their local communities, focusing on art and activities that encouraged inclusivity and engagement.51 Some members went on to create collectives in the Bronx and the Lower East Side, including Fashion Moda (1978–84) and ABC No Rio (1980–), that were actively involved in their respective neighborhoods. Stefan Eins, head of Fashion Moda, asserted, “We’d like to challenge the prejudice that art should be for an elite and that only someone who’s been to school can understand.”52 In line with the anti-intellectualist strains of the East Village, Colab created pluralist works that could be understandable in a media-saturated world, as well as challenge the art market by not conforming to critical tastes.53 For example, Colab collectively imbued their work with figuration and playfulness, reacting against the starkness of Minimalism and seriousness of Conceptualism.54 Colab’s stores from 1980 to 1986, including the Times Square Show shop, the A. More Store, and the Fashion Moda Store at Documenta 7, were also meant to participate in this popular spirit.

Times Square Show Shop Conceived by Colab artists Tom Otterness and John Ahearn, Colab’s most famous group exhibition, the Times Square Show (1980), brought together a diverse group of over a hundred young artists from all over New York City—including Haring—into an empty massage parlor in Times Square.55 At the time, Richard Goldstein deemed it “the first radical art show of the 80s,” and scholars now consider it to be a seminal moment of 1980s art history.56 Covering every surface of the four-story building, the Times Square Show mirrored the casual and dynamic nature of collective exhibitions

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

55

in the East Village. The show had no wall labels, and participants stacked and crowded objects on top of each other without any organizational scheme (except for first come, first served).57 Open to the public for the entire month of June, the space also hosted films and performances, encouraging a social atmosphere between artists. Demonstrative of the scene’s populist leanings, a lot of the artists contributed easily readable work that dealt with entertainment, sex, emotions, fashion, and politics. Ahearn explained that the show was by artists, who had a commitment and a kind of solidarity with regular everyday people . . . it was bypassing Artforum and a lot of the more difficult intellectual ideas of contemporary art . . . as opposed to going through the art world, we were going to go the other way around.58 The show was a “location free from high culture,” “un-colonized by art theory and philosophy” and meant to be for anyone.59 The show was also where Colab introduced their frst artist-run shop. Installed in the ground floor of the building, the Times Square Show’s shop was run by Tom Otterness and Cara Perlman (Figure 2.2). Any artist could submit work to the shop, but if they wanted proceeds, they had to log time working at the counter.60 The Time Square Show’s open-ended organization attracted all kinds of experimental art, but the shop offered an even lower-stakes venue for artists to try out new ideas, a proposition that attracted over 40 artist participants. It sold objects between $10 and $15, the most popular were Kiki Smith’s wooden cigarette objects, which she made by cutting and then painting two-by-fours from a construction site near her home (Figure 2.3).61 The store also sold prints of Holzer’s Truisms, plaster casts by Perlman, empty wine bottles with prints by John Fekner, plastic pistols with wings by Otterness, plaster casts and spray paintings of rats by Rupp, T-shirts by Smith, Rupp, and Christof Kohlhöfer, and air conditioners decorated by Kenny Scharf. Becky Howland sold Love Canal Potatoes, which were painted potatoes with dolls eyes that had mutated in the Love Canal toxic waste dump near her childhood home.62 Bobby G (Robert Goldman) sold Times Square and Money Talks missile pins. Haring sold collaged porn magazines from a newsstand-like display.63 Like the rest of the show, the shop rebelled against the high-mindedness of art institutions, rethinking what art could be and how it could appeal to more people.64 In particular, the gift shop, a place where nearly anyone could afford to buy a piece of art, had a window that opened out onto the street designed to attract walk-ins who were more accustomed to cheap shops than art galleries.65 Understanding the broad familiarity of common consumer culture, Rupp surmised that the “opportunity presented by the TSS (Times Square Show) and the Souvenir Shop was actively interfacing with the public. It was about drawing people in, and the objects were conceived as a way to seduce street traffic.”66 Lippard characterized the Times Square gift shop as the artists’ “microcosmic strike for economic independence and control of their products.”67 Despite this ambitious claim, however, most involved did not expect to make money off the shop (or the show more generally) to achieve any kind of economic independence. It was not about making money, but about increasing access—even if only in theory—and providing a fun atmosphere of artistic exchange.68 Several critics contextualized the show’s gift shop within art history, comparing it to Claes Oldenburg’s Store and Fluxus’s shops.69 Like Oldenburg’s store, the gift shop sold items that referenced its surrounding culture—Times Square and its

Source: Photograph by Wolfgang Staehle.

Figure 2.2 Times Square Show shop, 1980.

56 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

57

Figure 2.3 Kiki Smith, Untitled (Cigarette Pack), 1980. Oil paint on wood, 5 3/4 × 3 1/2 × 1 1/2. Source: Courtesy online Gallery 98.

grittiness—but it went further by offering work even more akin to the knick-knacks sold in the neighborhood in that they were functional (like a T-shirt) or they matched their material qualities (cheap and disposable). The objects sold in the Times Square Show shop, and in the stores by Colab that followed, adhered to the handmade, junk aesthetic of the DIY culture that was meant to celebrate common culture and critique the preciousness and pretension of the fine-art object.70 Oldenburg’s store quoted mass consumer culture, but his objects still ultimately operated within the art market as coveted, unique sculptures, and were intended for art collectors.71

58 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops On top of cheap art multiple distribution via the shop, Colab also used outdoor and print advertising to publicize the show to reach more people.72 They advertised through flyers and signage, press kits and television spots, all designed and implemented by Colab artists. Matthew Geller, Perlman, and Coleen Fitzgibbon convinced Channel 5 National Video to screen Times Square Show commercials for free, which they broadcasted between segments of the Late, Late Show. Jane Dickson drew the show’s frontispiece: an aerial shot of hands playing Three-card Monte, a reference to the street gambling in the area. Dickson produced this image as a poster and as an animation for the Spectacolor billboard in Times Square, two years before she invited Haring and other artists to create their own art animations.73 The 30-second spot, running once an hour during the entire month of June, showed three cards that wiped to reveal the Times Square Show’s date, time, and place.74 The Times Square Show was important to Haring for a number of reasons. It was the venue that introduced him officially to graffiti writers, such as Fab 5 Freddy, and to several other Downtown artists of the period, leading to their inclusion in some of Haring’s exhibits. The show also introduced him to the concept of the artist-run shop and the creation of cheap multiples. Furthermore, the convergence and exchange of these diverse artist groups under one roof provided a model for Haring’s future art practice: never belonging specifically to one but interacting, and therefore learning, from all of them. Describing the Times Square Show’s significance, Jeffrey Deitch wrote: If you trace the history of art in the 80s, you will find that the show was responsible for bringing all the elements together. It mixed graffiti artists, feminists, political artists, and all kinds of new people like Haring and Kenny Scharf who weren’t part of any group. It literally forged the Uptown-Downtown union that has been responsible for many of the most interesting developments in art today.75 The artist-run shop of the show was a piece of this phenomenon, bringing incredibly distinct artists together into an even smaller space. It also set an important precedent for Colab, which created several more stores over the next six years.

A. More Store A few months after the Times Square Show, Colab artists Kiki Smith and Alan Moore, along with Tom Otterness, Jenny Holzer, Jolie Stahl, Coleen Fitzgibbon, Cara Perlman, Judy Rifka, and others had the idea to create a shop that would be open temporarily for about a month during the holiday season.76 Named “A. More Store,” after Alan Moore (also meant to be a play on the word “amore”), any artist could add items.77 Smith and Stahl rented a storefront on Broome Street for the first A. More Store in December 1980, advertising it as “SoHo’s newest and surely its funkiest retail enterprise.”78 The artists enjoyed it so much that the holiday-timed A. More Store reopened every year around the same time of year until January 1986 (Figure 2.4).79 One goal of the shop was to reach an audience beyond the art world, but in the end, most of its customers were artists and a few collectors, that is, those already familiar with Colab or those in the arts who frequented the art-centric SoHo neighborhood.80 Otterness has emphasized this popular spirit of Colab’s stores more so than others involved, in line with his later, crowd-pleasing public sculptures.81 To Otterness,

Source: © Lisa Kahane.

Figure 2.4 A. More Store at White Columns, 1980.

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops 59

60 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops cheap multiples are akin to public art, something that “everyone can afford and take home.”82 After Broome Street, the shop was installed in White Columns in December 1981, Barbara Gladstone in December 1982, Artists Space and the Jack Tilton Gallery in 1983, and Printed Matter in December 1984 and 1985.83 In 1983, once the store gained some notoriety, it was installed outside of New York at the Moore College of Art in Philadelphia.84 In total, the Broome Street A. More Store was the only space that maintained complete independence, “eliminate[ing] the middleman” by “selling directly to the public.”85 Once galleries became involved, the store inevitably changed and became more entrenched within the art world despite their intentions to reach audiences outside of it. More collectors visited, artists with bigger reputations sold more, and the store became less of a social artist hangout.86 But while the A. More Store needed institutional support to maintain its existence, it was still largely artistdirected and organized.87 Without any strict guidelines, artists submitted objects that were derived from their individual styles and current work. The objects’ only similarities were that they were small, usually made from cheap materials, easily reproducible, and sold at low prices from the same location. In every iteration, artists continuously added or took away inventory at will. Items were arranged haphazardly, tacked to the wall and crowded together on tables—especially in the small, one-room spaces like on Broome Street and Barbara Gladstone—similar to the exhibition strategies of the East Village scene, the Times Square Show, and eventually the Pop Shop. Like the Times Square Show shop and other early Downtown exhibitions, the store allowed for an informal environment in which artists were freed up “to play and not be invested terribly in the outcome.”88 Some artists who participated in the A. More Store were not even in Colab, such as Dan Ashford, Tim Rollins, and Barbara Kruger.89 Reflecting the diversity of the group, objects varied considerably, ranging in price from 50¢ to $900.90 Many of the items were functional: Rupp crafted a rat-themed Christmas ornament; Geller printed calendars and day-planners; Bobby G screen printed cruise missile socks; and Kiki Smith made severed finger earrings and printed eyes on scarves, brains on hats, and uteruses on stationery (Figure 2.5).91 Several artists sold T-shirts, including rat T-shirts by Rupp, Truisms T-shirts by Holzer, and a Smashed TV T-shirt by Moore.92 Others used simple reproductive processes to create editions of posters, prints, cards, and portable objects, printed on cheaper materials like paper, napkins, shopping bags, and plaster. Dick Miller hand-stenciled “A. More Store” on a paper shopping bag, Robinson printed portraits on manila folders, and Stahl sold laminated placemats that had prints of celebrity artist tombstone rubbings. Otterness made zodiac sex-position posters and plaster casts for $4.99—mimicking the popular objects that were sold at a Bronx Botanica shop.93 Unlike Haring’s merchandise, most objects sold at the A. More Store were made or finished by hand. Ellen Cooper made dishware out of papier-mâché, Rupp sold cardboard fish, and Debbie Davis crafted cooked-chicken bookends covered with latex.94 Several artists also incorporated political and social issues. Stahl drew child refugees on napkins in response to political corruption in Central America, and Rollins, in collaboration with K.O.S., sold painted bricks that represented the tenements burning in the Bronx.95 Critiquing Big Oil and the National Rifle Association, Howland made cardboard ornaments of money bags, oil towers, and phallic-shaped guns.96 Colab advertised the store in local publications, most regularly in the East Village Eye. The aesthetics of the ads and announcements reflect the range of the store. Every year they were markedly distinct, made by a different hand, sometimes

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

61

Figure 2.5 Christy Rupp, Rat Ornament, 1980–83. Spray stencil on copper foil, 3 3/4 × 5 1/2. Source: Courtesy online Gallery 98.

typed, handwritten, or drawn (Figures 2.6 and 2.7). The very first ad for the A. More Store links it to the legacy of the Times Square Show, with the subheading, “FROM THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU THE TIMES SQUARE SHOW.”97 A few ads figure cartoon-like depictions of the objects for sale strewn across the page, mimicking their scattered installation in the stores. Some announcement postcards take on a Christmas or holiday theme, hinting toward the gift-giving season—perfect for buying multiples.98 Another ad in the East Village Eye includes a mail-order service with the tagline “BE SMART BUY ART!” and six product options: a fungus finger by Smith, a Bobby G Money Talks pin, a plaster statue by Perlman, a plaster hatchet head by Howland, a plaster cave girl plaque by Cooper, and a daily planner by Geller.99 Here, the ad did not just promote the store; it acted as a store itself, taking advantage of the larger circulation of the publication.

62 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

Figure 2.6 Tom Otterness, A. More Store advertisement, 1980. Source: Courtesy online Gallery 98.

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

Figure 2.7 A. More Store advertisement, 1981. Source: Courtesy online Gallery 98.

63

64 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops This presented a new way for other audiences (i.e., whoever subscribed to the East Village Eye) to participate. Taking this disembodied store concept to the next level, Colab also produced a stand-alone A. More Store mail-order catalog, an important precedent for the catalogs Haring later designed for the Pop Shop. In October 1982, the group published 5,000 copies of the Art Direct Mail Order Catalog.100 The catalog, facilitated by Mike Glier, was mailed to thousands of people in the United States and Europe from Colab’s contact and collector lists.101 The idea was “to provide an opportunity for the new wider art audience to purchase original artworks at affordable prices,” and to reach an audience beyond the boundaries of the city and the art world.102 No one is exactly sure how many orders were taken. Some, like Rupp, remember modest numbers, while others recall selling 1 to 200 items, though “no one made more than $100.”103 According to the 1983 Landslides catalog of the A. More Store in Philadelphia, Art Direct had received “in excess of $5,000 in three months.”104 The catalog itself is small, with about two objects per page, organized into four categories: objects, flatwork (two-dimensional multiples), fashion, and books. Captions describe the object and its edition, with added satirical commentary. Otterness’s Zodiac Love sex figurines sold for $11.99 each and impart the following advice: “Let the stars be your guide as you attain this, the climax to any collection.” Brian Piersol’s Tunnel Tool Set ($9.95) is “COMPLETELY USELESS AND PROUD OF IT.”105 A fashion section shows Colab artists modeling T-shirts for sale from $9 to $10 designed by Eins, Holzer, Rupp, Smith, and Fekner. Taken as a whole, the catalog reinforces the light-hearted tenor of the venture—not quite expecting to be taken seriously—as opposed to the fun but more professional catalogs Haring produced later. In addition, the group snapshot of artists modeling T-shirts, photographed as if they were just hanging out, contrasts with the anonymous models of multiple demographics in Haring’s brochures, which were staged in a photography studio. This suggests that Colab’s T-shirts, while meant to be broadly popular, were principally made for the artists themselves and their friends, while Haring’s merchandise and promotion took on more conventions of consumer culture to reach a much bigger audience. In another print media strategy, Colab featured the A. More Store and its items in a series of Artforum ads on the edges of eight pages, designed by Stahl, in December 1984.106 The copy, attributed to Stahl, Moore, and Glier, is like the tongue-in-cheek descriptions for the Art Direct catalog. Maria Thompson’s hand-crocheted Thermonuclear-Proof Athletic Supporter is a “perfect gift for sports nuts who refuse to let all out atomic war come between them and their favorite game,” and Amy Hauft made an edible sugar bowl “for the anorexic 80s.”107 Three objects at a time are displayed angled toward the centerfold of the magazine with a background of red-and-green Christmas colors. A description of the store is included: The A. More Store is Collaborative Projects Inc.’s seasonal sale of artists’ objects and products. Its intent is to offer a service to artists, providing them with an independent, unconventional method of distribution. These multiples and editions range from theories to ball gowns, from the sublime to the physical, from space hardware to home appliances, from 50¢ to $500. . . . Every year the A. More Store is hosted by different art establishments; watch for it in your neighborhood.108 The inclusion of the A. More Store in Artforum, a prestigious art institution in and of itself, mirrored the collaborative relationships Colab had with galleries, in

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

65

combination with its previous use of print and broadcast media. It, along with their gallery collaborations, also demonstrates the group’s willingness to compromise their populist intentions when it came to opportunity—ironically reproducing the A. More Store in the same publication that Ahearn had said the Times Square Show shop (the original A. More Store) was meant to bypass.109 While the Artforum ads and the Art Direct catalog continued to reach a more insular crowd, they did allow Colab to extend the project to their personal and professional networks outside of New York City across the country. They even shared it internationally: in 1982, a version of the store was opened in Germany by Fashion Moda.

Fashion Moda, Documenta 1982 in Kassel, Germany At the midpoint of Colab’s A. More Store’s history, Jenny Holzer and Stefan Eins, both Colab members, staged a working version of the A. More Store as a Fashion Moda project at Documenta 7 in Kassel, Germany (1982). At that point, Fashion Moda had had enough of a public profile that Documenta’s co-curator (and Pop artist) Coosje van Bruggen invited the group to participate, in addition to other well-known Downtown artists, including Haring, Scharf, and Jean-Michel Basquiat.110 Eins and Holzer organized three booths selling art multiples priced from 50¢ to $200, produced by about 30 artists.111 Although most objects came from Colab artists, the designations of “Colab” and “A. More Store” were downplayed by Holzer’s and Fashion Moda’s authorship of the project.112 The press release did not mention the A. More Store by name but, instead, said that the store “relate[s] to Claes Oldenburg’s Store, the Fluxus shops, Stefan Eins’s 3 Mercer, as well as the stores organized by Collaborative Projects, including the one at the Times Square Show.”113 In a review of Documenta, Benjamin Buchloh briefly mentioned the Fashion Moda Store, describing it as “one of the few courageous curatorial choices. Through its petty-commodity program, the hidden order of exchange value underlying Documenta’s high-art pretenses was revealed.”114 Against the backdrop of a large exhibition of international art stars, it was hard not to interpret artists selling multiples as a critique of the art world, as well as its hierarchies and markets. Generally, the 1982 Documenta organized by artistic director Rudi Fuchs was considered a conservative show, a “restatement of the philosophy of art for art’s sake, the foundation of modernism.”115 Fuchs believed that “art is a noble achievement and should be handled with dignity,” evidently (to him) embodied in mostly male European painting and sculpture, Neo-Expressionism, and Minimalist work.116 Overlooking much other contemporary art production, particularly in New York, like video, photography, performance, and street art, Van Bruggen’s inclusion of the Fashion Moda Store defied Fuch’s curatorial vision. Recognizing this, critic Lynn Zelevansky judged the Fashion Moda Store, like Buchloh, as the “single, if only slightly discordant note,” but felt that it was “difficult to comprehend the significance of their statement” and “too easy to miss the point, to regard Fashion Moda’s art as novelties and souvenirs.”117 But Zelevansky misses part of the point herself—these objects were not meant to trivialize or reduce the art that was on display. They were meant to act as affordable novelties and souvenirs to critique the art market, as Buchloh surmised, and to challenge the forms, concepts, and price points that art can take on in the name of access. The Fashion Moda Store sold T-shirts, including one T-shirt by Haring of his Radiant Baby, and objects like what were sold at the A. More Store: brightly painted cardboard bracelets, a packaged can of beets, stationery, fashion accessories like Smith’s finger earrings, plaster casts, knickknacks, stickers, and screen prints (Figure 2.8).118

Source: © Lisa Kahane.

Figure 2.8 Fashion Moda Store, Documenta 7, 1982.

66 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

67

The T-shirts and posters retailed for $4, and over 8,000 T-shirts were ordered—2,500 T-shirts of the Fashion Moda logo, 2,500 of Rupp’s rat T-shirt, 500 of Holzer’s T-shirts, and 50 of Keith Haring’s.119 In addition to Haring, about 20 other artists submitted T-shirt and poster designs made specifically for Documenta, including Joseph Beuys, Anton van Dalen, Jane Dickson, Stefan Eins, Jenny Holzer, Louise Lawler, John Fekner, John “Crash” Matos, Paulette Nenner, Claes Oldenburg, Tom Otterness, Judy Rifka, Christy Rupp, Kenny Scharf, Kiki Smith, Anita Steckel, Johannes Stüttgen, and David Wells.120 Besides the Fashion Moda logo and the Documenta logo, the designs, like the objects sold at the A. More Store, were derived from each artist’s individual oeuvre. The Fashion Moda Store brought the concept of the A. More Store to an international level. To accommodate the transnational nature of Documenta, the Fashion Moda press release and logo, as well as many of the multiples, were reproduced in five languages (Figure 2.9). The store also expanded its repertoire to include an older generation of artists like Oldenburg, along with graffiti and street artists CRASH, Haring, and Scharf, demonstrating the wide-reaching practice of art multiples in the 1980s, and Haring’s early involvement with Colab. Haring’s first inclusion in a museum exhibition was with Fashion Moda in 1980 at the New Museum, six months after he participated in the Times Square Show. An

Figure 2.9 Fashion Moda T-shirt and detail for Documenta 7, 1982. Source: Courtesy online Gallery 98.

68 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops image of his work even accompanied the group exhibition’s review in the East Village Eye.121 Entitled Events, the New Museum also included several Colab artists as well, such as John Ahearn, Jane Dickson, John Fekner, Joe Lewis, Judy Rifka, Christy Rupp, and William Scott.122 This exhibit overlapped in time with the first A. More Store on Broome Street, so it is likely that Haring knew of its existence. Once Haring had established this connection with Fashion Moda, it makes sense that Eins and Holzer invited him to participate in the store at Documenta. In addition, Haring’s career intersected with Holzer on a few occasions before and after Documenta. They both submitted a work to the Times Square Spectacolor billboard project curated by Dickson in 1982. Haring also collaborated with Holzer on her Sign on a Truck project in 1984 and for an outdoor mural exhibition in 1986 in Vienna that merged their street styles.123 Holzer’s and Haring’s art worked well together, having many of the same goals and philosophies. Like Haring, Holzer started her career on the streets with her Truisms and continued to create street work when her art began to be shown in galleries. Like Haring, Holzer wanted her work to reach a broad audience and adopted advertising strategies and aesthetics to encourage access.124 Beyond Holzer and Fashion Moda, Haring knew and interacted with Colab artists fairly regularly. After the Times Square Show, Haring invited Colab artists to participate in his shows at Club 57 in 1980 and at the Mudd Club in 1981.125 Haring was also included in the New York/New Wave show at PS1 in 1981, curated by ex-Colab member Diego Cortez, and took part in a group show in 1981 at the Semaphore Gallery that also featured John Ahearn and Mike Glier. Later, Haring invited Ahearn and Holzer to participate in the group exhibition, Rain Dance, at the Pop Shop in 1985. Because Haring was never affiliated with any one group, he is rarely linked to Colab (even by Colab artists themselves), but he overlapped with them throughout the early 1980s—linking the A. More Store and the Fashion Moda Store with his Pop Shop.

Vending Art Multiples: Objet Vend’art by Vendona Artist Ona Lindquist, although never directly involved with Colab or Haring, spearheaded a project entitled Objet Vend’art by Vendona that sold inexpensive art objects from vending machines. Regardless, however, Vend’art’s creation testifies to the shared climate of alternative spaces and populism in Downtown New York, in addition to art multiple production. Responding as well to Warhol’s pervasive legacy, Lindquist said her machines were inspired by his dream to make a “vending machine that could sell art . . . for 50 cents.”126 Over the course of four years, she installed 11 Vend’art machines in Downtown venues and across the country and invited almost a hundred artists to submit objects, altogether selling over 30,000 items.127 Recalling again the spirit of the early East Village scene, Vend’art was an independent endeavor, controlled, curated, and maintained by Lindquist, even when it was installed in museum stores. She thought of it as a public art project that could offer a fun experience, akin to a carnival prize game.128 Lindquist acquired vintage 1950s ice-cream machines in 1985 and repainted, refurbished, and initially stocked them with small artworks created from latex scraps in her studio.129 She named her business “Vendona” and debuted her Objets Vend’art at the Thorpe Intermedia Gallery in Sparkill, New York, in 1985, which proved to be so popular that Lindquist expanded the operation to other locations. In New York City, she set up a Vend’art machine in the Quad Cinema at 13th Street (1985– 89), which dispensed objects for 75¢ (Figure 2.10). In the city, she placed vending

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

Figure 2.10 Objets Vend’art by Vendona, Quad Cinema, 1985–89. Source: Courtesy Ona Lindquist.

69

70 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops machines in the Lone Star Roadhouse (1987), the Tunnel Nightclub (1987–89), and the restaurant Smith & Wollensky (1987). Across the country, she installed machines in the Forma novelty shop in San Francisco (1985), the Carolina Theatre in Durham (1985–87), Club Rio in Atlanta (1987–89), and the Albany Spectrum Theater (1988). Her machines also made appearances in museum gift shops, including the Lowe Art Museum in Miami (1985–86) and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles (1989).130 In San Francisco, Forma paid to have the machine displayed outdoors around the city before it was installed, creating a kind of wandering public intervention.131 Lindquist cut costs by partnering with existing institutions (like Colab) and making her operation portable, facilitating entry into new locations. Lindquist enjoyed watching both the uninitiated and the Vend’art regulars interact with the machines. Paul Hahn, manager of the Quad Cinema, said that most were first curious and then happily surprised with their prize. A few bought every option that was offered.132 Eluding the role of a typical vending machine, some participants “[found] it hard to accept that what [came] out [was]n’t functional,” while others believed wholeheartedly that “it must be something to eat.”133 Buying art in a movie theater may have been unexpected, but Lindquist’s nightclub machines blended well with the experimental nightlife of Downtown New York—especially when they were collaborative.134 Some read the project as a critique of consumption, a “tangible Dadaist metaphor for the haughty and consumptive art market of the 80s,” that “disarmingly vomits its artistic nuggets for just a buck and a half,” but Lindquist regarded her Vend’art project to be fun, not critical.135 She wanted the machines to be a “way to entice people to relate to art in non-art surroundings” and to experience art in unexpected, everyday places.136 To her, it was an explicitly populist endeavor, marked with a plaque that read, “Ars Pro Multis,” or “art for the masses.” Because these contexts did not condition the viewers to see the machine as art (on the contrary, they encouraged interaction), the machines were more approachable, a semi-disguised art experience without the no-touch, no-take policies of art institutions. Even when displayed in museum gift shops, Lindquist’s vending machines put forward a nontraditional, participatory experience in which artists could sell cheap art directly to the viewer. Paul Richey, Manager of MOCA’s store, explained that it “created a charming and ironic vehicle for fostering a dialogue between artists, their works, and the public, by taking art out of the museum and putting it in the palm of the hand.”137 In addition to buying a low-cost souvenir to commemorate their museum trip, the visitor could also gain a user-friendly experience: interacting with a vintage vending machine, anticipating an object and then receiving a surprise.138 In Lindquist’s words, “As soon as somebody uses [Vend’art], it becomes a reactive piece.”139 Allowing an individual to buy and own an artwork tapped into the same consumer behavior that Haring harnessed through his Pop Shop. In fact, the Club Rio’s manager believed people paid more attention to the art from Vend’art, because they were spending money.140 Vend’art provided a way for anyone to feel invested in art, targeting those who could not afford the traditional art market. Stemming from the East Village’s collective atmosphere, Lindquist invited other artists to produce work for the vending machines, systemizing it through an “artist-ofthe-month” door. Most of her partners were visual artists, but radio hosts, musicians, writers, photographers, designers, and even a hairdresser also participated.141 Artists submitted creations based on their own practices, and so participation remained solely at the point of distribution, not in execution. The only constant parameters

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

71

were that the objects were to be sold cheaply between 75¢ and $3, and had to fit into the machine’s small slots. These guidelines produced an astonishingly diverse collection of multiples. Through three labeled doors, the machines vended three kinds of small, unknown art objects, which rotated month to month. The labels acted as the artworks’ titles, such as Da Da, Feel-o-Mat, Toiten Bankas (“little nothings” in Yiddish), and For Collectors Only.142 The surprise objects ranged from political to amusing to conceptual and came in a variety of forms, such as handmade sculptures, drawings, paintings, found objects, wearable art, participatory kits, and activist calls to action.143 Following the junk aesthetic, most of the objects were handmade and produced out of cheap or recycled materials, such as paper, cardboard, and studio scraps. Other examples include Alison Ritch’s Sins, constructed from oversized pieces of foam, etched with words like “sex,” that would explode out of the slots, and Casey Spooner’s “time capsules,” discarded materials that were assembled into test tubes. Considering that each of these works were then handmade into the hundreds for the Vend’art machines, the amount of labor was substantial for such a small payout. Lelan Swanson, for example, painted sets of eight watercolors in her Pocket Dreambook that came with instructions to rearrange in any way. Michael Eddins made small unique collages out of bits of paper, Ruth Geneslaw constructed small sculptures out of wire and paper, and Jane Greer assembled Matisse-like cutouts. Some of the handmade objects were functional, such as Wanda Levine and Jackie Schatz’s wearable pins. Like the A. More Store, many of the objects were printed with low-priced technology in order to be reproduced easily and quickly, such as xeroxed booklets and miniature magazines. Patricia Malarcher’s A Piece of the City xeroxed images from anonymous graffiti artists onto paper tags (Figure 2.11). Several of the Vend’art objects also called on the creative participation of the viewer, similar to a few of the objects Haring sold at the Pop Shop. Eugene Bergmann rolled up a black-and-white paper copy of Pablo Picasso’s painting Guernica with crayons. Joey Castolone included a sheet of music with directions to fold it into a “music box” (Figure 2.12). To understand the impact of the Vend’art machine, Lindquist included a paper with a description of Vend’art in the “collector’s door,” along with a stamped and addressed envelope with her address for recipients to send feedback.144 Several artists used the Vend’art machines as an opportunity to promote activist or political action. Lindquist and her husband, Kenneth Weinberg, wrote several political letters, packaged with stamped envelopes and postcards, on a variety of issues that the recipient could then sign and send. One example is Letters to Ollie (1987), which expressed outrage over the U.S. Marine “hero,” Oliver North, in the Iran Contra Hearings of 1987. It was addressed to North’s lawyer with bits of shredded paper in its envelope, since he was known for shredding evidence.145 Another time, Lindquist had a door that vended a note that read, “Proceeds from this door will be donated to the homeless.” A lot of the art vended from Vend’art had a sense of humor, typical of the fun spirit of the period. In Minneapolis, Don Salander made Holy, Holy Art Cards, famous artist heads superimposed onto religious and baseball figures. Playing on the customer’s financial transaction with the vending machine, Donald Lipski’s Change gave back three quarters attached to a G-string to an individual who put in $1.25. In a work by Kenny Schneider, for 75¢, an individual could get 76¢, with the note “sometimes art IS a good investment,” or 74¢, with “sometimes art is NOT a good investment.” Acting

72 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

Figure 2.11 Patricia Malarcher, A Piece of the City, c. 1986–88. Labels with Xerox images, 2 × 3. Source: Courtesy Ona Lindquist.

Figure 2.12 Joey Castolone, Span-Yid Productions, The Music Box, c. 1986–88. Sheet music origami, 5 × 3. Source: Courtesy Ona Lindquist.

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

73

as a miniature version of the actual art market, the work gave the average viewer a small, satirical insight into the contradictions and arbitrariness of its economy. Similar to Haring’s Pop Shop, Lindquist’s Vend’art project received a good deal of coverage in the popular press, such as the New York Magazine, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, People, and Advertising Age, but absolutely no coverage at all in art publications—again, possibly revealing the art world’s aversion or indifference to more populist projects.146 Lindquist did interviews for major television networks such as CBS and Fox, as well as CNN and, like Haring, posed in front of her Vend’art for print reporters. People magazine even asked her to get on top of the machine (which she did not).147 Vend’art was covered internationally, most notably—in relation to the Pop Shop—in Tokyo. A Tokyo department store approached Lindquist to create a Vend’art machine but subsequently cut her out of negotiations and created their own, unauthorized copy—an experience very similar to Haring’s.148 In line with other Downtown artists, Lindquist also did her own promotion and advertising. She made Vend’art T-shirts that she and her helpers would wear while they stocked the machine. She also produced postcards of the Vend’art machine, at one point sold as one of the multiples, and published a user-friendly website in 2014 that archived the project’s four-year history.149 Without this website, it is likely that Vend’art would have been forgotten altogether, especially since Lindquist exited the art world at the end of the 1980s to pursue a career as a psychoanalyst. Like Haring and Colab artists, her vending machines and their objects were not collected or enshrined by museums, so Vend’art’s history has only been documented by the artist herself. Although Vend’art vended an incredible 30,000 items total to its varied clientele, the operation did not turn a profit, and pretty much broke even, proving to be unsustainable in the long term.150 Despite its closing, Vend’art put forward an inventive experience that aimed to give a broader public access to art and attests to the prevalent production of multiples and populist attitudes of the Downtown scene, factors that incubated Haring’s ideas.

From the Art Multiple to Art Merchandise Artist-run stores provide one way of illustrating Downtown’s diverse range of styles, as well as the period’s frequent production of art multiples. These stores also present previously unrecognized convergences of the scene’s most valued goals, trends, and philosophies, including artist-run alternative spaces, populism and accessibility, fun, collaboration, a Warholian legacy, and everyday aesthetics. Art multiples prove to be pervasive phenomena that united an otherwise incredibly diverse community of artists. The conception behind the Times Square Show store, the A. More Store, the Fashion Moda Store, and Vend’art were relatively durable models (functioning for multiple years) compared to the transient artist-run stores in the 1960s. This is due in part to their temporary and nomadic qualities, foregoing the cost of a permanent space and minimizing the risk of an unprofitable endeavor. However, this sustainability came at the expense of complete independence—a prelude to the outsourced merchandising by artists in later decades. Subject to the market, very few artists could sell art at low prices for very long on their own. While Colab remained involved, their stores eventually became an intervention in institutional spaces, with gallery

74 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops and Documenta support, rather than an alternative to it.151 Even before that, Colab was beholden to governmental grants. Lindquist, in addition, lived off her husband’s income while vending art and then ultimately abandoned the art world to pursue a different career.152 In the end, none of these stores could exist on their own. Many New York artists in the 1980s attempted to find a more inclusive approach to their art.153 This populist climate dovetailed nicely with the concept of the art multiple, which could be combined with consumer and media strategies to move art outside the gallery and into the popular sphere. Yet, despite their intentions, the objects produced by Colab and Vend’art were conceptual and handmade, and raw and quirky, which a broader general audience might not understand or want to own, and still disseminated within art spaces and publications. And so their art multiples catered predominantly only to their own subculture, like their Pop and Fluxus predecessors. Haring had an added advantage: his Pop Shop was built on the already existing widespread demand of his work, whereas groups like Colab invented the A. More Store in part to counter their exclusion from the established art market and so had less to invest in production. With more funds, and the benefit of learning from these earlier practices, Haring spoke to his audience in a more effective manner: in streamlined objects, advertising, and packaging—a combination that, through a fully developed retail space, could relate more so to daily life and behavior. Therefore, Haring alone achieved a place in mainstream, popular culture by mass packaging and disseminating the philosophy cultivated by the Downtown scene. His Pop Shop most effectively bridged the gap that he wanted to close since the start of his career: the gap between art and the mass public.

Notes 1. Carlo McCormick, Guide to East Village Artists: Supplement (Santa Barbara, CA: University Art Museum, 1984) 5. 2. Many writers of the Downtown scene have used the word “populist” to describe artistic practices that try to make art more accessible for ordinary people. Here “populist” does not refer to political populism, but a strategy to try to make art more accessible for ordinary people, working against what artists perceived as elitism in the contemporary art world. See Alan Moore and Marc Miller, “Collaborative Projects Inc. (Colab),” in ABC No Rio Dinero: The Story of a Lower East Side Gallery (New York: ABC No Rio with Collaborative Projects, 1985), http://98bowery.com/return-to-the-bowery/abcnorio-colab.php, accessed December 12, 2015 and Lucy Lippard, “Moving Targets/ Moving Out,” in Art in the Public Interest (Ann Arbor, MI: U.M.I. Research Press, 1989) 217. 3. The New York/New Wave show at PS1 in 1981 had a large part in introducing artists like Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat to dealers and collectors. See Laura Hoptman, “Club 57 and the Short, Happy Life of the East Village Art Scene,” in Club 57: Film, Performance, and Art in the East Village, 1978–1983, ed. by Ronald Magliozzi and Sophie Cavoulacos (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2017) 128. 4. This includes Printed Matter, A Show About Colab (2011) and A. More Store (2016), Neuberger Museum of Art’s Fashion Moda Stores exhibition (2012), and the Grey Gallery’s Downtown Show (2006). A few A. More Store and the Fashion Moda Store items were included in the Hirschhorn Museum’s exhibition, Brand New: Art & Commodity in the 1980s (2018). Archives include: The Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library; New Museum online archive http://archive.newmuseum.org, accessed January 10, 2016; and Gallery 98 online archive, http://gallery.98bowery.com, accessed January 10, 2016. I conducted interviews with Jane Dickson, Mike Glier, Stefan Eins, Becky

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

5.

6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

75

Howland, Ona Lindquist, Carlo McCormick, Alan Moore, Tom Otterness, Cara Perlman, Walter Robinson, Christy Rupp, Kiki Smith, Jolie Stahl, and Jack Tilton. Colab member and art historian Alan Moore included a brief paragraph on the A. More Store in his book Art Gangs: Protest and Counterculture in New York City (New York: Autonomedia, 2011) 106. It is also mentioned in Wendy Weitman, Kiki Smith: Prints, Books, and Things (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2003) 13; Jeffrey Deitch, “The Public has a Right to Art,” in Keith Haring (New York: Rizzoli, 2008) 19; Sophie Cavoulacos, “Downtown for Downtown,” in Club 57, 31; and Max Schumann, ed., A Book About Colab (and Related Activities) (New York: Printed Matter, 2015) 234–235; and Gianni Jetzer, et al., Brand New: Art & Commodity in the 1980s (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2018) 37. The history of the Times Square Show shop is almost entirely found in interviews by Colab artists and mentioned in a few reviews of the show in 1980. For mentions of the Times Square Show shop, see Anne Ominous (a.k.a. Lucy Lippard), “Sex and Death and Shock and Schlock: A Long Review of the Times Square Show,” Artforum (October 1980); Jeffrey Deitch, “Report from Times Square,” Art in America (September 1980); and Kim Levin, “The Times Square Show,” Arts Magazine (September 1980); Shawna Cooper and Karli Wurzelbacher, eds, Times Square Show Revisited (New York: Hunter College, 2012); and Moore and Miller, ABC No Rio Dinero. The Fashion Moda shop was a subject of an exhibit at the Neuberger Museum of Art at Purchase Collage in 2012. See Neuberger Museum, “The Fashion Moda Stores 1982: Selections from Documenta 7,” March 4–May 6, 2012, www.neuberger.org/exhibitions/ past/view1/249.html?width=660&height=500, accessed January 4, 2016, and an unpublished exhibition catalog: The Fashion Moda Stores, 1982: Selections from Documenta 7 (2012), curated by Gabi Lewton-Leopold. I am grateful to the Jenny Holzer studio for sharing this catalog with me. Interview with Jack Tilton by author November 19, 2015, and interview with Jeffrey Deitch by author October 10, 2016. Ona Lindquist has most of the remaining multiples from Vend’art in storage. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. In 2015, Marc Miller started selling remaining A. More Store objects and ephemera from his online Gallery 98, creating a valuable digital archive of Colab materials in the process. He has also curated online exhibitions and photographs, attempting to give the objects more context. See http:// gallery.98bowery.com/, accessed December 20, 2015. See Alison Pearlman, Unpackaging Art of the 1980s (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2003) 16. See Deborah Wye, Thinking Print: Books to Billboards, 1980–85 (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1996); Michael Auping, Urban Theater: New York Art in the 1980s (New York: Rizzoli and The Modern Fort Worth, 2014); Jetzer, et al. Brand New, 77; and Lisa Phillips, et al., Image World: Art and Media Culture (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1989). One exception is Kruger’s inclusion in the timeline for her multiples in Colab’s A. More Store in Brand New (37). The following exhibitions and other citations also omit Haring and Colab despite their relevance: Lawrence Alloway, Modern Dreams: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Pop (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988); David Deitcher, “When Worlds Collide,” Art in America (February 1990): 122; Dan Cameron, “Neo This, Neo That,” in Pop Art: An International Perspective, ed. by Marco Livingstone (New York: Rizzoli, 1992) 264; Mark Sladen and Ariella Yedgar, eds, Panic Attack! Art in the Punk Years (New York: Merrell, 2009) 14; Jack Bankowsky, “Pop Life,” in Pop Life: Art in a Material World, ed. by Jack Bankowsky, Alison Gingeras, and Catherine Wood (London: Tate Publishing, 2009) 21–22; Wayne Tunnicliffe, ed., Pop to Popism (New York: Prestel, 2014) 236–237; and Catharina Manchanda, Pop Departures (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014) 33 and 81. Craig Owens, “The Problem with Puerilism,” Art in America, vol. 72, no. 6 (Summer 1984): 162. Robert Hughes, “On Art and Money,” The New York Review of Books (December 6, 1984): 20.

76 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops 11. Colab artist Walter Robinson explained the often hostile and overly generalized reception of the East Village scene, as well as the scene’s uneven financial success. He said, The art world mounted a unified attack. Look at the list of people who slagged us off in print: Gary Indiana, Barbara Haskell, Robert Hughes, even October magazine chimed in. Then the money people, the barracuda, came and picked off what they could use and left the rest of us behind. I was wrong to think that we were a community, that we could resist the real art world’s economic power, that we could create this monster and control it to our own benefit. . . . [Warhol’s] foregrounding of the business aspects of art, that was one universal art world attribute that was projected onto the East Village. We were nothing but a bunch of hustlers, going after the vulgar dollar. Quoted in Jeanne Siegal, Art Talk: The Early 80s (New York: de Capo Press, 1990) 182

12.

13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

Also see Phyllis Plous, Mark Looker, and Carlo McCormick, eds, Neo-York: Report on a Phenomenon (Santa Barbara, CA: University Art Museum, 1984) 8 and Liza Kirwin, “East Side Story,” Artforum (October 1999). Kirwin wrote about the embarrassment and disavowal of the scene because of its commercial success. A gallery owner told her, “Nobody talks about the East Village anymore, nobody. People are taking it off their resumes.” There were only two significant exhibitions that took place in the 1980s that featured the scene as a whole: Carlo McCormick and Janet Kardon, The East Village Scene (Philadelphia: Institute of Contemporary Art, 1984) and Plous, et al., Neo-York. One or two publications feature the scene, including Peter Frank and Michael McKenzie, New, Used, and Improved: Art for the 80s (New York: Abbeville Press, 1987), and Steven Hager, Art after Midnight: The East Village Scene (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986). Recognition has grown on the subject since the early 2000s. See Marco Livingstone, Pop Art: A Continuing History (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2003); Dan Cameron, ed., East Village USA (New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art, 2004) 6; Carlo McCormick, Lucy Oakley, Marvin J. Taylor, et al., The Downtown Book: The New York Art Scene 1974–84 (New York: Grey Art Gallery, 2006); Auping, Urban Theater; Tim Lawrence, Life and Death on the New York Dance Floor (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016); Magliozzi and Cavoulacos, eds, Club 57; Adair Rounthwaite, Asking the Audience: Participatory Art in 1980s New York (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2017) and Jetzer, Brand New. David Little is one exception of a scholar not directly from the scene who wrote about Colab’s activities in the late 1970s. In his article, he also states that Colab has been written on mainly by its members. David Little, “Colab Takes a Piece, History Takes It Back: Collectivity and New York Alternative Spaces,” Art Journal, vol. 66, no. 1 (2007): 74. Shawna Cooper and Gabi Lewton-Leopold conducted projects on Colab for their master’s thesis projects. Op. cit. Op. Cit. Also see Frank and McKenzie, New, Used, Improved, 129; Moore and Miller, ABC No Rio; and Moore, Art Gangs, 106. McCormick, The Downtown Book, 85. The “annual Moore Store at White Columns,” most likely refers to A. More Store. It was only at White Columns for one of its years in 1981. See Colab Inc., “About Colab,” https://collaborativeprojects.wordpress.com/, accessed July 21, 2017, and Little, “Colab Takes a Piece,” 61 and 63 and Moore and Miller, “Publications, Video, and Low-Priced Multiples,” ABC No Rio Dinero. I have also taken out examples that are not technically artist-run stores, including Gracie Mansion’s Museum Store, Mary Boone’s Multiples Inc., Jean-Michel Basquiat’s customization of everyday objects, museum merchandising, and merchandising by music bands and graffiti artists. Kenny Scharf’s customization of objects in the 1980s and his merchandise in the 1990s is discussed in Chapter 5. Generally, the East Village scene was recognized as the area between thirteenth and first streets and east from Second Avenue. As an art movement, it was at its peak in the early to mid-1980s. See Carlo McCormick, “Art Seen,” East Village Eye (October 1983): 23.

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

19. 20.

21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30.

31. 32. 33. 34.

35. 36. 37.

77

Many of the characteristics of the East Village are ubiquitous in Downtown during this period—and so I use “East Village” and “Downtown” interchangeably. McCormick, Guide to East Village Artists, 1. See Irving Sandler, Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s (New York: IconEditions, 1996) 218–219; Kardon, The East Village Scene, 10–19; Pil Patton, “Other Voices, Other Rooms: The Rise of the Alternative Space,” Art in America (Summer 1977); Kay Larson, “Rooms with a Point of View,” ARTnews (October 1977); and Brian Wallis, “Public Funding and Alternative Spaces” and Arlene Goldbard, “When (art) Worlds Collide: Institutionalizing the Alternatives,” in Alternative Art, New York: 1965–1985, ed. by Julie Ault (New York: Drawing Center, 2002) 162 and 184–185. See David Robinson, SoHo Walls: Beyond Graffiti (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1990) 8–9 and Charles R. Simpson, SoHo: The Artist in the City (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1981) 3–5. Lynn Gumpert, “Forward,” in The Downtown Book, 12. Also see Lisa Belkin, “The Gentrification of the East Village Scene,” The New York Times (September 2, 1984) R1.2. 1980s art scenes in New York City overlapped considerably, but they also diverged in artistic opportunities and were perceived by both insiders and outsiders differently. In the East Village, many of the galleries that emerged were opened and run by artists, in part because they could not break into the SoHo gallery scene. SoHo’s galleries were younger than the Upper East Side’s but had many of the same stakeholders. Some artists, like Haring, eventually found gallery representation in SoHo and opened his Pop Shop on its outskirts. The boundaries between Downtown neighborhoods were not strict and could be fluid. See Robinson, SoHo Walls, 8 and M.H. Miller, “The Artists Who Defined the East Village’s Avant Garde Scene,” The New York Times (April 17, 2018). Simpson, SoHo: The Artist in the City, 4 and Robinson, SoHo Walls, 5 and 8. Quote by Haring in Peter Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground (Berkeley, CA: Last Gasp of San Francisco, 1985) 101. Peter Frank, “Guerilla Gallerizing,” The Village Voice (May 1, 1979): 95. John Gruen, Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991) 45. Cameron, Neo-York, 13. Also see Cameron, “It Takes a Village,” 47. The SoHo Weekly News (September 10, 1980), Keith Haring Foundation (KHF) Archives, 1980 press box, KHA 12006. Also see Hoptman, “Club 57,” 125–126 and David Smith, “Where the Boys Are,” The SoHo Weekly News (May 1981), KHF Archives, New York, NY, 1981 press box, KHA 1202 for more information on these temporary shows. The SoHo Weekly News (September 17, 1980), KHF Archives, 1980 press box, KHA 12006. Another one-night invitational show by Haring hosted about 40 artists across the arts, including dancers, painters, photographers, filmmakers, and poets. Each artist brought an artwork to Haring’s show on the day that it opened. The show also included live models, a DJ, and performances. The SoHo Weekly News (May 28, 1980) 33, KHF Archives, 1980 press box, KHA 12006. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 53. Also see Frank and McKenzie, New, Used, and Improved, 66. The SoHo Weekly News (February 18, 1981), KHF Archives, 1981 press box. David Hershkovits, “Art in ‘Alphabetland’,” ARTnews, vol. 2, no. 7 (September 1983): 91. Astor continues, the exhibitions were “taken more seriously than we took ourselves” (91). Also see Liza Kirwin,“Hybrid Spaces, Polymorphous Creativity,” in East Village USA, 82–88. Siegal, Art Talk, 12–13. According to Walter Robinson, “We did tend to ignore barriers of class and race that elite art world types like [Craig] Owens helped maintain. As it turned out, the real money was in marketing emblems of upscale, academic philosophies imported from Europe.” Siegal, Art Talk, 179. Pearlman, Unpackaging, 6. See Brian Wallis, “What’s Wrong with this Picture,” in The Downtown Book, 155 and Marvin Taylor, “Playing the Field,” in The Downtown Book, 26. Lynn Gumpert,“Forward,” in The Downtown Book, 10–11. Also see Frank and McKenzie, New, Used, and Improved, 118–133 and 145; McCormick, The East Village Scene, 29 and

78 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

38. 39. 40. 41.

42. 43.

Guide to East Village Artists, 11; Pearlman, Unpackaging, 6; and Steven Vincent, “Fashion/ Moda at the New Museum (Excerpts),” in Moore and Miller, ABC No Rio Dinero. Sandler, Art of the Postmodern Era, 461. Siegal, Art Talk, 8. See McCormick, The Downtown Book, 81–85. Also see Kardon, The East Village Scene, 6–7. Diego Cortez called East Village art “neo pop” in an interview with D.A. Robbins, “The meaning of ‘New’ the 70s/80s Axis: An Interview with Diego Cortez,” Arts 57, no. 5 (January 1983). Also see Frank and McKenzie, New, Used, and Improved, 20; Cameron, “Neo This,” 260; Livingston, Pop Art: A Continuing History, 221; Bob Nickas, “Trading in Futures,” in Brand New, 138; Alan Moore and Jim Cornwell, “Local History,” in Alternative New York, 333; Siegal, Art Talk, 12 and 19; Hager, Art after Midnight, 98; and Robert Pincus-Witten, “Entries Big History Little History,” Arts Magazine (April 1980): 184. Quoted in Bankowsky, “Pop Life,” 30. Also see John Walker, Art in the Age of Mass Media (Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 1983) 3. See McCormick, Guide to East Village Artists, 1. He wrote, The East Village is right at the cutting edge of this commodity-based [careerism]. . . . While most critics attack this generation on these very grounds, few can deny the cultural significance of an art which cannily transforms inspiration to commodity and willfully avoids the hypocrisy of denying its materialistic value [my italics].

44. Moore, Art Gangs, 83–91. 45. Walter Robinson, “Collaborative Projects and Rule C (excerpts),” in The Story of a Lower East Side Gallery. 46. See last pages in Moore College of Art, Landslides and A. More Store (Philadelphia, PA: The College, 1983). 47. Ault, Alternative Art, 48–49. Also see Josh Baer interview in Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 45. 48. Frank and McKenzie, New, Used, and Improved, 41. Also see Hilarie M. Sheets, “Creeping Cats and Fish in Hats,” ARTnews, vol. 105, no. 4 (April 2006): 129. 49. A photograph of her rats in garbage cans became the image of the sanitation strike of 1979. See Tiernan Morgan, “Christy Rupp on Rats, Geese, and the Ecology of Public Art,” Hyperallergic (February 20, 2015), http://hyperallergic.com/179810/christy-rupp-on-ratsgeese-and-the-ecology-of-public-art/, accessed January 4, 2016. 50. Sheets, “Creeping Cats and Fish in Hats.” 51. Even in its early stages, the group stated, “We are functioning as a group of artists with complementary resources and skills providing a solid ground for collaborative work directed to the needs of the community-at-large.” Little, “Colab Takes a Piece,” 63. 52. Francesco Spampinato, “Head Space: Fashion Moda,” Waxpoetics, no. 55 (May 2013): 92. 53. McCormick, Guide to East Village Artists, 6. Interview with Kiki Smith by author, October 27, 2015. Glier said, “Colab was never an intellectual group.” Interview with Mike Glier by author February 23, 2016. 54. Interview with Jane Dickson by author, March 13, 2015, and with Kiki Smith by author, October 27, 2015. It was also an attempt to do something different from their teachers of the Conceptual and Minimalist generation, including Lippard and Sol LeWitt. Interview with Mike Glier by author, February 23, 2016. 55. Haring is not typically associated with Colab, even by some of its members, but several artists in Colab knew, exhibited, and collaborated with Haring. Haring visited their exhibitions in the late 1970s, and he included Colab work in his Lower Manhattan Drawing Show at the Mudd Club, mentioned earlier. See The SoHo Weekly News (February 18, 1981), KHF Archives, 1981 press box. 56. See Richard Goldstein, “The First Radical Art Show of the ’80s,” The Village Voice (June 16, 1980): 1. In the 1990s, the show was considered “too conventional to interest the art world for long.” Sandler, Art of the Postmodern Era, 464. Colab did a lesser known artist-run exhibit like the Times Square Show called the Ritz Hotel Project with the Work Progress Administration in Washington, DC, in 1983. The group filled the abandoned Ritz Hotel with over 300 artworks and a store. Schumann, ed., A Book About Colab,

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

57.

58. 59. 60.

79

234–235. In 1982, Colab also put together a similar group show in Buffalo, New York, called The Buffalo Artists’ Open. See Levin, “The Times Square Show,” 88. As the show progressed, John Ahearn produced a partial map that was handed to the visitor at the door, but it was not exhaustive. Also, some artists scrambled to put labels up when collectors began to show interest. Ida Applebroog, “The Woman’s Movement in Art, 1986,” Arts Magazine (September 1986): 57. John Ahearn interview in Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 39. Ibid., 14. Otterness said: If you wanted to put stuff in to the Souvenir Shop, you had to sit the shop. You could be the cashier for half a day or a day or whatever. You put your time in to keep records of everybody’s sales and collect the money. The proceeds from sales went directly back to the artist . . . whatever profit there was. I remember Kiki [Smith] with her multiples. I think she probably outsold everybody. She was absolutely great. Did stuff like cut down two-by-fours and painted cigarette packs on them. Becky had Love Canal Potatoes and hand-held plaster peaches. Jenny [Holzer] sold stacks of Truisms, Christy [Rupp] lined the shelves with plaster rats, Bobby G sold souvenir buttons. Cara sold clay sculptures of Golden Royal chickens. Keith [Haring] and Kenny [Scharf] had some great stuff in there. I remember a bunch of Business Week magazines with gay porn collaged inside. I’m pretty sure Keith made those.

61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

66.

67. 68.

69.

The list of objects sold in this paragraph is not exhaustive. Otterness interview in Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 48. Interview with Tom Otterness by author October 30, 2015, and with Kiki Smith, October 27, 2015. Also see Otterness interview in Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 48. Interview with Becky Howland by author January 28, 2016, and Howland interview in Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 36. Otterness interview in Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 48. Lippard, “Sex and Death,” 50–55. Margo Thompson, “The Times Square Show,” Streetnotes, vol. 18 (Spring 2010). A precursor for the Times Square Show shop was Stefan Ein’s 3 Mercer Store open from 1973 to 1977 on Mercer Street. The space hosted informal performances, installations, and film screenings, and exhibited a few Colab artists, including Charlie Ahearn and Tom Otterness. Alan Moore wrote that “Eins called himself the ‘proprietor’ of a ‘store’ selling objects conceived in the Duchampian tradition.” Quoted in Ault, Alternative Art, 37. Moore also described Eins’s commercial intentions at 3 Mercer as “utopian.” Moore, Art Gangs, 96. While it is difficult to recount exactly what was sold through this store, it was written and recalled that Eins sold “low cost multiples.” See Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 4. Also see Spampinato, “Head Space: Fashion Moda,” 94 and Ault, Alternative Art, 36–37. Christy Rupp interview in Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 54. Haring commented on this unregulated access: “It was already getting heavy in there. All these winos and prostitutes were wandering in and nobody knew if they could keep it under control.” Hager, Art after Midnight, 82. Lippard, “Sex and Death,” 53. Christy Rupp email exchange with author, July 21, 2017. Colab wanted to attract “working people,” which it may have, but it without doubt attracted “denizens of the contemporary art world, now including prominent uptown art dealers.” Ault, Alternative Art, 219. Deitch, “Report from Times Square,” 61–62; and Levin, “The Times Square Show,” 88. Otterness responded, I liked the idea that it was like a museum where the real work is upstairs and then the souvenirs were downstairs. I certainly knew about Oldenburg and his store . . . but on the other hand, we were always bumbling into this stuff that we thought we were doing it for the first time. I’m not sure how it shaped our project but it did have the feeling of it. You know, kind of grungy, lower-end . . . the ideas were there on the street. Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 48

80 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops 70. See Frank and McKenzie, New, Used, and Improved, 28–31. 71. See Cécile Whiting, A Taste for Pop: Pop Art, Gender, and Consumer Culture (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 26–27, and Claes Oldenburg, Store Days: Documents from the Store (New York: Something Else Press, 1967) 150. The objects from the store were reexhibited within a year at the Green Gallery and quickly became sought-after collectibles. 72. “Colab: Times Square Show Advertisements” and “Colab Times Square Show: Narrative of process and context,” 5 in Callard Papers, Series 1B, Box 1, folder 51, 55, and 59, the Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. In addition, Mitch Corber shot video on site, Moore acted in one of the commercials for television, and they had a promotional show on Colab’s television series, Potato Wolf. Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 72. 73. Dickson worked as the computer animator for the board, creating animations for advertisements, and asked her boss if she could use the board to promote the exhibit. Interview with Jane Dickson by author March 13, 2015. 74. Interview with Jane Dickson by author March 13, 2015. Also see Dickson’s talk for the “Symposium: Keith Haring: The Political Line,” de Young Museum, San Francisco, CA (February 29, 2015). 75. Quoted in Frank and McKenzie, New, Used, and Improved, 28. 76. According to Dickson, Kiki Smith was the main inspiration behind the A. More Store, undoubtedly because of her multiples’ success at the Times Square Show. Interview with Jane Dickson by author March 13, 2015. 77. Interview with Kiki Smith by author, October 27, 2015. 78. Schumann, A Book About Colab, 202. Colab artists took turns manning the stores and would fill out order forms. 79. A month or so before each store, an announcement was sent to Colab artists, saying, “Attention Artists! It’s Time to Make Multiples for the Christmas Store.” Artists were then instructed to bring their objects to the location with a brief description. Artists received 50 percent of the sale, 40 percent went to the host location, and 10 percent to Colab. Ibid., 208. 80. Dickson said that several in Colab felt that art should be made for “the people” rather than the art world. Interview with Jane Dickson by author March 13, 2015. But this goal was often not met in practice. Smith recalled that “no one from Chinatown was coming over to buy these things” and, instead, remembered artists constantly exchanging knickknack creations at the A. More Store and in social hangouts. Smith sold some of her multiples at the bar, the Tin Pan Alley where she worked, and said that there was a real culture of gift giving in Downtown New York. Interview with Kiki Smith by author, October 27, 2015. 81. See Otterness interview in Cooper, Times Square Show Revisited, 48. 82. Sheets, “Creeping Cats and Fish in Hats,” 129. Interview with Cara Perlman by author November 12, 2015 and Tom Otterness, October 30, 2015. In its press release, Moore wrote, “The store is an example of co-operative economics; it operates on the purest notions of free enterprise. It’s artists inviting collectors to collect, but directly from the artists.” Schumann, A Book About Colab, 102. It was to “provide artists with an independent, unconventional (for artists) method of distribution and to offer a bargain to the public.” See “Collaborative Projects,” in Landslides. 83. The chronology of Colab’s stores was charted from advertisements in the East Village Eye, 1979–87, Box 61, Folder 55, Sylvere Lotringer Papers and Semiotext(e) Archive, MSS 221, the Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. 84. Students ran this store, with objects donated by almost 60 artists. Landslides catalog. 85. A. More Store press release in Schumann, A Book About Colab, 102. 86. Interview with Cara Perlman by author November 12, 2015. In Jack Tilton’s much bigger Uptown gallery, artists remembered the store receiving more attention. Interview with Jolie Stahl by author November 17, 2015. When it was shown at his gallery, Tilton became more involved and invited more artists to participate—including artists from Japan who designed T-shirts. Interview with Becky Howland by author January 28, 2016. 87. Interview with Christy Rupp by author November 14, 2015. Rupp mentioned that group shows at galleries were always contentious within Colab, since galleries only wanted to

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

88. 89.

90. 91. 92. 93.

94. 95. 96.

97. 98.

99. 100.

101. 102. 103. 104.

81

show the more famous artists. Like their group shows, a shop could give more equitable gallery exposure to the entire group. Interview with Christy Rupp by author November 14, 2015. Besides their mutual participation in Colab exhibitions, Kruger and Haring’s career overlapped on several occasions. Like Haring, Kruger is interested in mass print media like magazines, which stemmed from her start working for various Condé Nast magazines in their design department. She understood that people read messages and images in quick sequences, and an artist should understand how to take advantage of this in their art. Sandy Nairne, State of the Art (London: Chatto & Windus, 1987) 157. Also see Barbara Kruger interview in Siegal, Art Talk, 301. Like Haring, Kruger wheat pasted her work on the street, designed billboards, worked in the galleries as she continued to do street work, and created multiples like matchbooks and T-shirts. Also, she does not consider herself to be a theoretical artist: “I’m not an intellectual and I’m not a theorist . . . hopefully no one has to read Lacan to understand my work. I’m not interested in illustrating theory.” Sylvia Falcon, “You Call Yourself Barbara Kruger,” East Village Eye (May 1984): 33. See last few pages under heading “Collaborative Projects,” in Landslides. Other functional objects included stickers, buttons, purses, and bags. Interview with Becky Howland by author January 28, 2016. Schumann, A Book About Colab, 202–203. Smith’s uterus print was combined in the same notepad as a drawing by Jolie Stahl. Interview with Tom Otterness by author October 30, 2015. In the late 1970s, before the Times Square Show shop, Otterness tried to sell these figures on a table in front of The Museum of Modern Art—selling around 300. He also sold similar figures for the same price in 1979 at Fashion Moda in the Bronx, outside Artists Space. Schumann, A Book About Colab, 69 and Sheets, “Creeping Cats and Fish in Hats,” 129. Art Direct Mail Order Catalog. Moore and Miller, “Publications, Video, and Low-Priced Multiples,” in The Story of a Lower East Side Gallery. Also see Schumann, A Book About Colab, 197, and interview with Jolie Stahl by author November 17, 2015. These objects mimicked Howland’s installation at the Times Square Show of a large, phallic fountain with a working oil rig and two bags of money at its base. Howland also made plaster wall plaques: one for Ronald Reagan in the shape of the Pentagon (meant to reference a cock ring), adorned with the General Motor’s logo (to critique the military industrial complex). For Nancy, Howland designed a diamond shaped like her crotch. Interview with Becky Howland by author January 28, 2016. East Village Eye (Thanxgiving, 1980). “Announcement: A. More Store at Jack Tilton Gallery,” Box 1, Folder 86, Andrea Collard Papers, MSS 156, the Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. In one promotion, Howland printed and distributed coupons that look like dollar bills, “good for $1,” at Artist’s Space in 1983. Schumann, A Book About Colab, 208. East Village Eye (March 1981): 25. This advertisement is in East Village Eye (October 1982): 15. The catalog was printed in collaboration with Printed Matter, and the cover was designed by Otterness. See Printed Matter, “A Show about Colab and Related Activities,” www.digicult.it/news/ashow-about-colab-and-related-activities/, accessed January 8, 2016. “5000” is recorded in Landslides, but Glier believes that 15,000 were sent out. The catalog was sent to enough people that Senator William Proxmire used it as an example for the government’s “wasteful spending” on the arts, citing Otterness’s zodiac sculptures as obscene. Interview with Mike Glier by author February 23, 2016. Interview with Cara Perlman by author November 12, 2015, and Schumann, A Book About Colab, 12. Artists would promise a certain amount in the catalog but could make things to order and gave 30 percent of sales for expenses. Ibid., 231. Interview with Christy Rupp by author November 14, 2015. Given the ephemeral nature of these stores, the catalog is an important record. See last few pages under heading “Collaborative Projects,” in Landslides.

82 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops 105. Marc Blane’s glass bottles are filled with photographs of boarded-up abandoned buildings and the “bittersweet nectar of abandonment and homelessness” for $17. See Art Direct Mail Order Catalog. 106. A. More Store Advertisements, Artforum (December 1984): 72–79. 107. Ibid., 79. The objects in the ads are a selection from the past four years of A. More Stores and include new stock as well. Ibid., 72–79. 108. Ibid., 72. 109. Op. cit. 110. See Lewton-Leopold, The Fashion Moda Stores, 4–5. 111. Ibid., 1 and 8. 112. Thompson, Streetnotes, 2. Walter Robinson quit Colab after disagreeing with the store’s inclusion in Documenta, thinking at the time that they “should not sacrifice the collective identity to [Holzer’s] commercial success,” but was alone in his opinions. Interview with Walter Robinson by author February 9, 2016. In an unpublished exhibition catalog, Lewton-Leopold connected the Fashion Moda Store back to Colab multiple times and connected the A. More store to the Times Square Show, the Fashion Moda Store, and Stefan Eins’ 3 Mercer Store. Op. cit. 113. “Documenta 7, Kassel, Germany: May 1982,” Fashion Moda Archive Series I, Subseries B, Box 1, folder 21, the Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. 114. Benjamin Buchloh, “Documenta 7: A Dictionary of Received Ideas,” October, vol. 22 (Autumn 1982): 110. Also see Noel Frackmand and Ruth Kaufmann, “Documenta 7: The Dialogue and a Few Asides,” Arts Magazine, vol. 57 (October 1982): 91–97. This article mentions Holzer, Kruger, and Haring, calling Haring “one of the best” but does not mention the store or Fashion Moda (97). 115. Lynn Zelevansky, “Documenta: Art for Art’s Sake,” Flash Art, vol. 109 (November 1982): 39 and 40. 116. Lewton-Leopold, The Fashion Moda Stores, 6. 117. Zelevansky, “Documenta: Art for Art’s Sake,” 40. 118. Susan Hodara, “When a South Bronx Collective Went International,” The New York Times (March 23, 2012). 119. “Fashion Moda Documenta,” Subseries A, Box 21, folder 32c and 32a, the Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. 120. After Documenta, a version of the store called the “Carnival Store” opened in 1982 in New Orleans at Dumaine Picture Framing. A review said it included Smith’s wooden radios and alarm clocks, Christoph Kohlhöfer celebrity bags, Holzer leaflets, and items by Haring. It also featured Luis Colmenares, Gary Naylor, Stefan Eins, and Marc Brasz. See Roger Green, “Carnival Store Combines works of N.O. and N.Y. Residents,” New Orleans Times, Picayune (1982). 121. Steven Vincent, “Events,” East Village Eye (Xmas 1980): 12. The Events show gave almost complete control to the artists, counter to the New Museum’s usual policy. Lynn Gumpert, Events: Fashion Moda, Taller Boricua, Artists Invite (New York: New Museum, 1981). 122. See “Events: Fashion Moda: December 13 1980—January 8 1981,” New Museum Archive, http://archive.newmuseum.org/index.php/Detail/Occurrence/Show/occurrence_id/433, accessed January 15, 2016. Colab was planning to be in this exhibition officially but pulled out last minute due to infighting. 123. Sign on a Truck also included Jolie Stahl, Kruger, Mike Glier, and John Fekner, among others. Jenny Holzer, Sign on a Truck (Chicago, IL: Video Data Bank, 1984) and online, www.vdb.org/titles/sign-truck, accessed January 4, 2016. 124. See Holzer interview in Siegal, Art Talk, 286 and 290. 125. Interview with Becky Howland by author January 28, 2016. Haring also mentioned Colab shows he had seen in his journals and in interviews, such as Colab’s Real Estate Show in 1979. Also see Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 62 and Keith Haring Journals, 65. 126. She was also influenced by Dada. Robert Berry, “Vending-machine Art Makes Splash at Rio,” Atlanta Journal (September 16, 1987): 1-C, Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press,” http://objetsvendart.com/press.html, accessed January 17, 2016. Also see Timothy Cahill, “Art in the Machine,” Metroland, Albany (October 6, 1988): 33.

The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops

83

127. Estimate by Lindquist.Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Machines,”http://objetsvendart. com/machines.html, accessed January 14, 2016 and interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. The machines had a capacity of 207 artworks, and Lindquist restocked them about every two weeks. William Grimes, “Instant Acquisitions,” New York Magazine (August 5, 1985): 24. 128. Vending Times (January 1, 1989): 33, Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” 129. Hallie Coletta designed the graphics. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. 130. When installed outside of New York, the machines typically stayed for three to four months. Lindquist recruited local artists to contribute work. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. 131. Lindquist took photographs of people interacting with the machines, which she made into postcards that were then vended from the machine. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. 132. Karen Lipson, “Original Art in Small Packages the Vend’art Way,” Newsday (December 2, 1987), Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” 133. Grimes, “Instant Acquisitions,” 24. 134. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. 135. Ted Bouloukos, “Art to GO-GO,” Albany Review (July 1, 1989): 48; Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” Lindquist also said, “I’m not trying to subvert the art world, I’m more interested in turning on middle Americans to art.” Meg Cox, “Just Try Telling Your Date You Thought Dada Was a Kind of Cola,” Wall Street Journal (December 9, 1987): 1, Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” 136. “Arts Alive in Downtown Durham,” Durham Morning Herald (August 30, 1985), Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” 137. Richard Koshalek, “MOCA Stores,” The Contemporary, vol. 6, no. 2 (July 1, 1989), Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” 138. It was “user-friendly performance art . . . it’s the experience you’re paying for.” Cahill, “Art in the Machine,” 33 and “Art-o-mat,” The Washington Times (October 20, 1986), Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” 139. Ibid. 140. Berry, “Vending-machine Art Makes Splash at Rio,” 1-C. 141. In New York, she invited a fifth-grade class to submit designs, which included key chains and Vend’art magnets. Generally, collaboration happened organically, asking those who crossed her path or who expressed interest. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. 142. For all objects sold through the machine and all artists involved, see “Ona Lindquist,” and “Artists,” on http://objetsvendart.com/, accessed January 5, 2016. 143. “Trompe L’oeil Fantasy,” Almanac (January 1, 1989): 42, Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” 144. Like a customer survey, it stated, “Vendona would like to know who has been buying Vend’art.” 145. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. Once this letter sold out from the Vend’art machine, they replaced it with letters to the president, then letters to political leaders, and finally “the letter of the week.” Cahill, “Art in the Machine,” 33. Lindquist’s website includes response letters from these political figures, including one from Joe Biden. 146. See Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” 147. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. 148. The Japanese loved Lindquist’s machines but also did not hesitate to create unauthorized versions and counterfeits—a reception similar to Haring’s Tokyo Pop Shop. The idea’s popularity in Tokyo, and their acceptance of knock-off versions, further illuminates the Japanese reception of art from New York, their attraction to multiples and merchandise, and their indifference to originality and authorship. See Chapter 3. The Japanese media covered Vend’art in an interview by Nippas Productions in 1985 for their segment on “New Yorking” and in two articles in the publications Pronto in 1985 and Success Sensor in 1986. Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.”

84 The Downtown Scene and Artist-Run Shops 149. Op. cit. She designed the website in such a way to generate a sense of a discovery, like the machines. 150. The idea of vending art has been taken up by other artists in the 1990s, most notably by artist Clark Whittington of North Carolina, who created his Art-o-mat in 1997. See www. artomat.org, accessed January 20, 2016. Another more recent example is by UK artist Oriel Wrecsam, from 2015 to 2019, called Artvend. See http://artvend.co.uk/, accessed June 5, 2019. Arguably the first example of vending machine art could be Fluxus artist Robert Watt’s stamp vending machine in 1963, which vended “Fluxpost” stamps. 151. The store stopped once Colab dissipated, until revived at Printed Matter in 2016. 152. Interview with Ona Lindquist by author January 26, 2016. 153. See Oceane Delleaux, “The Artist’s Multiple,” in One for Me and One to Share: Artists’ Multiples and Editions, ed. by Gregory Elgstrand and Dave Dyment (Toronto, Ontario: YYZ Books, 2012) 93. Also see the preface of Marcia Tucker, Impresario: Malcolm McLaren and the British New Wave (New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1988) 7–8.

3

The Pop Shop

“I’m inventing the role as I go along.” —Keith Haring, 19851

From the start, Haring learned how to make his readable, graphic aesthetic ubiquitous, easily translating it from the surface of a subway wall or a canvas to everyday objects available to anyone.2 In 1982, when his career began to gain traction, he started to think about opening a store to make his work also accessible in terms of price, selling highly reproducible and low-cost objects that could also be functional, “things people could wear.”3 He opened his Pop Shop on April 19, 1986, on Lafayette Street in Manhattan, and a second one in January 1988 in Tokyo.4 After Haring’s death in 1990 from an AIDS-related illness, the New York store remained open until 2005, a staple attraction of Downtown Manhattan. By all appearances, the Pop Shop ran like any other small retail establishment, but it was also a culminating art project after eight years of experimentation, run by a famous artist. It was the epicenter of Haring’s by then well-known career, where he could consolidate and promote his art and public image. Haring’s Pop Shop was undeniably a commercial endeavor, but as popular as it was with its customers, the place never made a profit. The actual revenue that supported the shop was generated within the art market by Haring’s gallery sales, another solidly commercial endeavor, though one that did not invite the same scrutiny.5 Like Haring’s career more generally, the Pop Shop was regularly condemned by 1980s art critics as “commercial,” an enterprise that turned Haring into a “sellout.” But these terms were rarely used to censure artworks sold in art galleries; transactions that were much more closeted and reserved for those with capital and privilege—factors that conceptually separated the art market from common commercialism and its stigmas.6 There’s a difference in price, types of markets and access, as well as perceived cultural value attached to the sale of a painting versus a T-shirt, but at their most basic, they are both economic exchanges. Still, because Haring was acutely aware of the perceived division, as well as the influence of the (selective) anticapitalist strain that dominated art criticism at the time, he felt apprehension opening the Pop Shop.7 He felt caught between two worlds that were more similar than he, or his art critics, could acknowledge. Part of the bias against commercialism is due to the assumption that it is an irredeemable activity, without cultural value. But a simple act, like buying and wearing a Haring shirt, can shape identities and form cultural meanings. Common commercialism,

86 The Pop Shop like populist art, can sacrifice complexity to encourage broad appeal, but while the imagery on Haring’s merchandise was simplified and easy to understand (and therefore easy for critics to dismiss as shallow), the audience’s behavior and interactions with these objects were complex. And so, although the Pop Shop was considered by some to be the lowest point of his career, even at times by Haring himself, it embodied and performed his most valued ambitions to make art for everyone. As Haring said: The store is a natural development from the original idea of my work, which was on public view in subways. My work in the subway was available to everyone, and everyone was equal in the ownership of it. It is almost a responsibility to continue that stance and make my work available to all kinds of people, and the only way to do that is to do commercial things.8 Here Haring draws an interesting connection between the collective ownership of a public artwork and the individual ownership of merchandise but acknowledges that in the latter, it becomes an economic exchange. Why was this shift necessary? After joining the Tony Shafrazi Gallery in 1982, Haring continued to draw in the subways. His new gallery exposure, however, increased his work’s value, causing individuals to rip his subway drawings off the walls to keep or sell. By 1985, when this became instant and unavoidable, Haring stopped creating his subway drawings and transitioned more fully to galleries. While he welcomed his increased fame in the art world, he was uneasy with its restricted access and searched for a different kind of production that could accommodate the widespread demand for his work. Merchandising was one effective way to make his work available to more people through price and sheer numbers.9 It also worked symbiotically with his burgeoning gallery career. His merchandise helped to counteract the elitism and exclusivity of the art world, while his participation in the art world funded and lent credibility to his merchandise. Moving from the streets to the shop, the relationship of the viewer with his work shifted from a chance, communal encounter to individual ownership and deliberate participation, a shift that could only happen in this order. The subways exposed his work to millions, increased his brand, and generated fans. These fans could then express their already established admiration of Haring and his art by buying items. The Pop Shop’s popularity therefore both depended on and reinforced the fame and recognition that Haring had accumulated in his early years. But although the interface changed, his philosophy stayed the same: to remain loyal and accessible to his original, cross-classed audience.

The Pop Shop and Its Merchandise By chance, Haring found empty space for the Pop Shop on Lafayette Street, noticing a for-rent sign in a window. He told the landlord, Alan Herman, that he wanted a space slightly removed from the art-world circuits in the East Village and West SoHo to start his experiment fresh.10 Over 20 hours, Haring decorated every surface of the space (even the ceilings and the floors) in much the same way that he covered subway stations, galleries, nightclubs, walls, his studio, and his gallery exhibitions: an allover continuous black line (Figure 3.1). On top, Haring tacked apparel at various angles like a massive collage, printed with designs sourced from his previous work. This dynamic and haphazard display recalled his cut-up environments at the School for

Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation. Photo © Muna Tseng Dance Projects, Inc.

Figure 3.1 Tseng Kwong Chi. Pop Shop, New York, 1986. See cover image for a view of Keith Haring sitting in an empty Pop Shop.

The Pop Shop 87

88 The Pop Shop Visual Arts (SVA), in which he recycled earlier work onto new objects, materials, and surfaces, as well as resembled the casual, allover installations of exhibitions at the Mudd Club, Club 57, and the Times Square Show. Reinforcing the lively atmosphere, architects Peter Moore and Peter Pennoyer outfitted the space with a double curved wall, encouraging movement to the back of the store.11 During business hours, loud hip-hop music played nonstop, and a neon sign animated the words “Pop Shop” with radiating lights. The store’s large, exterior windows rotated different displays, at one point filled with inflated crawling babies. Customers filled out order forms to buy objects through a cutout in the curved wall, a self-service system that Haring referred to as a “Brookstone” (a self-service hardware store) and “our version of fast food or fast art.”12 Behind the counter, Haring staffed the Pop Shop with inner-city youth he had befriended (whom he paid), who wore white jumpsuit uniforms with hand-painted Haring designs (Figure 3.2). Altogether, “Standing in the shop [was] like being inside of [Haring’s] head,” as put by Bobby Breslau, the Pop Shop’s manager.13 Even if a visitor did not buy anything, the Pop Shop offered a social, multi-sensorial experience, complete with music and energetic visuals—a cross between store, gallery, and nightclub.14 The Pop Shop sold affordable objects that could be owned, used, and passed on, including magnets ($5–$12), calendars ($15), radios ($25), inflatable plastic babies ($12), sweatshirts ($30–$40), T-shirts ($12–$25), children’s clothes ($12), bags ($5–$20), stickers ($1–$2), patches ($2–$5), postcards (50 cents), earrings ($7), pendants ($5), coloring books ($5), books ($12–$20), jigsaw puzzles ($5), skateboards ($55–$155), posters ($10–$25), and buttons ($1–$5) (Figures 3.3 and 3.6).15 With no fitting rooms, the type of clothing for sale was generic and customers guessed their size or tried on items over their clothes. Keeping with this approach, the main product of the shop was T-shirts, the archetype of an everyday piece of clothing. For the store’s inventory, Haring designed its objects and then had them manufactured in the United States, usually through vendors in New York.16 The style that Haring had cultivated in his early career transitioned easily to mass production, as well as mass consumerism and branding. The speed, volume, and repetition of his subway drawings were in effect mass production by hand, a process that enabled him to refine his style to its lowest common denominator: simplified, graphic lines, and icons. Its uncomplicated and childlike nature appealed regardless of demographic or class, acting as an effective and memorable signifier of his career—a look that was easy to sell. Sharing his new platform—as he did in the East Village—Haring also sold items by other artists in the shop, who similarly had manufacturing-conducive styles, such as Kenny Scharf, Stefano, Eric Haze, Stephen Sprouse, LA2, Futura 2000, and Andy Warhol. Some Haring objects sold at the store involved the purchaser outside of wearability or display, fostering creativity, and therefore engagement, through puzzles, coloring books, and games. One puzzle made up of bulky wooden blocks could be constructed to create several different figures. Images on the bag offer some suggestions: a fish, a cat, a human, a fat man, a bird, or a dog; but the user is free to piece together any kind of creature from their imagination. Imitating Haring’s own work process to an extent (i.e., mingling, combining, and repurposing standard shapes and motifs time and again), this puzzle could teach a rudimentary lesson in semiotics. In one instance a triangle could be a beak, in another it could be an ear. Outside of the Pop Shop, but in the same participatory and inventive spirit, Haring shared free tips and templates to create Haring objects through magazines. In the New

The Pop Shop

89

Figure 3.2 Keith Haring, Untitled (Pop Shop jumpsuits), 1987. Black marker on fabric jumpsuit, 67 × 39 inches (170.1 × 99 cm). Source: Images courtesy of Larry Warsh. Image credit: Mathias Kessler. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

90 The Pop Shop York Post, he included instructions titled “Keith’s do-it-yourself tips,” to duplicate his style.17 In Playboy magazine, he inserted two perforated cutouts covered with his colorful designs, with instructions to fold them into cube-shaped ornaments.18 As conceptual works that traveled directly into people’s homes, Haring outsourced the production of his merchandise and objects to his fans, using the print media as an alternative artistic distribution mechanism. The concept of the Pop Shop itself also traveled beyond its walls through a concerted advertising campaign, extending the reach of his store. Haring designed billboards featuring his Radiant Babies and Barking Dogs, displayed nearby the shop on the corner of Lafayette and Broadway. He also placed advertisements in local publications such as Interview Magazine, created postcards and flyers, sold and gave away promotional items like bags printed with the Pop Shop’s address, and designed catalogs and bulletins for his products (Figures 3.3–3.7).19 The products’ layouts in the catalogs mirror the display in the Pop Shop, placed irregularly and at different angles on top of swirling lines and patterns. One catalog opens out into a large poster of a young man in the center, Haring’s assistant Adolfo Arena, surrounded by items for sale accented with Haring’s trademark movement dashes, as if everything is moving (Figure 3.6). When folded, the cover features a black-and-white photograph of Haring sitting in an empty Pop Shop, emphasizing his authorship of the space and his public persona (see book’s cover). Another catalog designed by Haring folds into triangles, whose corners meet in the center lined with dancing red figures along the borders. The triangles fold out twice, like a large paper fortune-teller game, to reveal happy people inside wearing Haring shirts within a starburst border. The last Pop Shop brochure produced opens out into a large group portrait of diverse ages and races wearing his apparel, a group that included friends, the Pop Shop staff, and Haring himself (Figure 3.7). Everyone is smiling, some waving and looking directly at the camera. These catalogs follow some of the industry standards of fashion catalogs in the 1980s but present Haring’s products more playfully, worn by smiling everyday people surrounded by a dynamic composition that mimics the in-person experience of the shop itself. By comparison, the grid-like design and individually posed models of the wholesale vendor catalogs that Haring used to order products for the Pop Shop feel dated and dull. This innovative product marketing demonstrates Haring’s advertising savvy, in addition to the translatability of his graphic and cartoonish style to nontraditional contexts and across markets. Haring had learned to present his work in multiple places at once. The synchronized combination of Haring’s public presence, along with his Pop Shop, its advertising, and his art-world participation, brings to mind the rise of integrated marketing communications by advertising firms in the late 1980s, becoming a staple strategy by the mid-1990s.20 Advertising and marketing firms broadened their scope to target audiences by integrating and coordinating several different platforms at once, including advertising, circulation, product and retail design, branding, public relations, direct marketing, and sales promotions. This approach was meant to centralize communication in a variety of formats and to build direct relationships with customers. Haring’s multifaceted campaign mirrored these strategies, promoting himself, his art, and his merchandising to several different audiences through retail consumerist practices (selling products that reinforced the promotion and recognition of his style and utilizing traditional advertising platforms), art-world networks

Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

Figure 3.3 Pop Shop merchandise, foldout catalog created by Keith Haring, 1988. See Figure 3.7 for the other side of the catalog.

The Pop Shop 91

92 The Pop Shop

Figure 3.4 Pop Shop postcard, 1986. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

The Pop Shop

93

Figure 3.5 Pop Shop drawstring bag, c. 1986. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

(exhibitions and art criticism), and mainstream news coverage (interviews in magazines and newspapers, and on network television). He constructed a brand for himself and his art that could operate seamlessly between multiple spheres and better connect with his audience. As the epitome of this campaign, Haring created the Pop Shop with many goals in mind. He wanted it to be a place where “not only collectors could come, but also kids from the Bronx.”21 It was also a place where he could continue to build his public image and interact with his admirers, stopping by on weekends to sign merchandise. As he believed, “the Pop Shop [was] part of Keith Haring the artist.”22 Most of all, Haring saw the shop as an extension of his art practice that would “bring seeing and understanding to [his] paintings and broaden the audience.”23 The Pop Shop did broaden his audience or at least catered to the desires of his already massive fan base. In 1987 alone, it was projected to sell $1,095,000 worth of items.24 It also unquestionably brought seeing or exposure to his work. His work could be worn en masse, meaning that millions of people—even those who did not visit the shop—could see others wearing his work on the street. But did his merchandise bring a deeper understanding of his work? Haring wanted his art to be understood on multiple levels and always supported the subjective interpretations of his diverse audience. He said, The danger of making art that is so accessible is that it could get watered down or something. But to me the best thing about it is that it can exist on many levels. . . . People can still intellectualize my work however much they want.25

Source: Keith Haring artwork © The Keith Haring Foundation. Photo © Muna Tseng Dance Projects, Inc.

Figure 3.6 Pop Shop merchandise, foldout poster and catalog created by Keith Haring. Tseng Kwong Chi, Pop Shop, New York, 1986. See cover image for the other side of the catalog poster.

94 The Pop Shop

The Pop Shop

95

Figure 3.7 Pop Shop merchandise, foldout catalog created by Keith Haring, 1988. See Figure 3.3 for the other side of the catalog. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

From that perspective, yes, his merchandise broadened the understanding of his work both conceptually and in numbers; more individuals could engage with and interpret his work as they saw ft. Furthermore, more so than anything else that Haring had produced, his merchandise demonstrated his dedication to access and mass coverage. Its existence alone provides a deeper understanding of his work and the overarching goals of his practice. Yet, as Haring admits, buying merchandise could represent a superfcial, “watered down” interaction with his art, only satisfying a surface desire to take part in a passing fad. This, however, oversimplifes a given individual’s agency and experience, and assumes that all consumers are uniform and passive beings. This argument also passes judgment on the “correct” way to interact with art, a highminded expectation that artists like Haring intended to upend. For customers, wearing a Haring product was a choice that indicated a sense of self-identification with what the item represented: Haring, his work, and his populist ideals. Merchandise worn on the body by knowing consumers informally broadcast one’s taste for Haring’s art in the same way one might display their affinity with any other brand. Thus, Haring invited new audiences to take part in art both financially and conceptually through behaviors that they were already familiar with and could easily understand. He had found and harnessed a space in-between common consumer culture and the contemporary art world to make art more engaging and less intimidating for more people.

96 The Pop Shop

The Pop Shop, Consumer Culture, and the Art Market Haring created the Pop Shop as a response to the affluent gallery and auction house– propelled art market and, therefore, more broadly, to deepening class divides within the realm of consumer culture during the 1980s.26 He bridged these gaps not by bypassing consumption but by including more of the economic spectrum. In an interview for NBC in 1988, he said, Because of the art market .  .  . my things are out of the range of most average people. The only people who can own my things are museums or rich people who have enough money . . . so if I just made expensive paintings and thought I was too good to do commercial things, I feel like I’d be a hypocrite. And at the same time if I only did commercial things . . . it would be equally bad, because then you don’t get taken seriously.27 To Haring, owning a work of art was a part of its experience, an experience that he felt everyone should have access to. To understand this ambition, it is important to consider the cultural and sociological implications of consumption in the 1980s. Traditionally, Western art history and its market have tended to value rarity and uniqueness, rather than mass-produced objects that serve popular needs or wants. Because of this long-held belief, along with a more generalized scholarly resistance against consumption as a productive force, the impact of buying low-cost objects like art merchandise has only recently been considered a determining factor of cultural formation. In the 1960s and 1970s, scholars at the Birmingham School in Britain began to take an interest in the study of daily life, giving rise to the disciplines of media and cultural studies, as well as more sociological publications concerning everyday culture.28 Cultural historian Jim McGuigan chronicles the emergence of these ideas in academia in the 1980s, calling it “cultural populism.”29 Rooted in populist sentiments, British cultural researchers reacted against the high-minded critique of mass culture and began to see the actions of ordinary people as meaningful and worthy of attention.30 McGuigan explains that this shift was concurrent with the neoliberal push of consumer sovereignty, in which individuals were encouraged to express their freedom, culture, and sense of selves by buying things.31 Within this context, the same context that drove artists in Downtown New York to pursue populist practices, the direct links between cultural development and consumerism became more apparent. Now, consumer culture has become a fully fledged academic discipline, defined by scholars such as Prasidh Raj Singh as a “day to day change in the taste of consumer behavior,” that refers to “cultures in which mass consumption and production both fuel the economy and shape perceptions, values, desires, and constructions of personal identity.”32 The impulse to buy nonessential products with disposable income (in response to and in formation of culture) is not specific to the 1980s, but certain conditions in the United States brought this kind of behavior to the fore. The shift to neoliberal economic policies by the end of the 1970s, especially, promoted a market-based culture of differentiated consumerism and the freedom of consumer choice—circumstances that effectively doubled the number of new U.S. businesses from 1975 to 1981.33 In 1982, in response to these conditions, the international stock market started to grow exponentially, giving many consumers more money to spend. Advertisers, wanting to

The Pop Shop

97

capture this spending power, learned how to set themselves apart from competitors by targeting more specific audiences using integrated marketing strategies. Furthermore, a new phase of market segmentation and the rise of individually owned TVs expanded the possibilities of media venues in print, television, and cable.34 Products in the marketplace diversified as well and could better match consumers’ specific needs and tastes through customized features and messages, a significant change from the one-size-fits-all approach of the Fordist economy.35 Individuals, in turn, increasingly turned to consumerism as a way to differentiate and define themselves.36 At the same time, however, while the economy grew and gave more options to consumers, it did not spread its rewards equally. During the decade, the wealth gap widened significantly, and certain markets remained inaccessible to middle and lower classes.37 Individuals may have become accustomed to expressing themselves through consumption, but certain consumer cultures—like in the art world—were beyond reach. The growing economy hit the art market by 1983, the same moment when East Village artists like Haring saw their careers begin to take off. In that year, the art market in New York alone totaled over two billion dollars.38 In stark contrast to the economic slump in the 1970s, the 1980s gave rise to a new way of thinking about art as a possible investment, fueling the art market’s growth.39 It grew so fast, in fact, it attracted mainstream news coverage. Popular magazines such as Newsweek, Rolling Stone, and The Village Voice began to feature the art world, making artists, collectors, curators, and dealers into household names. Art news became so prevalent that Jeffrey Deitch said in 1988, There is certainly a perception that hype itself is perhaps the most important new medium in the corporate world as well as in the art world. The process of promotion, the selling, the culturalization of art ideas and images has become an art form in itself.40 Art museums, spaces usually considered to be less motivated by commercial interests, suddenly faced a decrease in government funding in the 1980s, so they courted the booming private sector for support.41 They showed contemporary artists anointed by the market, organized blockbuster exhibitions to escalate ticket sales, and began to incorporate museum gift shops, cafés, and book stores—staple attractions by the 1990s and 2000s. By incorporating more consumer (visitor) oriented and popular strategies, which paralleled Haring’s to a degree, art museums—like advertisers— increasingly targeted a wider cross section of society through diversifed offerings. Artists responded to 1980s’ consumer cultures in a variety of ways—from criticism to celebration, and especially within the Downtown scene, to alternate means of art creation and distribution. Compared to many artists of the late 1960s and 1970s, whose discontent with the art market led them to create supposed unsalable works, such as performance, land art, or conceptual art, artists of the 1980s viewed the market more positively.42 Rather than critique consumption, artists found it to be a viable tactic to use affordable retailing to undermine the art market and foster new kinds of art participation. Above all, Haring recognized consumerism as a large influence on day-to-day life and aligned his own art practice to follow suit. He felt, “It’s about understanding not only the works, but the world we live in and the times we live in and being a kind of mirror.”43 Academic circles, by contrast, were slower in recognizing the significance of consumerism and its productive potential.

98 The Pop Shop Similar to the distaste of common commercialism in art historical scholarship, an ingrained anxiety has pervaded accounts of consumer culture, preventing serious consideration in broader academia, particularly in the U.S. Again, this resistance has stemmed from several schools of academic thought, including the Frankfurt School and Clement Greenberg, which have generally proposed that commercialization debases and devalues culture, gives rise to an easily manipulated and passive audience, and creates an environment in which conformity and efficiency, and not societal enrichment, is valued and perpetuated.44 Generally, when discussing mass culture, Frankfurt School writers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer have presupposed a superficial public with bad taste—someone always other than themselves—that substitutes social relations with transactions. Artificial demand fuels never-ending and continually expansive consumerism, redirecting attention away from a public’s own political and social interests. Art, although it is also a part of the culture industry, has often been regarded as one of the primary ways to resist and expose capitalism, acting as a kind of watchdog for society at large.45 According to this logic, an object like a painting has more social significance than a manufactured nonart object and is perceived to be separated from market forces, even though both objects act as commodities within the system—hardly autonomous in either sense. Moreover, every scholar, critic, and art historian is implicated in the culture industry. Art writing provides validation and promotion that can enhance art’s market, as well as the careers and cultural capital of its authors. Anthropologist Daniel Miller has argued that in the 1980s, this contradiction created an “anxiety most acutely felt by fairly well-off academics, mainly in the USA,” which, combined with their genuine desire to counter the inequalities of capitalism, caused an extremely “conservative vision of consumption” in scholarship.46 Blanket assumptions of common commercialism as a solely negative force have betrayed an elitist bias toward aesthetics and taste, reinforcing a hierarchy of high and low culture. This has precluded a consideration of a topic that could reveal much insight into modern society and everyday life.47 Since the late 1980s, scholars of consumer culture like Miller began to challenge these ingrained ideas, finding them dated and restrictive.48 Contesting the sweeping claims of passivity, they have argued that most individuals have the capacity for meaningful interactions through various forms of consumption and ownership.49 Many more people buy things than interact with art on a regular basis. Naturally then, consumerism is multifaceted—intersecting, influencing, and creating a variety of cultures and subcultures—and cannot be treated homogenously. It can mold perceptions, values, and aspirations, as well as construct identities.50 It can also reveal a collection of behaviors, provide levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and create cultural ties and hierarchies.51 The meaning of goods and services is socially constructed across individuals, and therefore consumption has a collective payoff as well. It can act as an investment for an individual’s personal values as well as the values of their interpersonal networks, and unite and organize social groups.52 In short, many consumer choices evoke how people see themselves and are seen by others—especially in the 1980s, when consumerism increasingly became a tool to differentiate and express oneself (tempering the idea that consumerism encourages conformity).53 Buying art is no different. To Haring, providing low-cost art items could open this realm of cultural and identity formation to others. T-shirts, the main product sold at the Pop Shop, are one of the most iconic consumer items in American culture, with over one billion bought annually in the United States.54 Its popularity stems from its adaptability; it can convey any kind of information or

The Pop Shop

99

image, such as promoting an organization or a viewpoint, or a brand, a musician, or an artist. As early as the 1930s, universities began using T-shirts to unify their student body. In the 1940s, political campaigns used them to promote their candidates, and by the 1960s and 1970s, with cheaper and faster production, T-shirts began to display everything from sports teams to commercial logos and other designs.55 They act like a blank canvas for a variety of messages that any individual or group could use to signify meaning.56 Indeed, many scholars have used semiotics to claim that everyday consumption has its own complex system of representation and signification.57 When a customer buys a Haring T-shirt, they also buy its sign value—the cultural significance that Haring attached to himself and his art. Wearing one could signify a shared identification with him, his gayness, his art, Downtown culture, or his stance on activist issues. Socially, an individual could then use these connotations to set themselves apart or unite with other like-minded individuals or simply display their preference for Haring’s work. Collecting—a specific kind of consumption—has become a regular part of daily life since the 19th century. Individuals amass possessions that reflect and perform their personal experiences and beliefs, as well as to maintain and protect memories. The impulse to collect relates to a long history of souvenir culture, in which individuals or groups use tangible objects to represent and mark significant experiences, such as spoils collected from war or badges from a religious pilgrimage.58 Even today, the act of taking pictures with and of objects, along with the buying of things in gift shops, shows similar motivations to those of the past, that is, proof of having been at a place, a way to extend one’s memory, or to participate in a site or object’s aura. Consumerist scholar Grant McCracken calls the act of collecting “possession rituals.” These rituals shape social relations through commonalities that give owners a kind of personal and collective meaning.59 Psychologist Helga Dittmar proposes that many think of possessions as a part of the self and so they can impact one’s sense of self or their relationship to a group.60 Everyone participates in collecting in one form or another, but for most of human history, art collecting has been reserved for royalty, the aristocracy, or the very wealthy—used to demonstrate their authority and to help consolidate and glorify power. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it became common practice for Western art collectors to donate their collections to museums so that their owners’ importance could carry on after their deaths and their collections could be publicly available to enrich society. But the average museum visitor could only view these objects and not build collections of their own. Nevertheless, art museums found another way to tap into their visitors’ impulse to collect. A product of the same populist motivations and consumerist context of the time, museum gift shops became popular in the late 1980s and 1990s, amplified by the increased recognition of consumption tied to identity and cultural experiences. Haring mentioned the museum store once in his journals, frustrated that museums like the Tate in London only sold posters and postcard reproductions of his art in their stores but did not collect or exhibit his work in their galleries.61 The history of the museum gift shop is far from charted, but it is generally recognized that by the 1990s, museum gift shops became a staple of the museum experience, along with cafés, lounges, and other amenities. Museums have sold items related to their exhibitions since the 19th century, like guidebooks, postcards, and reproductions.62 Facing the decline in public funding in the 1980s, museums increasingly turned to their shops as a source of revenue, but the large-scale, multipart museum gift shop did not become a mainstay until the 1990s.63 The Metropolitan Museum of Art store is one exception on the forefront of the museum

100 The Pop Shop gift shop for almost a century. In the early 20th century, the Met set up design studios to make plaster reproductions that they sold through catalogs. They then opened their first booth inside the museum in 1908 and progressively expanded their offerings.64 The store was so popular that by 1950, it created a standalone store, which then grew drastically in the 1970s to 12,500 square feet.65 The museum has steadily increased its merchandising efforts since, with a large jump in the 1990s. It sold $8.5 million worth of products in 1976, $38 million by 1986, and $90 million by 1995.66 The Met’s merchandising efforts possibly influenced Haring. While he may not have cited the connection, at the very least Haring responded to the same cultural circumstances and impulses. The Met, like Haring, recognized that their visitors wanted to express or commemorate their experience through buying objects. But unlike museums, Haring’s intentions were markedly different. The Pop Shop was not a demarcated space of souvenirs derivative of or copied from his art. While it may have shared some of the same goals (i.e., engagement with art and expressing oneself), the Pop Shop was independently run by an artist and contextualized from the start as an art statement full of art objects and a critical response to the contemporary art market.67 Through it, Haring offered his audience the experience of owning an actual piece of art, one they could afford. Because of his focus on common commercial products like T-shirts, not just art sold in luxury markets, Haring’s Pop Shop can be framed within established theories of class and consumption. In his seminal book, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), Thorstein Veblen, one of the first to pioneer the sociology of consumption, introduced the concepts of conspicuous consumption (buying and displaying commodities in order to enhance financial and social standing) and emulation (the desire of lowerclass individuals to copy upper class to demonstrate their good taste).68 Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu later built on Veblen’s ideas to describe this type of behavior in the art world, pointing not just to wealth but also to educational capital as factors that determine consumption—in terms of both the market and conceptual appreciation— of art and culture.69 According to Bourdieu, the ability to buy or understand art does not just reflect the distinction between classes but also creates this distinction as well. Culture and the economy are interrelated, reinforcing and producing class dynamics, taste, and influence. Those with more economic capital to buy art or cultural capital like education to understand art tend to interact with high culture more so than those with less. These individuals then also have the ability and power to collectively decide what high culture is. Sociologist Howard Becker defined an art world as “a network of people whose cooperative activity, organized via their joint knowledge of conventional means of doing things, produces the kind of artworks that the art world is noted for.”70 Becker argued that something becomes art insomuch as those in the art world can agree and recognize it as such, based on an essentially established foundation of symbolic constructions and social circumstances, rather than any intrinsic aesthetic characteristics. Along with Bourdieu, Becker’s research can help one understand the contemporary art world in the New York 1980s as a highly coded environment that was insulated from a broader range of socioeconomic groups. Those who did not have access to these social networks, nor the relevant economic or educational capital, were excluded. Haring’s art and merchandise worked against this class inequality by offering accessibility in terms of both content (education) and price (economic). He purposefully created artwork that was intellectually accessible for a mass audience and then created

The Pop Shop

101

the Pop Shop, a welcoming space for everyone. But buying an object from Haring’s store was not a behavior meant to emulate the upper classes to increase one’s status by association, or a demonstration of cultivated taste. It was a creative and self-directed behavior that any person could perform to share in the identity of an artist whom they admired in full public view. Haring’s entire career was an attempt to challenge class divides in the art world through physical and conceptual inclusion, and the Pop Shop epitomized this aim. It is no wonder that thousands took part in the experience it provided. Haring’s fans wanted to participate in his popularity—at this point elevated by his self-promotion—by owning a small part of what he represented and made.71 And fans, or “communities of mutual concern,” tend to be excessive consumers to prove their shared commitment.72 In some circumstances, this type of consumption may be more engaging than art collecting. Especially within the investment-like atmosphere of the 1980s art market, an owner of a Haring shirt might have had a more genuine and emotional connection than an art collector who bought a painting with the sole purpose of reselling it.73 Rather than display their trophy on a wall or preserve it as a sanctified and unique art object, a Haring fan could wear or use whatever they brought. Part of its value therefore was its functionality and portability: his products could be enjoyed within the fabric of everyday life, not physically removed in a museum, gallery, or collector’s home. To be sure, Haring’s artistic brand was so portable, he extended his merchandising model to other countries.

Tokyo Pop Shop: A Failed Experiment? Haring opened a second Pop Shop in Tokyo on January 20, 1988, establishing posts in two significant urban centers on opposite sides of the world (Figure 3.8). While the Tokyo Pop Shop shared many of the same logistics and goals as the one in New York, it differed in geographical context, audience, and duration, as well as in product design. The extension felt appropriate to Haring given his interest in Japanese culture, oftentimes comparing his automatic and gestural paintings in black paint to Japanese calligraphy.74 In addition, Tokyo was a logical place for a shop because of its specific cultural connections between art and consumerism, informed in part by its long and complicated relationship with the West. Haring said, Tokyo was one of the places where I was most interested in doing [a Pop Shop] almost more so than New York or as much as Europe. . . . The community in Japan just has a different orientation. The idea of a shop makes sense in a place like that. The fast-paced, commodity thing in Japan is a big area to work in, to address things . . . as a kind of artistic discourse between the systems that already exist there—not only the modern ones, but the traditional systems, and the influx of American and Western pop culture onto that culture.75 The formula of the Pop Shop worked better for New York, however, where the shop stayed open for 25 years. Haring miscalculated the Tokyo shop’s potential, and it closed in less than a year due to widespread production of counterfeit Haring merchandise. Still, an investigation of the shop here reveals certain insights into Haring’s opinions toward mass consumption and authenticity and reveals the specifc cultural conditions that he needed to sell his products long term.

Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation. Photo © Muna Tseng Dance Projects, Inc.

Figure 3.8 Tseng Kwong Chi, Pop Shop, Tokyo, 1988.

102 The Pop Shop

The Pop Shop

103

To avoid Tokyo’s expensive real estate, Haring rented an empty lot on which he placed two shipping containers that he welded together to form one large room, along with a storage area attached to the back. Like the New York shop, he painted thick black lines on every surface in the interior, including all over paper lanterns and a large maneki-neko (customary good-luck cat statue in Asian stores), and displayed his products at various angles on the walls. In one wall, he embedded three televisions that each played the same footage on a loop, featuring Haring and Warhol interviews, himself painting, and his music video collaborations with Grace Jones.76 On the roof, Haring painted a massive mural of stacked figures that could be seen from surrounding buildings, and on the front of the shop, he displayed a large red circle (taken from the Japanese flag) that read “Pop Shop Tokyo” (Figure 3.9). A banner advertised the shop’s location on a nearby street. The Tokyo shop was conceived as a counterpart to New York, but responding to the site, Haring offered additional products manufactured in Kyoto that catered to Japan’s cultural traditions, such as fans, kimonos, and rice bowls (Figure 3.10).77 He also designed new bags, buttons, and cards, as well as clothing that promoted the location (Figure 3.11). Typical of Japanese custom, the staff asked visitors to take off their shoes before entering and put on specialty Pop Shop slippers. Overall, instead of a replica of the New York Pop Shop, Haring customized this shop for its Eastern audience, intermingling Western traditions. This combination reflected Haring’s own style, a mixture of international influences. It also drew from the widespread and long-term Japanese assimilation of Western popular culture with their own.

Figure 3.9 Keith Haring painting a mural on the roof of the Tokyo Pop Shop and Pop Shop Tokyo sign, 1987. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

104 The Pop Shop

Figure 3.10 Keith Haring, Pop Shop Tokyo Fan, 1987. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

In the last two centuries, and especially in the 1980s, Western ideas, culture, and commodities primarily passed into Japan through major cities like Tokyo and were then integrated and disseminated to the rest of the country.78 Haring witnessed this process and began to understand the Japanese tendency to appropriate and adapt foreign cultures for their own needs and wants. He said, American pop culture is done so much better in Japan, they know more about Mickey Mouse than we ever did. They take the American use of pop characters and cartoons and the use of color, and do it even better.79 In the 1980s, Japan readily consumed American culture and had a certain fondness for art trends from New York City—especially art from the East Village scene.80 Nevertheless, the Japanese reception of New York 1980s art is a relatively unexplored and undocumented phenomenon.81 Research on the history of Japan’s own consumer culture has garnered slightly more scholarly attention, which is helpful to grasp the Japanese reception of the Pop Shop. In the 1960s, Japanese consumption increased dramatically from a desire to rebuild the country after World War II and to demonstrate their liberation from “soft fascism,” culminating in their 1980s boom.82 Many believed that expansive advertising and consumption were indicators of development and progress.83 Behind the United States, Japan had the highest gross national product in the 1970s, which continued to grow until hitting a recession in 1992, making Tokyo one of the centers of the new world economy. Due to this general prosperity, citizens in Japan embraced consumerism as a way to express themselves—similar to the Americans. Within this context, Japanese art critics were much less concerned with the comingling of overt consumerism and

The Pop Shop

105

Figure 3.11 Keith Haring, Pop Shop Tokyo Bag, 1987. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

art than their Western counterparts.84 They understood the identity-building value of consumer culture and saw it as an experience equal to the experience of art. In fact, in the 1980s, most Japanese art galleries and museums were housed in department stores to intermix capitalism and culture for profit, as well as serve the well-being of their customers.85 The Japanese, therefore, appreciated Haring’s art merchandise on a level that was not possible in its original New York context. Even today, Japan has very few public art museums (that tend to only exhibit art made before the 1970s), and department stores like Mitsukoshi, Isetan, and Seibu continue to play a primary role in the circulation of Western and contemporary art.86 In Japan, the history of the department store, art, and the West reaches back more than a century. The Japanese did not even have a term for “fine art” until after the start of the Meiji

106 The Pop Shop era (1868–1912), when the West introduced it to their culture.87 Concurrently, in the late 19th century, Japan learned about Western retail techniques and established its first department stores, which employed artists to make products for sale.88 Japan’s next significant encounter with Western culture occurred through U.S. occupation in the years after World War II, during which the United States aimed to reorient Japanese citizens through a demonstration of the American way of life.89 The “enlightenment campaign” included the screening of more than 600 Hollywood movies and an introduction to U.S. consumerist goods.90 When the U.S. occupation (and its economic restrictions) ended in 1950 and the Japanese economy started to boom, Japanese department stores filled the vacuum by meeting and expanding the growth of consumerism and fulfilling the now entrenched demand for American popular culture.91 By the 1980s, “Japan’s golden days of department store retailing,” department stores began to focus on the newly affluent next generation (the generation who only knew economic growth), who were particularly accustomed to expressing their identity through consumption.92 Seibu, the number-one department store in Tokyo, with multiple locations throughout the country, sought to attract this demographic by setting itself apart from the new influx of cheap discount stores. They did this by extending their brand to art and education, opening an art museum on its premises in 1981. “Endeavor[ing] to educate people in a new way of life and system of values,” they purportedly wanted to appeal to the desires and needs of consumers beyond retail items and contribute to the public good.93 Proving to be a successful marketing strategy, other department stores followed suit. As a branding device, it attracted thousands of visitors to their stores. Millie Creighton, in her essay titled “Something More: Japanese Department Stores’ Marketing ‘A Meaningful Human Life,’” explains that the industry saw a profound connection between the consumption of merchandise and the consumption of art. She contends that consumption was seen as a “form of self-expression, a form of communication; it communicates an attitude, a philosophical orientation, a sense of identity.”94 Moreover, she suggests that consumption could inspire creativity.95 Many younger Japanese artists in the 1980s were introduced to Western art for the first time through department stores.96 They blended Western art’s influence with the strong graphic tradition in Japanese art history, creating a unique movement and style—sometimes called Tokyo Pop—that continues to influence Japanese art today.97 Part of that influence was due to the Neo-Pop art style of the New York Downtown scene. Japanese department stores staged several exhibitions featuring artists from the East Village (including Haring) that, according to art critic Barbara Moneyhan, were “celebrated with the excitement usually associated with rock stars.”98 Tsutomu Takashima, Seibu’s New York culture scout, explained that by promoting artists like Haring, Seibu could be considered hip, young, and avant-garde by association.99 Japanese publications that targeted the younger generation, such as the popular magazine Brutus, enhanced this connection by featuring these exhibitions and artists like Haring, who was especially well liked in Tokyo.100 Even before the Tokyo Pop Shop, Haring’s work was shown in multiple shows in Japanese department stores and was represented by Galerie Watari in Tokyo for a year.101 Describing the reception of his work in Japan, Haring said, “I’m better known in Tokyo than anywhere else in the world . . . Somehow I fit in more with their idea of art than a lot of other artists do.”102 Not surprisingly, Tokyo was excited about the Pop Shop. At least six magazines covered the Pop Shop in advance, and several press

The Pop Shop

107

103

outlets came to document its opening, including CBS from the states. Tony Shafrazi, the owner of Haring’s New York gallery representation at the time, described Haring’s passionate reception: The response to Keith Haring and his paintings was so phenomenal that I realized the impact my artists’ work will have on their culture. . . . I’ve been asked to do more shows there. . . . We had to patent all Keith’s images because of the rip-offs over there. Their culture is ready for this sort of image shorthand in their advertising and commercial designs. Last year one of Keith’s characters decorated Seibu’s credit cards.104 Japanese art collector Kazuo Nakamura also recalled Haring’s popularity, saying, “He was madly popular in Japan. His fans and press corps were waiting for him at the airport.”105 When the shop opened, it had long lines, and products “sold like hotcakes.”106 Haring’s merchandise was so popular, however, that unauthorized and unlicensed imitations flooded Japanese markets instantly and undersold Haring’s operation. The shop lost most of its business and was eventually forced to close in 1988. As Haring explained, I played against the rules [in Tokyo] .  .  . big department stores wanted us to incorporate the shop within their own operations and we refused. We wanted to remain independent. So the big stores worked against us, and allowed the proliferation of all the fake Harings to continue—and we were crushed.107 Ironically, then, Japan’s comfort with art and consumer culture, and love for commercially oriented Western art, allowed for and encouraged knockoff competition, which led to the demise of one of their favorite artists’ shops. In addition, while Haring was in complete control of the New York shop, the Tokyo shop was a joint venture with an American couple, Kaz Kuzui and Fran Rubel Kuzui, who hired third parties for its day-to-day management. These employees often did not communicate regularly with the Haring studio and failed to keep up-to-date and accurate records, creating confusion and stress.108 The shop in Tokyo, consequently, offers interesting insights into Haring’s unresolved feelings toward reproductions and fakes, as well as authenticity, which at times contradicted the logic of his drive toward accessibility. Part of the impetus to create the Pop Shops was in large part a response to all the fake Harings (knockoff shirts, towels, dresses, etc.) being sold all over the world—Haring wanted to maintain quality control.109 For the same reasons, Haring continually turned down licensing offers and proposals to open other stores in other cities.110 As he rationalized, “The main point was that we didn’t want to produce things that would cheapen the art. In other words, this was still an art statement.”111 So, Haring wanted to sell merchandise, but he did not want unauthorized versions without his high standards that might hurt his artistic brand or credibility.112 Even Haring saw this as a possible paradox, speculating,“Maybe [not licensing the brand] is a little hypocritical because I am saying I want it public and at the same time I want to keep it under my control. I still want to keep it art.”113 Other times Haring was flattered by fakes and even considered them to be inspiring and validating. He said, In the beginning the copying was a compliment. Before I made my first T-shirt there were already Keith Haring T-shirts in South America and Asia. It was in a

108 The Pop Shop way a response to those things and an approval for me that these things could exist in the commercial world.114 He also said that when people copied his style in the streets, “That’s the ultimate compliment to me,” but when it came to imitations on clothing, it’s still flattery, but of a more mild sort: those people are doing it because they want to make a buck. But ultimately . . . it shows that people have responded to something in my work. There is some positive reason.115 These statements begin to demonstrate Haring’s unresolved and often conficting feelings about licensing, product production, and commercial activities, shaped by Western expectations of creative genius and authorship. In the end, the Tokyo Pop Shop reveals some limitations to Haring’s strategy: the translatability of his pictographic designs is easy to copy and cheap to make. Others took advantage of the demand for his work and undermined his own production; the artist’s stamp of approval was not necessary—especially in Japan, in which imitation and invention are not opposing practices but two sides of the same coin.116 From this angle, however, taking the Western value of authorship out of the equation, Haring’s easy-to-replicate style was a strength. When others produced his work for him, it lowered costs (though the cost of quality increased), which could dramatically expand the reach of his art. The shop in Tokyo also contributes insights into the widespread reception of Haring’s work throughout the world. His images could transcend geography and languages due to their universal themes and nondescript figures with easy-to-grasp semiology. In addition, the immense response to his merchandise in Japan was indicative of an increasing cross-cultural desire to collect and participate in art through consumption, a globalized phenomenon of identity formation. Although the Tokyo Pop Shop was a business failure—faring worse than the New York Pop Shop, which, at the most, broke even, it did not reflect a failure of Haring’s concepts. Rather, it demonstrated his work’s international appeal and the success of his populist strategies. Compared to his earlier works, fixed in one place on the streets or in the gallery, his merchandise could circulate his work and increase his fame across borders.

Post–Pop Shop Fame and Promotion As early as 1981, Haring began to talk about his interest in making T-shirts, but he did not have enough capital.117 The opening of the Pop Shop, produced and funded by Haring himself, therefore depended on his later financial success as a gallery artist. He invested more than $500,000 of his own money, money he did not expect to earn back through the store.118 Ironically, then, his Pop Shop, made for the people, was a project that could only be carried out by one with financial means and an established reputation. Yet it was not without benefits. Even if the Pop Shop did not make money, the exposure that it and his merchandise gave to his work bolstered his celebrity and brand as an artist.119 He created a reciprocal relationship: his art career financed the Pop Shop, and the Pop Shop was an invaluable marketing platform for his art career.

The Pop Shop

109

Haring’s fame reached its peak just before the New York Pop Shop opened in 1986, evident by his rising auction prices, packed schedule, and many new commissions in the United States and worldwide. By this point, Haring generally anticipated a media presence at his public work sites and would add notes in his journals on the amount of press in attendance.120 He also often wrote about fans mobbing him for autographs or asking for impromptu drawings on their clothes.121 Because his fame had become so mainstream, the Pop Shops received a great deal of attention when they opened. In New York, it was covered by television news programs, including Channel 11, Swiss TV, and ABC News, and publications such as the Vogue, Bazaar, Metropolitan Home, The Village Voice, GQ, The New York Times, Time Out New York, and the Post, in addition to several other national and local publications.122 For the Pop Shop’s spotlight on ABC News, the segment was introduced with, “if you are not familiar with Haring, chances are you soon will be.”123 The Tokyo store was featured in several Japanese publications, generating a lot of buzz.124 The painting of its interior became a media event, with several reporters invited to photograph and film Haring as he worked, reminiscent of the crowds he attracted for his street work.125 He painted the walls (performed) in front of these reporters, not-so-coincidentally wearing a shirt that reproduced the television-as-head motif—now Haring became the architect of his own public image, taking advantage of the television’s ability to control.126 He repeated this compounded promotion hundreds of times throughout his career: whenever he was photographed or filmed by the press or friends, he was usually wearing his own merchandise.127 Haring supplemented this free publicity with several items he designed for the Pop Shop, including billboards, print advertising, sales catalogs, Pop Shop–themed merchandise, and videos. In their creation, Haring utilized strategies that both he and his Downtown cohort had developed in the early 1980s. But now he coordinated the multiple distributional channels and adapted their content to be purely promotional. The looped video in the Tokyo Pop Shop, for example, drew from the video and alternate display techniques he explored while at the School of Visual Arts. Similar to the street viewing of his Machine (1980) video, the Tokyo video footage was shown in a public space unassociated with the high-mindedness of a gallery or a museum. But rather than an artwork in and of itself, the Tokyo video was a compilation of his career and international achievements. Converting his early experimentation into a promotional tool, it bolstered the clout behind his brand and acted as an advertisement for Haring himself, while also complimenting the store’s ambience. Taken all together, the press’s films and photographs and his own promotional offerings amounted to a wide-scale campaign for the Pop Shop that reinforced its recognition and impact, as well as the recognition and impact of Haring’s public image and work more generally. In his words, “we have to use the media and at the same time the media uses you.”128 Besides the Pop Shop, by the mid-1980s Haring took on several other commercial projects to push his populist goals, opportunities that reflected the diversification of newly available media outlets. He created sets for MTV and stage productions, designs for album covers, the background for an Adidas ad with Run-DMC, an image for an Absolut vodka ad, and image commissions for the magazine Playboy. Haring also designed an animated advertisement for the Zurich store Big Nur Zürich and collaborated on music videos with Grace Jones. These multipronged excursions into mainstream culture progressively expanded his celebrity and public platform, leading

110 The Pop Shop to more and more popular opportunities. But at the same time, the more Haring interacted with common commercialism, the more it undercut his legitimacy in the art world.

The Pop Shop’s Critical Reception As Haring described it, the Pop Shop was “a combination art gallery and store,” and he wanted “it to have an amusement park atmosphere.”129 An art gallery, a store, and an amusement park: this combination may now seem cliché after the many blockbuster exhibitions in the 1990s and 2000s that have attracted crowds with popular art and artists, gift shops, and food courts. Yet, in the 1980s, this approach could be lethal to an artist’s career. Fully knowing this risk, Haring’s creation of the Pop Shop was incredibly unusual within the context of the art world but relatively normal within the context of everyday consumerism. Its innovation therefore lies in the combination of these two spheres. The popular press, as well as Haring’s fans and friends, loved the store. It was extremely popular and well attended, selling thousands of products. The reaction of art critics, however, was resoundingly negative.130 Sondra Myers, president of the National Federation of State Humanities Council, wrote simply, “it’s vulgar,” clearly uncomfortable with the shop’s low-cost commerciality.131 Art critic Mark Stevens likened the Pop Shop to a shallow and temporary fix, unworthy of significant attention: Is this spiritually, intellectually, morally, forceful stuff? Does it have imaginative depth? Is it in some ways significantly grappling with important issues? . . . While fun, NO, it’s fast food, it’s a good time, its boogying on a Saturday night . . . but great, no.132 Tad Friend in Spy Magazine wrote another scathing review of the Pop Shop, titled “Downhill from Here,” comparing Haring’s actions to Peter Max’s greed in the 1960s.133 Friend wrote, If the closing of the art show at Area last year marked the beginning of Haring’s speedy regress from the locomotive to the caboose of cool, the Pop Shop’s inaugural surely marked its end. . . . What precipitated Haring’s eclipse was not so much the suspicion that he had prostituted his art, but that he had nothing to prostitute.134 More accusations of badly made, superfcial, and faddish art followed. Art critic Robert Hughes commented, “People will look back to Haring and say, ‘So that’s the kitsch people were buying. Good heavens!’”135 Hilton Kramer, the embodiment of conservative art criticism of the 1980s, who despised of most of the Downtown scene, dismissed Haring and the shop, stating, It’s proper for Keith Haring to open a store. . . . Maybe if he had been able to open a shop [from the start], we wouldn’t have had to deal with him as an artist.136 Some critics saw the Pop Shop as a disingenuous move away from the accessibility Haring had demonstrated in his public work. Michael Gross of The New York Times wrote,

The Pop Shop

111

Mr. Haring used to offer his art free on subway walls. Now he sells it for fivefigure sums. Mr. Haring also used to give away his pins, jigsaw puzzles, and comic books, which are now for sale at the shop.137 Further refecting this type of antipathy toward Haring, an individual spray painted “capitalist” on his shop.138 Thomas Hoving, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, who had enlarged the Met’s gift shops in the 1970s and 1980s and introduced more popular exhibitions to the museum’s roster, had a different attitude. He thought that the Pop Shop “[didn’t] carry great significance .  .  . [it was] just a natural extension of the Metropolitan Museum gift shop.”139 Hoving’s proximity to his own museum gift shop, a part of his visitorcentered expansion, predisposed his perspective, causing him to overlook the innovation of an artist manufacturing and selling his own merchandise at a scale that predates the expansion of museum merchandising in the following decades. The Pop Shop was not a natural extension of the museum gift shop, something that Haring never cited as an influence. Context and intention are important. A gift shop was a museum staple by the end of the 1980s, while an artist opening a shop and mass-producing their work was not. Furthermore, by unfairly appraising both the Pop Shop and the Met’s gift shop as insignificant, Hoving also failed to grasp that the museum gift shop itself is a noteworthy phenomenon and represents a historically specific behavior of museumgoers. Some big players in the art world defended the Pop Shop, including Jeffrey Deitch, Leo Castelli, Dieter Buchhart, and Shafrazi, but these individuals usually had a vested interest in Haring or spent their careers exhibiting or writing about his work. Additionally, their defenses were typically offered years after the Pop Shop opened, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Most also suffered from the same art-world value judgments that troubled Haring and, like him, justified the significance of the Pop Shop by arguing that it was not commercial. Castelli rationalized, I don’t think [the Pop Shop] is commercial at all. In the bad sense, he is not commercial. Now, if he opens a store as he did, it’s a part of his art . . . like all the things that Andy did were a part of his art. The store itself is a work of art.140 In 2012, Buchhart commended Haring’s shop as an installation that was ahead of its time, saying that if he would have done it in 2012, people would have understood the implications of that artwork at once. They would’ve seen it as an anti-capitalistic [and] critical against our economy . . . people would have contextualized it precisely as a critical statement and not as a commercial statement.141 In 1986, Shafrazi distanced the Pop Shop from the art world altogether, claiming, “The store won’t have any effect on his standing in the art world. He’s just building a broader audience, winning hearts and attention.”142 Deitch celebrated the Pop Shop by linking it to art historical precedent, heralding Haring for push[ing] forward boundaries of what is considered art and what is not. . . . He is one of the few artists . . . to have used what Warhol accomplished and mixed it with his own impulses to create something that in fact was even beyond Warhol.143

112 The Pop Shop While these comments offer insights into the legacy of the Pop Shop within art history, they also tend to distance Haring and the shop from the “bad” commercial realm (except for Deitch) to claim their validity, or position the project as an aberration of an otherwise reputable career. Why can’t the Pop Shop be commercial, a productive embrace of consumer culture, and a valid artwork? Why is commercialism acceptable in the art market but not in the mass market? While Haring’s supporters defended the Pop Shop, they downplayed its most defning characteristic: it is commercial. Perhaps in part because their endorsements are laced with this disaffection, an in-depth and critical analysis of the Pop Shop has yet to exist. Considering these judgments overall—whether positive or negative—it is evident that the Pop Shop challenged the contemporary art world’s status quo, offering something out of the ordinary that most were either eager to denounce or to justify. This polarizing reaction inadvertently suggests that the Pop Shop was as an innovative art strategy that challenged assumptions about art and its boundaries. But even though Haring’s role in art history has been more favorably revised in the 21st century, the Pop Shop still has not been taken seriously—hardly receiving the redemption it deserves proportionate to its impact within his career. This neglect has been further compounded by Haring's own ambivalence.144

Haring’s Ambivalence Given the basic premise of selling merchandise and Haring’s numerous forays into mass culture, it would appear that he was committed wholeheartedly to the Pop Shop and his commercial activities in general—though, his relationship to what he perceived to be commercial is at best ambiguous. Sometimes he embraced the shop, thrilled with its ability to reach more people, but other times he uneasily distanced himself. He also limited its reach—and therefore compromised his populist goals—by turning down opportunities he felt were too commercial or that he could not control, with the mindset that this would more safely position the project as art.145 I have begun to chart this ambivalence in statements by Haring in regard to his attitude toward fakes and licensing agreements, but his vacillating attitude toward commercialism began at the start of his career. As a young adult, Haring had considered a career as a commercial artist. Though, after six months at the Ivy School, he “knew that no matter what I was going to do to make a living, I wasn’t going to prostitute my art by being a commercial artist or illustrator.”146 Given this deep-rooted, almost knee-jerk aversion to a career in commercial art for hire, it is no wonder that his attitude toward the shop and commercialism were far from resolved. But other times, Haring had respect for popular commercial projects, as long as they were done correctly. He said, To some artists, anything commercial you do is trash. But to me, if it’s done with the same amount of care and thinking you put into everything else, you can make incredible things, like Walt Disney did, or Dr. Seuss.147 Haring believed that commercialism was acceptable if it was done “sincerely for the sake of the work and not for greed or for money.”148 The most significant measure of Haring’s ambivalence toward the Pop Shop lies in the fact that his characterization of the shop shifted from interview to

The Pop Shop

113

interview. He presented it on some occasions as a necessary evil, other times a conceptual art triumph, and still other times as simply inconsequential. Although Haring defended the Pop Shop on numerous occasions, even in his last interview calling it “the most important thing I ever did,” his discussion of it elsewhere came across as apologetic, with less conviction than when he talked about his other work.149 He often characterized the Pop Shop as an unavoidable responsibility that forced his hand: I knew I’d get a lot of criticism for it, but I also knew that it was what some of the work called for—and had to become. Still, it meant I’d be walking an incredibly fine line. . . . You had to avoid crass commercialism and also keep some hold on the art world—and I wanted to do that, because I wanted to keep the respect of artists who meant something to me.150 Even though Haring decided it was the necessary thing to do, he also felt beholden to those in the art world that he wanted to impress, and within that world, the two concepts—merchandising and art—were mutually exclusive. Many in the art world clung to the idea that merchandising one’s artistic brand was disreputable.151 For the Pop Shop, the personal support offered by Warhol helped give Haring the confdence he needed to go forward. As he put it, “I was scared. I knew I would be attacked, [but Andy] was a big supporter of the Pop Shop.”152 On NBC national television, Haring defended the Pop Shop by equating it with his other work: “For me [the store is] the same [as my art] but for a lot of people it’s the opposite.”153 He also called the shop conceptual, again associating it with his art: “It’s not a toy store. It’s part of a new attitude—an extension of the subways . . . it’s part of a conceptualized idea.”154 Along these lines, he also regularly disassociated his merchandise and his shop from commercialism, again to legitimize them within the perceived realm of fine art. In regard to his clothing, he said, “Fashion magazines picked up my work right away, but I try to play down my involvement with fashion, because fashion goes in and out.”155 In an impossible position, Haring wanted the work to function within popular commercial channels but also to be taken seriously as art without entering the cycle of capitalistic obsolescence.156 In other instances, nonetheless, he contradicted these sentiments, separating his shop and his fine art into two categories. He said, “In the store, I sell icons, but I don’t paint crawling babies. My painting is getting stronger, more separate from what’s in the shop.”157 In another interview, he disowned the shop outright as his “least favorite thing but, [it] was really unavoidable,” as if, again, it was almost an involuntary choice to keep his work accessible.158 In these statements, Haring bristles at the idea that the Pop Shop was commercial, like his avoidance of the label “commercial” in general. The root of his anxiety was perhaps the widespread belief that the shop was profit driven. Haring was not interested in money. As he proudly admitted, he was a “horrible businessman,” since plenty of his money was invested into the shop without much or even any return.159 If Haring had used income from his art sales to only fund large-scale public works like murals (which he did) or invest in museum-bound painting, would it have been more acceptable? In Haring’s case, he was first popular—and noncommercial—in nonart spaces like the subway and then began to achieve success in the art market.

114 The Pop Shop This success was then a necessary precursor for him to return to his original state: the everyday, in the form of consumer culture—the move that seems to cause the biggest problem for his critics. He described the situation: It was cool to know who Keith Haring was [in 1980]. It was still avant-garde then. The more people who knew about it, the less cool those people thought it was. As soon as I became popular, that whole group thought I had sold out or became something else .  .  . they appear to think what should have been done, was to become elitist . . . to remain loyal to that art gallery system once I started showing in it. I could have said, ‘It’s too good to put on T-shirts, I don’t want to sell out. I’ll just keep making these paintings and make the prices go up to $30k, $40k, $50k.’160 Herein lies the hypocrisy of the art world. Despite Haring’s understanding that the art market was just as commercial as a small retail store, it still bothered him. He could not escape the culture industry (no one can), but instead of taking this at face value, he felt insecure, and he, along with his ardent supporters, downplayed the shop’s commercial aspects.161 Nor did Haring fully appreciate the signifcance of his store within the context of the 1980s, his career, or in art history in general. Providing an innovative platform of mass visual communication for future artists and activists to follow, the enterprise gave Haring the ability to centralize the infuence of his celebrity and reach new audiences, as well as enact social and political change.

Notes 1. Paula Span, “Graffiti’s Scrawl of Success, Drawing for Millions,” Washington Post (December 30, 1985): D1. 2. See Alan Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” New York Talk (June 1986): 45. 3. Haring quoted in Stephen Saban, “Meanwhile Back in New York City . . . Keith Haring . . .” Hamptons Newspaper/Magazine (June 30, 1983): 54. In 1983, the Whitney Museum of American Art asked Haring to design a T-shirt for their exhibition, The Comic Art Show, which they sold in their shop. The T-shirt included a black television with wings, legs, and radiating red lines. It inspired Haring to produce merchandise on a larger scale. 4. For the sake of clarity, from here on, the Pop Shop will be referred to singularly and will reference the New York Pop Shop. Both Pop Shops are similar in terms of conception, display, impact, and purpose, and statements that encompass these themes of the “Pop Shop” can be applied to both. The divergences of Tokyo Pop Shop are discussed in its own section later in this chapter. 5. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. If the Pop Shop did make any profit, it was invested back into the shop or donated. Concrete financial records for the Pop Shop do not exist or are unavailable. 6. See Keith Haring, “A Real Artist Is Only a Vehicle,” Flash Art (March 1984): 24 and “Art and Fashion NBC—Today,” KHA-0694, Tape Number: KH094/095/096/097, 35 minutes 17 seconds, July 12, 1988, Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. Also see the use of the word “commercial” by Leo Castelli in Drawing the Line: A Portrait of Keith Haring, produced and directed by Elisabeth Aubert, Biografilm Associates, 1989, documentary. 7. Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” 45. 8. Mark Fuller, “Whizz Bam Keith Haring at the Stedelijk Museum,” (1986) 5, Keith Haring Foundation (KHF) Archives, 1985 press box. 9. John Gruen, Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991) 34.

The Pop Shop

115

10. Interview with Alan Herman by author, February 13, 2015. At that time, Lafayette was close enough to West SoHo to still attract some art-world traffic but far enough away to be considered a “desert.” Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. 11. Pop Shop Architectural Plans at the KHF Archives. The architectural plans provide no other information on the architects’ relationships with Haring. 12. Suzanne Slesin, “An Artist Turns Retailer,” The New York Times, vol. 1 (April 18, 1986): 22 and interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. The store was open full time, Tuesday to Saturday, noon to 8:00 p.m., and Sunday noon to 6:00 p.m., the same hours as an art gallery to attract those in the art world. The store used order forms, receipts, and inventory lists, but only a few were kept in the KHF Archives. 13. Slesin, “An Artist Turns Retailer,” 22. 14. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. 15. According to staff, magnets were popular, along with radios and the Debbie Dick shirt. Debbie Dick was a character Haring created of a cartoon penis with a happy face and blond wig. Guy Trebay, “The Pop Shop,” The Village Voice (New York, May 1986), Pop Shop Archives, KHF Archives, New York, NY. 16. See the KHF Pop Shop Archives for vendor order forms from 1986, including Versatility in NY, NY (T-shirts), Gravity Graphics, Brooklyn, NY (shirts), M&H Industries, Worcester, Mass (tank tops and hats), Identity Inc., NY, NY (patches), B&R Promotional Products, NY, NY (buttons), Strutt Yur Stuff, Hillside, NJ (pins and pendants), Great American Puzzle Company, NY, NY (puzzle), Swatch, NY, NY, Messina Designs (jewelry), Art Post, NY, NY (post cards), Art Unlimited, NY, NY (post cards), Pak 2000, Mirror Lake, N.H. (bags), Brian Dube Inc., NY, NY (skateboards), Birdies, Orangeburg, NY (jackets) and Fruit of the Loom (shirts). Two non-U.S. vendors included Jonder Industries from Taiwan (inflatable baby and magnets) and Lee Shing Electronics Co. in Hong Kong (radio). 17. Anka Radakovich, “Keith Haring Tells You How to Put the Writing on Your Walls,” New York Post (May 29, 1986): 25. He then gives a step by step instruction guide. 18. Playboy commissioned many artists to create illustrations for its pages, including Andy Warhol, Salvador Dali, Cindy Sherman, Richard Prince, and Ryan McGinness. Playboy’s art director, Art Paul, made the magazine well known for its editorials and artistic content at the time. Hugh Hefner wanted to break down the “wall between fine art and commercial art.” Ula Ilnytzky, “The Year of the Rabbit: From Dali to Marilyn Monroe, Playboy Sells Art at Christie’s,” Art Daily (2010). 19. Haring took a full-page ad out in Warhol’s Interview Magazine of Kenny Scharf’s daughter (Haring’s goddaughter) holding an inflatable baby. “Page 6,” New York Post (Fall 1986). It is unknown how many catalogs and bulletins he printed and whom he sent them to. 20. The term “integrated marketing communications” was coined in the early 1990s. See Don E. Schultz, Charles H. Patti, and Philip J. Kitchen, “Introduction,” in The Evolution of Integrated Marketing Communications (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011) and Don Schultz, Integrated Marketing Communications (Chicago, IL: NTC Publishing Group, 1993) xv–xvi. 21. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 148. He also called his merchandise “art objects.” 22. James A. Revson, “Haring’s Gift: Gifts,” Newsday, section 1 (April 18, 1986): 2. 23. Ibid., 2. Haring refers to the shop as an art project and his merchandise as art objects several times. For example, see Daniel Drenger “Art and Life: An Interview with Keith Haring,” Columbia Art Review (Spring 1988): 46 and Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 148. 24. KHF Pop Shop Archives. Financial information for the New York Pop Shop is basically lost, but a couple of documents in the Tokyo Pop Shop Archives provide information. One document titled “Pop Shop Tokyo Business Proposal: Projected First Year Expense and Income” lists “gross sales” and “profits” in two nondescript store columns, one labeled “store 10m2” and the other “store20m2,” which could be a side-by-side comparison of the New York and Tokyo shops. In their estimates, store 10m2 should net a profit of $262,216 after $730,000 in sales, and store 20m2 should net a profit of $475,550 after $1,095,000. These calculations seem speculative and did not factor costs or estimates for legal, overhead, or interest on loans and so, therefore, do not necessarily point to significant profits. Gruen has insisted that the shop did not have much profit over the course of its existence. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. In another document, a fax on March 8, 1987, from Kaz Kuzui (Haring’s business partner in Japan), he said that the Tokyo Shop had sold $1.5 million in goods that year.

116 The Pop Shop

25. 26.

27. 28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34. 35.

36. 37.

If a T-shirt sold for around $15, then the store sold about 100,000 T-shirts. Furthermore, from 1980 to 1988, Haring ordered a grand total of 345,500 buttons from the vendor B&R Promotional Products in New York City. About 185,500 were produced after the shop opened. These numbers begin to demonstrate the shop’s popularity. Pop Shop Archives, KHF Archives. Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” 45. At one extreme, in 1987, Van Gogh’s Irises was sold at Sotheby’s in New York for $54 million and his sunflowers for $40 million in London. These are prices that only a few could afford. While one could argue that the publicity from these transactions introduced these works to a wider audience, the same cannot be said, however, for most artwork—especially contemporary—sold in galleries for five or six figures with little fanfare. Graham Thompson, American Culture in the 1980s (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007) 64. Also see Julian Stallabrass, Art Incorporated (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) 91. “Art and Fashion NBC—Today.” Here he uses the word “commercial” to refer only to mass consumerist activities and admits that it could hurt his reputation. Dick Hebdige, for example, produced a well-known account on subcultural groups such as youth punk culture in the 1970s in Britain. In one section, he discusses how the use of style and commodities can signify meaning to other members of the subculture. Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style (New York: Routledge, 1979) 101 and 113. Jim McGuigan, Cultural Populism (New York: Routledge, 1992) 1–6. McGuigan explains that as a term, “populism” is typically studied in political science, but he wants to appropriate it to study culture in communication, cultural, and media studies (2). He credits scholars from the 1960s and 1970s, including Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, and Edward Thompson as the forefathers of British cultural studies in the 1980s (20). Ibid., 3, 45–47, 89, and 171. Also see Paul Willis, Common Culture (Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 1990); Scott Lash and John Urry, The End of Organized Capitalism (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987), and Scott Lash, Sociology of Postmodernism (New York: Routledge, 1990). McGuigan also relates the rise of cultural populism more generally to postmodernist studies, which took on consumerism and mass culture from an opposing perspective (213–215). Jean Baudrillard represents this trend in Paris in the 1970s. See Jean Baudrillard, “The Masses: The Implosion of the Social in the Media,” New Literary History, vol. 16, No. 3 (Spring, 1985) 577–589 and The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998). Also see Mike Featherstone, Consumer Culture and Postmodernism (London: SAGE Publications, 1991). See McGuigan, Cultural Populism, 6. Also see Lash and Urry, The End of Organized Capitalism, 1–16, for a discussion on how cultural life has changed within the context of neoliberalism and capitalism, leading to the petit bourgeoisie (underneath the bourgeois and the intellectuals), who make up the social base of postmodern culture. Prasidh Raj Singh, “Consumer Culture and Postmodernism,” Postmodern Openings, vol. 5, no. 5 (March 2011): 55. Also see Grant McCracken, Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities (Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988) 57–58. See Celia Lury, Consumer Culture (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2015) 1–2, and 143–144; David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989) 155–157 and A Brief History of Neoliberalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 42. Alison Pearlman, Unpackaging Art of the Eighties (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003) 149. Also see Lury, Consumer Culture, 62. The Fordist economy was the U.S. economy in the early 20th century, popularized by the Ford Motor Company. For products like their Model T car, mass standardization and advertising (not specialized) went hand in hand with mass production. For an overview of the history of U.S. consumerism, see Singh, “Consumer Culture and Postmodernism,” 55–87. See Thomas Frank, The Conquest of Cool (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997). James Risen, “Only the Rich got Richer,” Los Angeles Times (January 7, 1992).

The Pop Shop

117

38. Thompson, American Culture, 64. Also see Richard W. Walker, “Inside the Art Market,” ARTNews (November 1988): 130. 39. Ibid., 63–70. Also see Irving Sandler, Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s (New York: Harper Collins, 1996) 426; Stallabrass, Art Incorporated, 126–127; and Richard Goldstein, “Fire Down Below, Art Beat: The Politics of Culture,” The Village Voice (January 25, 1983): 39. 40. Jeffrey Deitch and Martin Guttmann, “Art and Corporations,” Flash Art (March–April 1988): 79. 41. See Stallabrass, Art Incorporated; and Chin-tao Wu, Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s (New York: Verso, 2002). 42. Sandler, Art of the Postmodern Era, 214–221 and 375. 43. Keith Haring Journals (New York: Viking, 1996) 119. Also see Drawing the Line, documentary. 44. See Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture (London: Routledge, 1991) 92 and Clement Greenberg, “Avant Garde and Kitsch,” in Art and Culture, Critical Essays (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1961). Also see Jean Baudrillard, whose ideas stem from the Frankfurt School, Karl Marx, and Pierre Bourdieu. Baudrillard, The Consumer Society, 12, and 110–112. 45. See George Ritzer, “Introduction,” in Baudrillard, Consumer Society, 16 and 105 and Herbert Marcuse, The Aesthetic Dimension (Boston, MA: Beacon, 1978) ix. 46. Daniel Miller, “The Poverty of Morality,” Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 1, no. 2 (July 2001): 226 and 235. Marx understood the role of material culture in social and cultural relations, but by the 1970s, many scholars ignored or critiqued material culture, believing that since it is created by capitalism, it is “tainted and will pollute those who live with it and through it.” 47. Lury, Consumer Culture, 39–40. 48. See Daniel Miller, Material Culture and Mass Consumption (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1987) 3, 9, and 143. Also see Arjun Appadurai, The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1986); John Clammer, Contemporary Urban Japan: A Sociology of Consumption (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1997) 1 and 6; Dale Southerton, ed., Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2011); Pekka Sulkumen, “Consumer Society,” Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture, 322; and Kath Woodward, “Collective Identity,” in Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture, 202. 49. See Lury, Consumer Culture; Juliet Schor and Douglas Hold, The Consumer Society Reader (New York: New Press, 2000); McCracken, Culture and Consumption; Roberta Sassatelli, Consumer Culture (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2007); and Southerton, ed., Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture. 50. Singh, “Consumer Culture and Postmodernism,” 67. Also see Miller, Material Culture and Mass Consumption, 175; Peter Lunt and S. Livingston, Mass Consumption and Personal Identity: Everyday Economic Experience (Buckingham and Bristol, England: Open University Press, 1992); and Lury, Consumer Culture, 193–196. 51. See A. Fuat Firat and Nikhilesh Dholakia, Consuming People: From Political Economy to Theaters of Consumption (London: Routledge, 1998) and Doug Holt, How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2004) 3–4 and 36. 52. Woodward, “Identity,” in Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture, 753. 53. All human societies have bought items that reflect or contribute to their lives in some form, but it has been argued that it is only in recent centuries that practices of consumption have been tied to identity. See Frank Tretmann, The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, Power and Identity in the Modern World (New York: Berg, 2006) 2. 54. Diana Crane, “T-shirts,” in Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture, 1483. 55. Ibid., 1483. 56. Ibid. 57. See Rosalind Coward and John Ellis, Language and Materialism: Development in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject (New York: Routledge, 1977); Morris Holbrook and Elizabeth Hirschman, The Semiotics of Consumption (New York: Mouton de Gruyter,

118 The Pop Shop

58.

59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

64. 65. 66. 67.

1993); Arthur Asa Berger, “Semiotics” in Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture, 1267; and Roland Barthes, Mythologies (New York: Hill and Wang, 1957) 36–38, 58–67. In the Medieval Period in Europe, badges depicting saints or holy relics were a popular way to satisfy a pilgrim’s desire to take something away from a religious site. Pilgrims associated these badges with the original’s authentic presence and believed that the smaller reproductions participated in the aura of the religious relic itself. David Freedburg, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) 124; and Sarah Benson, “Reproduction, Fragmentation, and Collection: Rome and the Origin of Souvenirs,” in Architecture and Tourism: Perception, Performance, Place, ed. by D. Medina Lasanki (New York: Berg, 2004) 19. McCracken, Culture and Consumption, 85–86. Helga Dittmar, The Social Psychology of Material Possessions (Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992) 205. Keith Haring Journals, 175. Jamie Larkin, “All Museums Will Become Department Stores: The Development and Implications of Retailing at Museums and Heritage Sites,” Archaeology International, no. 19 (2016): 111–112. Julia Gruen said, “You were happy if you could get a postcard or a bookmark at a museum shop.” Ellen Keohane, “After a Good Run, Keith Haring’s Pop Shop to Close This Month,” The Villager, vol. 75, no. 12 (August 12, 2005). Also see Gail Gregg, “From Bathers to Beach Towels,” ARTnews, vol. 96, no. 4 (April 1997): 120–123; Lisa W. Foderaro, “Museums Step Up their Retailing to Turn Art into Revenue,” The New York Times (February 18, 1997); Elaine Louie, “These Shops Sell the Fine Art of Decorating,” The New York Times (June 25, 1992); Scott M. Martin, “Museum Copyright Licensing Agreements and Visual Artists,” Columbia-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts (Spring 1986): 421–451; and Terry Trucco, “The Shopping Boom at Your Local Museum,” ARTnews, vol. 76, no. 8 (October 1977): 56–60. Funding is hardly ever stated outright as the motivating force for opening a gift shop. Instead, museums cite educational purposes (Ibid., 121). Regina Kellerman, The Publications and Reproductions Program of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Brief History (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1981) 9, 14–15. Ibid., 29. Ibid., 44–46 and Gregg, “From Bathers to Beach Towels,” 121. Haring said, The whole idea behind the shop in [sic] taking the liberty to do the thing that artists are not supposed to do. On purpose, to uncover, and then break the rules. . . . What is the difference between a silkscreen print with an edition of fifty and a print on a T-shirt? . . . The only difference is the signification attached to these products.

68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

Sarah Morris and Keith Haring, “Art Under the Sign of the Commodity: The ‘Real’ Under the Sign of Art,” Defunct! (February 1989): 23–25. Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: A.M. Kelley Bookseller, 1965). Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) 1–8. Howard Becker, Art Worlds (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982) x. Matt Hills, in his book Fan Cultures, explains that fans see themselves as different from their celebrity but will consume or emulate certain iconography as a “platform for their own personality.” Matt Hills, Fan Cultures (London: Routledge, 2002) 165. William Kelly, Fanning the Flames: Fans and Consumer Culture in Contemporary Japan (New York: State University of New York Press, 2004) 7. Haring disliked collectors who bought his art only to resell it when its value increased. See Thompson, American Culture, 63–70. Also see Stallabrass, Art Incorporated, 126–127 and Goldstein, “Fire Down Below,” 39.

The Pop Shop

119

74. He wrote: “I have gotten a lot of things from traditional Japanese things, like calligraphy and Tsumi painting and just a whole aesthetic view of life that is reaffirmed whenever I go back there.” Drenger, “Art and Life: An Interview with Keith Haring,” 44. 75. Ibid., 44. 76. “Painting pop shop container.” KHA-0803, 20 minutes 40 seconds. KHF Video Archive. This video is of Haring painting the Tokyo Pop Shop container with brief views of the televisions embedded in the wall looping footage in the background. The original footage that was shown in the Tokyo Pop Shop is lost and so this partial view of it in the background can only give a general idea of its original contents. 77. See Pop Shop Archives, KHF Archives. The archive has many order forms and shipments going back and forth between the Tokyo Pop Shop and the New York Pop Shop—shipping Japanese manufactured products to New York and New York manufactured products to Japan. 78. Joseph Tobin, Re-made in Japan: Everyday Life and Consumer Taste in a Changing Society (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992) 15. 79. Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” 45. 80. See Barbara Moneyhan, “Japan from New York,” Flash Art (April–May 1985): 64–65. More generally, economic conditions in the 1980s linked the Japan and the West. Japan’s 1980s economic boom coincided with the liberalization of its markets by the U.S. government and a lower value of the U.S. dollar. This allowed wealthy Japanese investors to buy up Western assets, including real estate, industry, and art. For instance, Japanese passionately bought Western Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings in the 1980s up until 1987 at record prices. See Jos Hackforth Jones and Iain Robertson, eds, Art Business Today: 20 Key Topics (London: Lund Humphries, 2016) 34 and 65. The “buying spree” peaked in 1989 when Mitsubishi bought Rockefeller Center for $846 million, then inflation dramatically increased in Japan. See Rob Wile, “The True Story of the 1980s, When Everyone Was Convinced Japan Would Buy America,” Business Insider (September 5, 2014). Here, I am less concerned with million-dollar acquisitions of American businesses or highend commodities, and more with the mass consumption of American culture and East Village art by a broader Japanese audience. Though, the high-end art market exchange does speak to the relatively open flow of ideas and culture from one country to another at the time. 81. Only one short article in English exists on the history and reception of the East Village scene as a whole in Japan: Moneyhan, “Japan from New York.” 82. Clammer, Contemporary Urban Japan, 158. Also see Nancy Rosenberger, “Images of the West,” in Re-made in Japan, 108. 83. Clammer, Contemporary Urban Japan, 59. 84. Contemporary artist Takashi Murakami said, “Japanese people accept that art and commerce will be blending; in fact, they are surprised by the rigid and pretentious Western hierarchy of ‘high art.’” Quoted in Magdalene Perez, “The Ai Interview: Takashi Murakami,” Art + Auction (June 9, 2006). 85. Clammer, Contemporary Urban Japan, 27. 86. Alison M. Gingeras, “Lost in Translation: The Politics of Identity in the Work of Takashi Murakami,” in Pop Life; Art in a Material World, ed. by Jack Bankowsky (London: Tate Publishing, 2009) 79. Also see Moneyhan, “Japan from New York,” 64–65 and Millie Creighton, “Something More: Japanese Department Stores’ Marketing of ‘A Meaningful Human Life’,” in Asian Department Stores, ed. by Kerrie MacPherson (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1998) 210 and 214. 87. Gingeras, “Lost in Translation,” 79. 88. Julia Sapin, “Merchandising Art and Identity in Meiji Japan,” Journal of Design History, vol. 17, no. 4 (2004): 317–336. 89. Hiroko Ikegami, “Drink More? No Thanks! The Spirit of Tokyo Pop,” in International Pop (Minneapolis, MN: Walker Art Center, 2015) 166. Also see Hiroshi Kitamura, Screening Enlightenment: Hollywood and the Cultural Reconstruction of Defeated Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010) xi.

120 The Pop Shop 90. Ibid. 91. Kerrie L. MacPherson, Asian Department Stores (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1998) 20. 92. Creighton, “Something More,” 209; MacPherson, 21; and Ueno Chizuko, “Seibu Department Store and Image Marketing” in Asian Department Stores, 183. 93. Ibid., 177 and 180–184. Also see Millie Creighton, “The Depato: Merchandising the West while Selling Japanese,” in Re-made in Japan, 51–52; Creighton, “Something More,” 206; and Henry Scott Stokes, “Art Museum: A Symbol of Turnabout in Japan,” The New York Times (October 11, 1981). Sometimes the exhibitions were directly linked with merchandise sales. Stores expected exhibitions to help with profits, evident in a 1985 statement by Seibu: “The Seibu Saison Group aims not only to generate profit, but to balance material and mental well-being through a lively engagement in art and cultural activities.” Creighton, “Something More,” 209 and 211. 94. Ibid., 229. 95. Ibid. 96. Ikegami, “Drink More? No Thanks!” 166. 97. Dana Friis-Hansen, “Empire of Goods: Young Japanese Artists and the Commodity Culture,” Flash Art, no. 163 (March/April 1992): 80. Also see Jessica Morgan, “Oiran Goes Pop: Contemporary Japanese Artists Reinventing Icons,” in The World Goes Pop (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015) 103 and Takashi Murakami, Tokyo Pop: New Images of Japanese Art (Hiratsuka: Hippocrene Books, 1996). 98. Moneyhan, “Japan from New York,” 64. These exhibitions were also staged to excite young Japanese artists to create their own pop version of art and generate publicity for the department store. 99. Ibid., 65. Seibu invited Patti Astor, graffiti artists, hip-hop artists, and break-dancers from the film Wild Style (a big hit in Japan) to be part of a New York Fair at their Tokyo Department Store in 1983. See Giovanni Fazio, “Exporting ‘Wild Style’: Fab 5 Freddy Remembers When Hip Bronx Hip-hop Invaded Tokyo,” Japan Times (April 1, 2015). 100. Moneyhan, “Japan from New York,” 65. Haring was on the cover of Brutus in September 1984 and in August 1991. See KHF Online Press Archive, www.haring.com/!/archives/ press#.V4VFopMrLBJ, accessed August 12, 2016. He was also featured in Calendar Magazine, no. 4–7 in 1983 and Esquire Japan in December 1989. 101. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 94. 102. Peter Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground (Berkeley, CA: Last Gasp of San Francisco, 1985) 110. 103. Keith Haring Journals, 209 and 212. Also see Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 94. 104. Moneyhan, “Japan from New York,” 65. 105. Kaoru Yanese, ed., Keith Haring/It Is Art as I know It. It Is Life as I Know It (Hokuto: Nakamura Keith Haring Collection, 2008) 21. Also see page 19. 106. See Kaoru Yanese, ed., Keith Haring: Pop Shop Brochure (Yamanashi: Nakamura Keith Haring Collection, 2009) 15. 107. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 181. Also see Keith Haring Journals, 218. 108. KHF Archives, Tokyo Pop Shop box. Correspondence shows Haring’s frustration as orders went missing, licensing deals were done without permission, verbal agreements were broken, the shop was unable to protect his designs from counterfeit, there were errors in accounting, and he had trouble getting signed agreements. 109. “Keith Haring, Pop Shop,” KHA-0879, 2 minutes 34 seconds, KHF Online Video Archive. See Leslie Gilbert, “From the Subways to His Own Pop Shop, Haring Has Arrived,” Daily News (March 1986), Pop Shop Archives, KHF Archives, New York, NY. Also see Valerie Gladstone, “Keith Haring: Art’s Bad Boy,” Daily News (March 1986) and Marla Donato, “Hanging Out,” Chicago Tribune (October 1986): 29. 110. “Press Conference and Roof Painting for Pop Shop Tokyo Container,” KHA-0805, 1988, 21 minutes 7 seconds, KHF Online Video Archive. Also see interview in: Melissa Biggs and Jonathan Wright, “Keith Haring: Mastering the Moment,” Yale Vernacular, vol. 1, no. 2 (March/April 1987): 5. In an interview with Terrill Jones, Haring said,

The Pop Shop

121

I’ve had requests to open shops in Paris, Rome, London, Los Angeles et cetera but the idea is to keep it an art project, not to be a McDonalds . . . I want to keep it on that level, have it be my own personal project. Terrill Jones, “U.S. Pop Artist Sets Up Shop in Tokyo,” Associated Press (1987) 111. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 148. 112. He was also upset when authorized merchandise was bought in bulk and then resold, since he wanted the Pop Shop to “exclusively” hold the product. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. 113. Drenger, “Art and Life: An Interview with Keith Haring,” 46. 114. Raf Casert, “Grand Graffiti: Artist Utilizes World as a Stage for His Unusual Images,” Morningstar (July 1987, Fort Worth, Texas). 115. Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” 43. 116. Tessa Morris-Suzuki, The Technological Transformation of Japan: From the Seventeenth to the Twenty-First Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 5. 117. Barry Blinderman, ed., Keith Haring: Future Primeval (Normal, IL: Illinois University Gallery, Illinois State University, 1990) 103. 118. See “Die Bunte Welt des Keith Haring,” Ambiente (June 1986): 166 and Goldstein, “Fire Down Below,” 39. 119. Jason Rubell, “Keith Haring: The Last Interview,” Arts Magazine (September 1990): 55. 120. KHF Archives, original Keith Haring journals. On May 5, 1987, he wrote, “Some press (not much) . . . attendance was almost non-existent.” And on May 13, 1987: “Next a press conference with a lot of questions. Basically, I plug and explain the Pop Shop.” Also see Keith Haring Journals, 135, 137, 236, and 245. 121. Ibid., 138, 163–164, 167–168, 175, 177, 196, 210, 225, 259, and 262. 122. These articles can be found in the KHF Archives, 1986 press box. Many of them have been cited throughout the book. 123. “Pop Goes his Easel on ABC 20/20.” Identification number KHA-0535, 12 minutes 56 seconds, 1986. KHF Online Video Archive. 124. One had models showing merchandise within the shop. See Japanese magazines Hot Dog Press and Elle Magazine in KHF Archives, 1987 press box. 125. “Painting Pop Shop Container,” KHA-0803, 20 minutes 40 seconds. KHF Online Video Archive. 126. “Painting Pop Shop Tokyo Container,” KHA-0806, January 1988, 20 minutes 47 seconds, KHF Online Video Archive. 127. The KHF Archives have many articles on Haring from a variety of newspapers and magazines that include a photograph of him wearing his own shirts or holding a piece of merchandise, like the inflatable baby. 128. “Pop Goes his Easel on ABC 20/20.” 129. “Haring’s Atomic Babies Going Legit,” New York Post (November 1984), KHF Archives, 1984 press box. 130. Only a few negative articles were published by art critics. But the shop’s negative reaction was indirectly documented in interviews by Haring and his supporters. For instance, his friend Gil Vazquez said: As far as the Pop Shop goes, he was criticized for making it too available in the form of a T-shirt . . . A ‘fine artist’ to make merchandise, it was unheard of—and now he is the granddaddy of that. Drawing the Line documentary Also see Span, “Graffiti’s Scrawl of Success,” D1; Donato, “Hanging Out,” 29–32; and Tim Higgins, “Selling, Not a Sell Out Keith Haring Draws a Line Between Himself and the Art World,” The Morning Call (September 18, 1987). Haring said, “To the people that attack me for selling out, I always answer them, ‘What did they think the alternative was?’” 131. Revson, “Haring’s Gift: Gifts,” 2. 132. Tad Friend, “Downhill from Here,” Spy Magazine (October 1986): 27+.

122 The Pop Shop 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145.

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Revson, “Haring’s Gift: Gifts,” 2. Michael Gross, “Notes on Fashion,” The New York Times (April 22, 1986): A22. Ibid., A22. Revson, “Haring’s Gift: Gifts,” 2. Hoving had expanded the Met’s gift shop and originated the idea of the blockbuster museum show while being director. Drawing the Line documentary. Keith Haring, The Message. Dir. Maripol. ARTE Creative, 2013, documentary. Revson, “Haring’s Gift: Gifts,” 2. Ibid. Jeffrey Deitch also said: “The Pop Shop venture is bound to be immensely popular with the public . . . But some purists will loudly deny that it has anything to do with art.” Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” 43. Castelli, Drawing the Line documentary. Op. Cit. Also see Keith Haring,“Statement for Tokyo Pop Shop,” KHF Archives. Haring said, The Pop Shop, which I’ve sunk all my profits into, won’t break even for a long time, but I didn’t open it to get rich from it. If I had wanted to get rich, I would have licensed things in Japan like people there have been begging me to do for three years a big cash deal, or franchised little shops in department stores like Bloomingdales. Or I would have gone with people like Sears & Roebucks or JC Penneys to do my shirts. Instead, I wanted to follow through with what I thought seemed inevitable, what I was doing in the subway, doing things in public, doing things to break down this supposed barrier between low art and high art. Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” 45

146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151.

152. 153. 154. 155. 156.

157. 158. 159.

Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 98. Christopher Cox, “Art Smart,” US Magazine (March 10, 1986): 53. Rubell, “Keith Haring: The Last Interview,” 54. Ibid., 58. Also see Karen Cook, “Little House of Haring’s,” Manhattan, Inc. (December 1984): 114. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 128. Although he had offers to expand his merchandising, Haring wanted to ease into production— and not be too showy about it, again demonstrating his ambivalence. See Saban,“Meanwhile Back in New York,” 54 and Jess Kornbluth, “Keith Haring’s Art and Industry,” Metropolitan Home (July 1986). Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 64. “Art and Fashion NBC—Today.” Revson, “Haring’s Gift: Gifts,” 2. Matt Manurin, “Subterranean Cool,” GQ (June 1986): 44. He said, “I tried to maintain a new attitude toward sales, by painting frank and commercial things that are against the commercial policies of the art market, but I am afraid I can’t free myself from this trap.” Alexandra Kolossa, Keith Haring 1958–1990 A Life for Art (Los Angeles, CA: Taschen, 2009) 47. Also see Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” 45. Kornbluth, “Keith Haring’s Art and Industry.” Fuller, “Whizz Bam,” 5. When asked if he was rich, he said, No, because I’m a really foolish business man. I don’t own any property. I don’t have a bank account to speak of. I’ve had a great time. Right now everything I’ve got is invested in the Pop Shop . . . I don’t take money seriously enough to be rich. Ibid., 5 Matthew Barolo, operations manager at the Foundation, says that Haring never did a 100 percent markup on his products, which was “ridiculous,” losing the shop a lot of money. Barolo also said that all employees were treated well, with high wages and benefits. Interview with Julia Gruen and Matthew Barolo by author, March 22, 2016. Also see Keith Haring Journals, 116.

The Pop Shop

123

160. Jones, “Keith Haring: Art or Industry,” 45 and David Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” Rolling Stone (August 10, 1989) 64. 161. Outside of the Pop Shop, Haring’s decision-making process regarding commercial projects was also contradictory and unpredictable. He refused to design a shopping bag for Bloomingdales or license his merchandise, but then, two years later, he designed a shopping bag for a store in Switzerland. See James Danziger, “A Corner on Street Art,” Week in View (October), KHF Archives, 1980s press box. He also turned down a commission for MTV, but then later designed a set for Duran Duran’s Nick Rhoades and Simon Le Bon on MTV in 1986. Saban, “Meanwhile Back in New York,” 58.

4

Art Merchandise and Mass Media as Activist Strategies

“An artist is a spokesman for a society at any given point in history.” —Keith Haring, 19841

By the mid-1980s, Keith Haring used his celebrity platform to stand for and benefit many social and political causes. He became society’s “spokesman” (in his words), making him an artist celebrity activist—one of the first. He took on a wide variety of issues, principally the threat of nuclear war, the agenda of President Ronald Reagan and the conservative right, the education and well-being of children throughout the world, drugs, the environment, South African apartheid, and gay rights, as well as AIDS activism. He was actively involved in several charitable organizations that targeted these concerns, just a few including NOW (National Organization for Women), ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power), amfAR (American Foundation for AIDS Research), the Boys Club of Pitt St., and Greenpeace, and regularly contributed designs for campaigns, fundraisers, and protests. To inspire change, Haring leveraged the influence he had cultivated over the course of his career: his large fan base made up of several demographics, economic classes, cultures, and nationalities. He also leveraged what he had developed in his populist art practice, using populist strategies to combat the right-wing populism of the decade. The Pop Shop as a physical distribution site intersected with Haring’s activism on multiple occasions (selling political merchandise, for instance), but it impacted his activism most of all as a conceptual model, in which he learned the power of massproduced and circulated messages, stamped with his famous name, to spread his ideas. The Pop Shop and his merchandise also amplified and broadened his national platform, allowing him to increasingly influence issues that were important to him, plus sustain his philanthropy and activism. In tandem with Haring’s rising public profile and popularity, they enabled Haring to disseminate his system of signs, which he could use to unify millions of people in activist efforts. Haring is omitted from almost all books on activist history, political art, and art activism in the 1980s.2 His celebrity activist style could be perceived as a self-serving pursuit of publicity to some, undercutting his credibility and therefore compromising the authenticity of his philanthropic intentions. Even Haring thought that some of his charitable activities could be misconstrued as “exploitative”—a word he used to refer to his Statue of Liberty Project mural with CityKids, sponsored by Burger King.3 But considering the full extent of his activist activities in his short lifetime, his sincere and rigorous engagement with many issues is remarkable. Even more telling, his activist

Activist Strategies

125

involvement increased rather than decreased along with his fame and success, suggesting that his activism was a genuine use of his widening public platform. Since the range and depth of Haring’s activism could be a book in and of itself, the goal here is to consolidate and chronicle his intersection with the most canonical social and political conflicts of the 1980s—Reaganomics, political and religious conservatism, the threat of nuclear war, and AIDS—and demonstrate how they expanded through his art and merchandising. My selective focus on these issues, however, does not detract from his philanthropy for other causes. Working with children was one of Haring’s greatest passions. He ran more than a dozen creative workshops with kids in Europe and the United States and created several public murals and sculptures for children’s hospitals, posters for UNICEF, and playgrounds, as well as posters to promote reading and literacy. He also created several murals in collaboration with children, such as a mural in Chicago in 1989 with students from the Chicago Public Schools. For anti-apartheid issues, Haring printed 20,000 copies of a Free South Africa poster in 1985, handing them out in New York for free, and reproduced the design onto shirts, stickers, and buttons for sale at his Pop Shop.4 Haring’s most famous work against drugs is his Crack is Wack mural in New York, which he also printed onto products. Demonstrating its impact, news television stations featured the mural, the Crack Foundation adopted the image as their logo, and the Board of Education reprinted it for a newsletter they sent out to parents about drug issues in schools.5 He also made a poster, Crack Down, for a Crackdown on Crack concert in 1986 that depicts a large foot about to break a crack pipe. These few examples demonstrate the broad range of social issues that Haring engaged with. But his method remained consistent: art activism belonged in the public sphere.

Celebrity Activism in the 1980s and Haring Haring was one of the only artists of the 1980s who combined both his celebrity and his art for activist purposes. He stood apart from other art stars of the 1980s, such as Jeff Koons and Julian Schnabel, in the use of his celebrity status for philanthropic purposes, rather than to become rich. But in the use of his star power, he also departed from the activism of other, more anonymous artists, like the artist collectives in ACT UP. Art historians have tended to prefer noncelebrity artist activists like these, who spearheaded activities with a more grassroots, anonymous, and collective approach, and functioned counterculturally against mainstream systems. Haring took part in many of these collective actions but coupled this with an emerging model of celebrity activism that primarily came from the music and film industries.6 Celebrity activism, and perhaps even the modern concept of celebrity itself, began in the 1960s with the increased availability of popular culture in print and broadcast media.7 Judy Garland, Jane Fonda, Mick Jagger, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, and Sammy Davis Jr. were just a few of the celebrities who were active in current politics, including civil rights and Vietnam War protests. In the 1980s, celebrity endorsements and philanthropy increased dramatically.8 It intensified with the rise of 1980s neoliberalism, in which celebrities and corporations stepped in to fill the gaps created by reductions in government spending on social and welfare programs.9 Stars like Barbara Streisand, for example, established a foundation to raise money for causes including nuclear disarmament, the preservation of the environment, AIDS research, and civil liberties. Bono cofounded and was the face for One

126 Activist Strategies Campaign, DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade Africa), and the Product RED campaign to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in Africa. Like Haring’s activism, this celebrity activist trend has been marginalized with the view that these celebrities participate mainly to further their careers, rather than charity.10 It has been perceived as reinforcing a corrupt system, in that its influence has been based on perpetuating already powerful voices, who took on the populist language of the media, often at the expense of nuance.11 Paul Corry of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, for instance, characterizes celebrity activism as a double-edged sword that can effectively produce awareness but is typically “built on shallow foundations” and simplifies a message “to the point of blandness.”12 Still, many chose to ignore these negatives. As one charity manager put it, even if a famous person became a spokesperson solely for exposure, “[a celebrity] attracts the media . . . raising awareness . . . and can set an example for others to follow . . . just because someone’s motivation is not altruistic doesn’t mean it can’t work for us. We don’t care frankly.”13 Generally, the outright dismissal of celebrity activism and charitable mega events can miss the socioeconomic benefits these types of strategies can generate in late capitalistic society.14 In addition to celebrity activism, other new and atypical kinds of activism in the 1980s have gone unrecognized. Bradford Martin argues in his book The Other Eighties: A Secret History of America in the Age of Reagan that because movements with unconventional tactics have been overlooked, the decade is not usually characterized as a particularly left leaning or politicized decade—even though there was a strong undercurrent of progressivism.15 Unlike the grassroots countercultural protests of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement in the 1960s and the rise of feminism in the 1970s, many activists in the Reagan era took on more institutionalized, corporate, and popular methods, often in the form of mega events that raised funds and awareness for causes. One famous event, Live Aid, a 17-hour concert in 1985, featured an unprecedented number of celebrities like Madonna, Sting, U2, Tina Turner, Paul McCartney, and Bob Dylan to raise money for Ethiopian famine victims.16 While Haring is hardly ever linked to this event or cause, he did contribute a painting and a customized car for a related benefit auction.17 He also hosted a group exhibition in 1985 called Rain Dance to benefit famine victims in the newly leased and empty Pop Shop.18 Live Aid itself was criticized in its time by many in the press for its corporate ties and mass appeal, described in one instance as “mainstream citizens with short hair who waved Stars and Stripes.”19 One rock critic, Greil Marcus, called the entire event “an enormous orgy of self-satisfaction, self-congratulation.”20 Some musicians benefited enormously from the event, like U2, whose involvement subsequently secured their success. The skepticism about activist celebrities may help explain the lack of primary and scholarly accounts on Haring’s political and social work, compounded by the fact that the visual simplicity of his pictographic imagery has been considered too superficial to communicate complex issues. Journalist Darrel Yates Rist summarized Haring’s critical reception in the 1980s: “Cute: That is how the commentators in America have summed up Keith Haring . . . [they] ignore the real issues in Haring’s work.”21 Like the widespread appeal of Live Aid, Haring’s activism catered to mainstream tastes. Though, to many of the film or music celebrities involved with events like Live Aid, Haring did not merely tack his name or image onto already existing causes. Instead, he had a more collaborative and enthusiastic attitude. Many accounts of Haring’s activism, by himself and his peers, are saturated with descriptions of his genuine empathy, active participation, and desire to help.22

Activist Strategies

127

Early Political Works Haring made his first politically motivated artwork in 1976 on a road trip: a silkscreened T-shirt that was anti-Nixon and pro-pot legalization, sold to pay for food and Grateful Dead tickets.23 When he moved to New York later that year, his work took on political subject matter almost immediately, though usually in coded ways. He avoided explicit sexual or political imagery in his subway drawings, but he still rendered generalized imagery of figures overpowering others, illustrating the plight of the weak under the oppression of the strong (Figure 1.7).24 From 1980 to 1985, Haring honed his style into broad fields of unifying color to set off simplified motifs and short bolded phrases (quick to read and easy to understand; valuable attributes in activism). In this process, he learned the values of repetition and accessibility in public promotion and advertising, and formed his stance against conservative politics. Haring’s first overtly political artworks were his collages of newspaper headlines and images. Anti-Reagan and anti-Moral Majority, he xeroxed and pasted these collages all over New York City in 1980 to encourage a general audience to be critical of the news (Figures 4.1 and 1.5). Haring believed that social change was in the public’s hands, “especially in the manipulative world that we live in now with a bozo actor for a president . . . but, there are not many people who can see through it.”25 Although it may have seemed hopeless to offset those who had political, financial, and media

Figure 4.1 Keith Haring, Pope Killed for Freed Hostage, 1980. Newspaper fragments and tape on paper, 8.5″ × 11″. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

128 Activist Strategies influence in the public sphere, Haring believed that he could at least “try to expose it and try to make things a little more bearable” through his street art.26 In the 1980s, due to a decrease in government regulations, control of the print and broadcast media was increasingly consolidated into the hands of a wealthy few, many of whom had political ties or affiliations with powerful institutions.27 In circumstances that have been further exasperated in subsequent decades, much of the free press was progressively bought up by this elite, creating monopolies that drove out smaller operations. For instance, the conservative Rupert Murdoch, due to a decrease in government regulations, gained control of the New York Post, New York Magazine, and The Village Voice, and bought half the shares of the 20th Century Fox Film Corporation.28 Conglomerates like these decreased the diversity of news sources and increased the power of their owners, who could use their access to leverage control in the government or promote news that fit their own political or business interests.29 More than ever, those with political power also used the popular media as a tool to push their own ideologies.30 Reagan exemplified this trend as the “quintessential media president who elevated style and image over substance with the help of an uncritical, protective American establishment media.”31 Called the “Great Communicator,” he understood the growing influence of television over the American public and became fluent in its most effective tactics (such as simplifying and repeating messages) to effectively market his ideology and cut through the cluttered media environment.32 He learned how to dominate several airwaves and publications with short sound bite statements, at times eschewing nuance distorting facts to maximize impact, fear, and control.33 Like Haring, many artists who opposed these dominant voices attempted to compete with and undercut their influence by entering media environments themselves or mimicked media-based strategies. Expressing those same views within the white walls of a gallery would reach only a limited like-minded group of people. Artists such as Cindy Sherman, Sarah Charlesworth, Jack Goldstein, and Richard Prince all, to some extent, incorporated references to advertising in their work, and artists like Jenny Holzer, Barbara Kruger, and Colab—along with Haring—went even further by appropriating advertising techniques through posters or actions on the street. Compared to these other artists, Haring’s street work is typically much less oblique and, when political, goes much straighter to the point. In 1984, Haring participated in a public art project that used methods from broadcast television to critique politics—one in which his involvement is frequently overlooked.34 Holzer’s Sign on a Truck featured a looped video on a 12 ½-foot by 18-foot color television that traveled around the city on a truck. The video included pedestrian interviews as well as short segments by Haring and artists like Ida Appelbroog, Leon Golub, and Claes Oldenburg, all about the 1984 presidential election and Reagan. By asking pedestrians what they think, the project subverted the dominance of politicians on the airwaves and emphasized more democratized media access. In the truck’s video, most of the white participants interviewed support Reagan and his policies, while most black and Hispanic men and women speak against him, reflecting growing racial divisions. Every so often an unidentified woman appears and gives an audio invitation to come to the truck at noon or five o’clock and “say what you think,” emphasizing equal access in the election discussion and reflecting the themes of open access and democratization prevalent in the Downtown scene at that time. Outside of a few clips of Reagan supporters who were interviewed, the segments produced by the artists gave the video a distinct leftist bent, criticizing nuclear-war

Activist Strategies

129

policy and the administration’s neglect of the environment, women, and the poor. Holzer’s characteristic word phrases appear regularly, condemning Reagan, including “ONE GUY SAYS THAT HE’S THE STRONGEST BECAUSE HE HAS THE BIGGEST WEAPON,” referring to the nuclear-arms race, in addition to “THESE ARGUMENTS WILL BLOW US TO BITS . . . WE ARE ALL BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY A BUNCH OF GREEDY GUYS WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THEIR WEAPONS . . . LOVE WAR? VOTE REAGAN. LOVE HUNGER? VOTE REAGAN.” Haring appears multiple times throughout the video, every seven minutes or so, drawing while accompanied by Fab 5 Freddy’s hip-hop music and background applause. His inclusion acts like a refrain or reset for the work and offers an accessible and entertaining 1980s soundtrack to attract bystanders—who were likely already familiar with Haring from his work in the subways. Yet, compared to his chalk drawings, his imagery in the video is more obviously cutting: he drew a smiling elephant labeled “REAGAN 84” stomping on humans, which he then crossed out to negate the Republican Party. Another drawing shows a television with a dollar sign on its screen, forcing its cable through a crossed-out figure’s head, brainwashing them to vote Republican. One disturbing image depicts a multiarmed, television-headed monster, with a dollar sign on the screen and a nuclear atom on its chest, holding a cross and a warhead (Figure 4.2). The monster sodomizes a figure while another figure shields his or her eyes, “Reagan” labeled above.

Figure 4.2 Film still from Sign on a Truck, 1984, by Jenny Holzer et al. Source: Courtesy of the Video Data Bank at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, vdb.org. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

130 Activist Strategies The clarity of Haring’s anti-Reagan message is emphasized when compared to some of the other artists’ more conceptual contributions to the video, such as one somewhat confusing segment in which a puppet of Reagan’s face against a blue sky says, “Let’s say religion, everybody we have religion . . . let’s say baby, everybody we want a baby,” presumably meant to critique the president’s pro-life stance and its appeal to conservative Christians. Despite a few conceptually abstruse elements, Sign on a Truck nonetheless appropriated and redirected broadcast media campaigns to infiltrate public space, taking on a format akin to network television to give a platform to artists and, to a lesser extent, New Yorkers, to express their views. This lesson, in combination with his other early political street works, helped to develop Haring’s belief in street-art activism as an effective strategy to engage a large audience and disseminate social and political messages.

Radiant or Radioactive Baby? Protesting Nuclear War Throughout his career, Haring did works and activist actions against nuclear power. He felt personally connected to the issue, having grown up near the nuclear power plant on Three Mile Island that had a partial core meltdown in 1979. Its meltdown triggered the first antinuclear power rally in Washington, DC, in 1979, a significant event at the start of the antinuclear movement that Haring and around 75,000– 150,000 protesters attended.35 Even before this, as early as 1978, Haring wrote about nuclear war in his journal with self-preoccupation: “living under the threat of possible destruction in the form of nuclear war, etc., the most important thing to me is the present.”36 Also, when discussing the longevity of paper versus canvas, he casually mentioned “atomic blasts destroy canvas just as fast as paper.”37 These comments reveal a possible driving force behind Haring’s very intense work ethic: an underlying anxiety that the world and his life could end in an instant, a pervasive nervousness felt by many at the time. In fact, the antinuclear movement peaked in the early to mid-1980s, when Haring was working intensely to define his style and celebrity. Public anxiety over nuclear war and holocaust began after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the 1940s. Although it waned in the 1970s, fear heightened significantly during Reagan’s presidency. Even though the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR) had been in détente for over a decade, Reagan believed that the USSR had been ignoring agreements to cease arms production. This belief, however, was based on a misinterpretation of statistics: the Soviet Union had increased spending on arms, but they were producing the same amount at a decreased efficiency.38 Former CIA analyst Macy Cox explained, “[W]hat should have been cause for jubilation became the inspiration for misguided alarm.”39 Reagan became convinced that the Soviet Union was bent on nuclear aggression and arms superiority, and while this was previously a minority stance, it became central to his foreign and military policy.40 Escalating Americans’ fear, Reagan called the global tensions between the United States and Russia a potential for “nuclear Armageddon” and labeled the Soviet Union the “evil empire.”41 He translated these assertions into an infamous increase in defense spending, referred to as the Second Cold War, which proved to be a policy unpopular with Americans. In response, he relaxed his stance and introduced programs like START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) to reduce arms both in the states and the Soviet Union diplomatically, but the USSR

Activist Strategies

131

refused to participate. In the end, Reagan raised defense spending by at least 50 percent over the course of his presidency, siphoning money from federal social programs and the lower classes to private industries.42 Setting the stage for the Reagan administration’s foreign policy, George H.W. Bush, the head of the CIA in 1976, undermined the objectivity of the organization by hiring a group of hawkish nonexperts to analyze intelligence, who in turn drastically inflated the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union—a threat that, previously, the CIA did not recognize. Former deputy director Ray S. Cline criticized Bush explaining that the CIA’s previously responsible relations with the Soviet Union had been subverted, by inviting “a kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view.”43 Robert Scheer, author of With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War, characterizes Jones, Reagan, Bush, and others as alarmingly uninformed and unqualified.44 In opposition to this growing military-industrial complex, as well as the growth of nuclear power plants, an antinuclear movement formed across the United States by the late 1970s. Although nuclear activists criticized the actions of governmental and corporate institutions, they understood that they needed to mimic their approach in order to compete in the public sphere. Rather than remaining a grassroots or local operation, or relying solely on visible demonstrations or rallies, for example, groups within the movement completed ballot initiatives, performed educational outreach, courted media attention and endorsements, and systematically lobbied for political support. They learned how to lay groundwork for news networks and media to cover stories, such as a nuclear power plant accident or a rally. They also produced bulletins and flyers with broad appeal, targeting senators, civic groups, and schools with designs that mirrored corporate advertising (i.e., image-based with simple language, not in-depth information).45 Kyle Harvey, in his book on nuclear activism from 1975 to 1990, described the movement’s innovative activist model as operating successfully within the system in order to contend with those who had a vested interest in nuclear industries.46 Similar to Haring—who was also responding to contemporary social and political contexts—activists learned the power of symbolism, narrative, and imagery in advertising and promotion to shape perceptions about nuclear issues. In her discussion of the apocalyptic and religious themes in Haring’s and other artists’ work, Natalie Phillips charts the use of nuclear imagery since World War II in popular films, such as The Day After (1983) and The Seventh Sign (1988). These were essentially political and propaganda campaigns to influence public opinion on nuclear war.47 She cites Weart, who documents the evolution of nuclear imagery in visual culture and the nuclear symbols that have come to represent an “entire bundle of themes involving personal, social, and cosmic destruction and rebirth.”48 For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, the government tried to neutralize anxiety of the mushroom cloud image by turning it into a flattened cartoon. Similarly, the ringed atom, a dot surrounded by equal-sized rings, evolved into a cartoon-like symbol for nuclear energy in the 1920s. Even though its representation was divorced from actual physics, the symbol became ubiquitous in nuclear culture, even used by the Atomic Energy Commission as its official seal.49 Phillips discusses the use of these common nuclear symbols in art since the midcentury, such as the mushroom cloud appropriated by 1960s Pop artists James Rosenquist and Andy Warhol. She argues that their artworks tend to contextualize nuclear symbols and images within popular culture, mirroring the government’s effort to downplay its destructive or political associations.50

132 Activist Strategies After the relatively calm détente period of the 1960s and early 1970s, nuclear imagery in mass culture became cautionary and troubling, both reflecting and aggravating a generalized fear of the nuclear intensification in the U.S. military and the growing number of power plants into the 1980s.51 The fictional film The China Syndrome (1979) framed nuclear reactors and their operators as irresponsibly ready to strike at the slightest aggravation. In the 1970s, several thriller novels sensationalized the negative effects of nuclear reactors, such as The Accident, Meltdown, and The Nuclear Catastrophe. In 1983, the film The Day After presented the horrific aftermath of a hypothetical nuclear attack in the indiscriminate city of Lawrence, Kansas, and Arthur Kopuit’s play End of the World opened on Broadway, featuring a nuclear crisis.52 Actual nuclear power plant meltdowns and incidents at Three Mile Island (1979), Bhopal (1984), and Chernobyl (1986) intensified the reality and terror of nuclear accidents and their long-term effects, reinforced by the media.53 Studies show that in the American press from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, antinuclear articles far outweighed pro ones.54 In 1985, ABC ran a television special suggesting that the nuclear power industry could end all life on earth. Newsweek declared nuclear power to be a “bargain with the Devil.”55 The New Yorker lamented the fact that “the great potential ‘story’ of our time—the self-extermination of mankind in a nuclear holocaust—is one that by its very nature can never be written.”56 Reagan also continued to exacerbate the public’s distress over nuclear war. The détente that began in 1969 with the signing of the SALT treaty had collapsed, diplomacy proved ineffective, and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1980. Polls found that by the early 1980s, fear of nuclear war and technology was prominent around the world.57 Since 1980, Haring regularly included antinuclear power and antinuclear war imagery in his artwork, including images of the mushroom cloud, dead figures, and the ringed atom, often in place of a figure’s head or causing adjacent figures to radiate. Even though Haring produced his public work with open-endedness so the viewer could come to his or her own conclusions, the repetitive inclusion of nuclear imagery as a negative force permeates his work as a relatively clear and consistent message. The Radiant Baby itself, appearing thousands of times in his career, has been interpreted as a reference to nuclear war and energy, a radioactive baby.58 Haring regularly surrounds the objects and figures in his work with radiating lines, which could be read as nuclear energy, movement, or excitement. Even toward the end of his career, Haring continued to be interested in antinuclear imagery. In 1988, he visited Hiroshima and was inspired to make a poster to raise money for the International Shadows Project, an antinuclear organization. The poster features two glowing hybrid human-bird figures, a hyperbolic commentary on radiation’s ability to deform (Figure 4.3).59 Almost all of Haring’s nuclear motifs appear together in his first mass-produced political poster for the 1982 rally in Central Park against nuclear war (Figure 4.4). Like his anti-apartheid poster, he printed 20,000 copies of this poster, at his own expense, and handed them out for free. At the time, the rally was the biggest political demonstration in U.S. history, and the peak of the antinuclear movement, attracting 750,000 to a million protestors.60 The black-and-white poster is divided into two sections. On the top, he enveloped his Radiant Baby in a mushroom cloud surrounded by angels. Below, a larger crossed-out figure with a nuclear atom on its chest is accompanied by two figures with glowing rods. In the semiotics of Haring’s image system, the X placed on or around figures evokes death, damage, or sickness, literally negating the subject matter. Xs surround the baby and angels, and the negative space is filled

Activist Strategies

133

Figure 4.3 Keith Haring, Poster for Hiroshima, 1988. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

with squiggly lines, as if the entire scene pulses with energy and chaos. Without text, the overall image clearly expresses an antinuclear message in the context of a protest. Some interpreted the giveaway as publicity for Haring—in much the same cynical view of celebrity activism more generally—but it was more of a way for him to use his burgeoning reputation and his now well-known Radiant Baby to publicize the cause itself.61 The repetition of this image, 20,000 times over in poster form, undoubtedly promoted Haring’s aesthetic. But it also helped to visually unify the rally and gave an appealing and accessible antinuclear graphic to the event. Covering the protest, one journalist described Haring as “a public persona [who] functions as a mirror reflecting our secret atavistic urges, fears and longings.”62 Haring used his platform and his highly recognizable style to consolidate and then represent this pervading angst of nuclear war in basic terms. Due to their impact, in nuclear protest culture, as well as many other movements, Haring’s images were frequently accepted as symbols to unify activists. Haring also created a poster for the 1986 Great Peace March for Nuclear Disarmament, an event that included hundreds of people who marched for nine months from Los Angeles to Washington, DC, to advocate complete disarmament and an end to nuclear war. His poster consisted of green figures dancing up a flight of stairs and the phrase: “Something big is crossing America, peace,” advertising the event and a rally in New York City at the end of the march. Another poster designed by Haring

134 Activist Strategies

Figure 4.4 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1982. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

for the United Nations Third Session on Disarmament, which convened in New York, was entitled and labeled “Break weapons, not spirits” and shows a figure breaking a rod—a symbol of nuclear power, surrounded by an atom and a heart (Figure 4.5). It advertised protest marches for June 11, 1988, in New York and San Francisco to

Activist Strategies

135

Figure 4.5 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1988, United Nations 3rd Session on Disarmament. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

“abolish nuclear weapons, to stop military intervention . . . and [support] social justice.” The image from Haring’s poster for the United Nations was also used by the Disarmament Times, a publication by the Non-Governmental Organization Committee on Disarmament, and was adopted as the logo for the marches.63 Here, Haring’s antinuclear imagery proved to be competitive with other professional advertising campaigns on a national stage, similar to the antinuclear activists who also adopted corporate strategies. Haring’s imagery became so entrenched in the cause that his drawings were reproduced for articles on nuclear energy, such as one written by Mark Hertsgaard. Although the article does not mention Haring by name, the drop cap next to the first word of the article is Haring’s baby, blacked out with a Haring X. On either side of the title, three Haring figures run outwardly, and radiating nuclear power plants line the top edge. The article discussed the vast influence that nuclear corporations had on politics despite negative public opinion against them.64

136 Activist Strategies Haring was not the only artist engaged with the antinuclear sentiment. Collective nuclear anxiety was pervasive in Downtown New York in the early 1980s. Curator Phyllis Plous wrote in her catalog for Neo-York in 1984 that the scene held a “commonly shared nightmare of rage and protest against conditions in the nuclear arms age.”65 One of Haring’s closest friends, artist Kenny Scharf, often incorporated nuclear subject matter in his work and, similarly, presented serious issues in a cheerful aesthetic. In his manifesto from 1981, his Pop Surrealist style equates to mushrooms plus television childhood, referring to both nuclear mushroom clouds and also to drugs. Underneath the equation, he drew a nuclear atom and then writes of the importance of religion in art due to the everincreasing threat of nuclear disaster.66 Like Haring’s Radiating Baby and hybrid figures, radiation and its negative effects permeate Scharf’s work. His biomorphic and surreal jungles of fantastic mutant plants include hybrid cartoon figures such as Flintstone and Jetson character heads on top of insect and animal bodies, sometimes the background of landscapes include mushroom clouds. In a sci-fi video work from 1981, called the Carousel of Progress, Scharf orchestrated a performance in front of the Unisphere in Flushing Meadows Corona Park that included many Club 57 artists and friends, including Haring. In the story, they are the survivors of a nuclear apocalypse, who plan to escape Earth by leaving for outer space. Like in his paintings, the mind-boggling and absurd notion of nuclear destruction in the early 1980s could only be expressed through a futuristic sublime—a constant threat out of any individual’s control. Along the same lines as Haring, Scharf’s work absorbed and mirrored the anxiety of nuclear war pervasive in the early 1980s. Haring, though, went further by participating in political actions and marches, and exhibitions tied to nuclear activism. Haring’s antinuclear work was included in the exhibition, Disarming Images: Art for Nuclear Disarmament, a group show in 1983 sponsored by the National Hospital Union and the Physicians for Social Responsibility. These two organizations were active in a national campaign to avert nuclear attacks and funded multiple educational programs to inform the public on its medical dangers, specifically radiation poisoning. The show opened at the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati and traveled around the United States to San Diego, Albany, Santa Barbara, Las Vegas, Montana, Washington State, and New York until 1987, demonstrating the topical and pervasive nature of this issue in the decade.67 The exhibition was a response to the “threat of nuclear holocaust . . . shaping our perceptions of art.”68 In addition to Haring, many well-known artists from New York participated, including Laurie Anderson, Robert Arneson, John Baldessari, Red Grooms, Hans Haacke, Jenny Holzer, Barbara Kruger, Sherrie Levine, Robert Longo, Robert Morris, Claes Oldenburg, Lady Pink, Adrian Piper, Robert Rauschenberg, Laurie Simmons, Nancy Spero, Paul Thek, and William Wegman—a large group of canonical artists who are listed in full here to demonstrate the extent of artistic engagement. Several of the artists in Disarming Images used the motif of the mushroom cloud as a symbol of nuclear disaster, death, and chaos. Adrian Piper’s Portrait (1983) pairs a black-and-white photograph of the mushroom cloud at Nagasaki, with a text that describes the self-destruction inherent in human nature.69 Paul Thek’s black-and-white painting on newspaper shows the aftermath of a nuclear explosion, a before and after image of the earth then blown to “SMITHEREENS.”70 Nancy Spero’s painting Christ and the Cloud (1984) figures Christ’s bloody but ascendant body, rising from the force of the bomb over bleeding figures on the ground.71 Barbara Kruger layered a massive appropriated photograph of a mushroom cloud, with the text: “Your Manias become

Activist Strategies

137

Science,” referring to the abuse of those in power who had become obsessed and overly paranoid with nuclear war and the Soviet Union.72 Laurie Simmons also used a photograph of a mushroom cloud for Tourism: The Bikini Atoll (1984), in front of which four dolls stand with their backs to the viewer. This work referenced the nuclear testing done at the island Bikini Atoll in the 1950s, which displaced the entire population, contaminated its environment, and destroyed its ecosystem.73 Haring’s work in the show, Untitled (1984), is a dense composition of black-and-white cartoonish figures, radiating lines, televisions, and mushroom clouds.74 A large robot, labeled 666, holds a missile in one hand and a money symbol in the other inside an earth-like semicircle. Two families watch the explosion on television, one in an underground bunker and the other on a platform safely floating in the sky. Both families are shielded by a money symbol, suggesting that those with wealth and means could protect themselves. On the surface of the earth, dead bodies pile on top of each other, exuding poisonous radioactivity. A winged figure of death and a large pointing hand of God hover over a levitating Radiant Baby in a mushroom cloud, with an X on its face; the baby is poisoned too. Not surprisingly, given Haring’s emphasis on high impact, graphic readability, and his antinuclear stance, his work is reproduced on the cover of the catalog—the frontispiece for the exhibition. The antinuclear movement started to subside by the mid-1980s due to a number of factors: new reactors stopped being built, Reagan was reelected and gained a new popularity (overshadowing the movement), and the movement itself was criticized for its lack of organization and clarity.75 By the end of the 1980s, the Soviet bloc was dismantled, and Cold War tensions subsided, causing the movement to end almost completely and fade into the background of history. If the problem had escalated rather than receded, perhaps antinuclear activism would have been the issue of the 1980s, but it was eclipsed by the AIDS crisis. As Scharf explained, In the 1980s everyone was afraid of the bomb; Reagan, anxiety. In New York City, we thought we should have as much fun now because we will all blow up! Let’s party hard! . . . Well, we didn’t blow up, but the AIDS bomb dropped instead.76

Gay Rights and AIDS Activism: A Fight for Survival Since the beginning of his career, Haring criticized oppression against gay men and women and openly celebrated gay sexuality in his work, even remaining sex positive after he was diagnosed with AIDS in 1988.77 By 1986, once Haring had become famous, he lent his personal story to the print media to put a face to gay rights and to galvanize action within the gay community. He came out publicly in an interview for The Advocate on August 5, 1986, photographed for the cover in one of his Pop Shop tank tops, standing in front of one of his murals.78 While Haring was openly gay in New York, this marked the first time that he came out to his international fan base. When Haring was diagnosed, instead of retreating from the spotlight, he began to work feverishly, traveling, painting murals, in addition to holding events with kids every chance that he had.79 He decided to use his status as a public figure and publicize his sexual identity in a decade fraught with homophobia. In doing so, he helped humanize gay rights and put a recognizable and beloved face to the movement. As soon as Haring came to New York, he unabashedly asserted his gayness and his promiscuous sexual lifestyle in many of his works. In 1978, Haring created an

138 Activist Strategies entire series of penis drawings, turning buildings into penises and drawing hundreds of penises into obsessive, allover patterns. At the School of Visual Arts, his work was incredibly phallic, a way for Haring to assert his newfound sexuality and “forc[e] other people to deal with it.”80 In one painting from 1980, a crowd worships a radiating erect penis poked through a glory hole, evoking the common culture and freedom of anonymous sex of which Haring partook. In many other works, cartoon figures hump and penetrate other humans, animals, or inanimate objects. For Samuel Kaufman’s “My First Dirty Story,” Haring illustrated panels of vaginas, oral sex, masturbation, orgies, threesomes, dildos, and bondage.81 Poet John Giorno described Haring’s art as, heroic in having gay content. . . . He used dick apropos of nothing. He used gay content when we all [knew] that being a gay artist is the kiss of death. What arose in his life, he used in his art.82 According to curator Bruce Kurtz, the amount of sexually themed work by Haring was unprecedented in American art, and within it, he made several statements critiquing homophobia, even before the AIDS crisis.83 In doing so, Haring helped usher in a new era in which artists could be openly gay in their work, compared to the more closeted gay references in the work of Warhol, Jasper Johns, and Rauschenberg in previous decades.84 Only a few other artists, notably David Wojnarowicz and Robert Mapplethorpe, were as explicitly sexual in their work in the 1980s. Yet, there was still a long way to go. Even though Haring’s sexual works refected the liberation of his sexuality in New York in the early 1980s, they were regularly omitted from the press and exhibitions in the United States for years—along with his other provocative work that dealt with government and religion, refecting the mainstream conservatism of the period. In contrast, Europeans readily shared his sexual artwork, even publishing an image of “Mickey Mouse fucking E.T.” in Sunday newspapers.85 In addition to the criticism of the Pope and religion in Haring’s early collages and drawings, he repeatedly denigrated the Catholic Church for its hypocrisy, as well as its political and materialistic corruption, and moral deceit—especially in its treatment of gay people—in his work. From his early education as a Jesus Freak, he had learned to mistrust religious institutions and their tendency to distort the Bible for financial, political, or social gain. Haring felt that Catholic art, specifically, was hypocritically homoerotic and the Vatican’s wealth was stolen in the name of God.86 Like his frequent use of antinuclear iconography of mushroom clouds and radiant figures, he repeatedly drew crosses and the Radiant Baby as Christ paired with money symbols and oppressive images to suggest that Catholicism perverted Christianity (Figure 4.6). An early video work, ART BOY SIN (1979), obsessively repeats the three words “art,”“boy,” and “sin” like a ritual for the camera; it is as if Haring was trying to reconcile his own burgeoning sexuality with the church’s hostility toward it, until the words become meaningless. He connects “boy” with “sin,” but then combines them with “art,” an outlet that helped him discount the church’s social stigma. In the same way, Haring also recited religious fliers he had found in the streets for Club 57 performances, which included phrases like “God hates homo mortal sin. It’s filthy.” These works essentially helped to empty the oppressive meaning of these words as he embraced the sexually liberating Downtown culture. Even when this scene collapsed, in part because of the

Activist Strategies

139

Figure 4.6 Keith Haring, Untitled, 1981. Sumi ink on paper, 72″ × 96″. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

spread of AIDS, Haring kept openly pro-gay references in his work, pushing back against the prevalent moralistic and conservative attitude of the decade. Once the onset of AIDS doubly stigmatized gay sex, his continuation of sex-positive themes into the mid and late 1980s took on a much more radical political meaning. The AIDS crisis began to manifest itself in New York City in the early 1980s and was referred to as “the gay plague” or the “gay cancer,” as it initially seemed to exclusively affect gay men.87 The flourishing (often unprotected) sexual opportunities at bathhouses, clubs, and parties—a culture frequented by and openly discussed by Haring—represented an expression of newly found sexual freedom, especially for gay men, but unintentionally helped spread the disease to thousands. The New York Times first reported on the issue in 1981 with the headline “Rare cancer seen in 41 homosexuals,” already conflating the disease (inaccurately) with male gayness. The article reported the limited knowledge of the disease and perpetuated erroneous speculation (i.e., it emphasized the rarity of the virus, “only two cases in two million”) and defined its risk groups as homosexuals, drug users, or those already with other sexually transmitted diseases.88 It even stated that it was a “cancer . . . not believed to be contagious,” with “no apparent danger to non-homosexuals.”89 Misperceptions such as these ultimately spread the disease further and codified the disease from its inception as a social and political issue. It also spread fear, which bred rampant discrimination against gay men and prevented decisive action for multiple years. By 1984, over

140 Activist Strategies 5,000 cases of AIDS were reported in the United States, half of which led to death, and many considered a diagnosis to be a death sentence.90 In AIDS and Its Metaphors (1989), Susan Sontag described the metaphorical language created by the press and politicians to discuss AIDS, transforming it into a cultural construction used to attack those affected and not the disease itself. She explained, for example, the impetus for those with AIDS to refuse the designation of “victim,” as “[v]ictims suggest innocence. And innocence, by the inexorable logic that governs all relational terms, suggest guilt.”91 AIDS activists preferred the designation “Person With AIDS,” or PWA, to avoid stigmatization and to redirect blame away from the person. In the beginning of her book, Sontag charted the cultural reception of diseases and the social and political productions of meaning that became metaphors and myths that can kill.92 She used her own personal struggle with cancer and explained how its original unfounded stigmas lessened as more research, cures, and understanding were established. With a plethora of misinformation and panic in the early 1980s, AIDS had a similar initial reception.93 AIDS was framed by the religious right and the Moral Majority, headed by Jerry Falwell, as a punishment, brought on by oneself through sexual excess and indulgence.94 The Moral Majority, it could be argued, even used AIDS as a way to resuscitate and unite the Right, maintaining their majority after the backlash of the 1960s by feeding off rising homophobic and religious sentiments.95 To provide just one of Falwell’s homophobic quotes among many: “AIDS is a lethal judgment of God on the sin of homosexuality and it is also the judgment of God on America for endorsing this vulgar, perverted, and reprobate lifestyle.”96 Because of this, those with AIDS were ignored and ostracized for living outside moral norms, resulting in hundreds of individuals dying daily. They were following the government’s lead: Ronald Reagan famously did not mention the word AIDS until a speech in 1987, asking the Department of Health and Human Services to finally “determine as soon as possible the extent to which the AIDS virus has penetrated our society.”97 At that point, 25,644 had passed away because of the government’s inaction. Even when steps were taken, the committee that Reagan formed failed to include a single person with serious knowledge or credibility on AIDS or HIV.98 Gary Bauer, Reagan’s AIDS policy spokesperson, wrote in an article that AIDS is most efficiently spread through anal sex, decreasing the perceived risk by those who might only have vaginal intercourse.99 Senator Jesse Helms led the fight in the U.S. Senate against government funding of AIDS research because it was, in his words, gay men’s “deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct” that was responsible for the disease.100 He asserted that those with HIV or AIDS should be quarantined and also spoke against public funds for artwork that dealt with AIDS, concerned that it might promote homosexuality.101 His “Helms Amendment,” attached to the Supplemental Appropriations Act, prohibited those who were HIV positive from entering the United States and prevented federal funding of AIDS educational materials.102 The amendment revealed a larger unease on the part of conservative political forces, who resisted the languages and vocabularies of gay men and drug users, banning effective education and adequate responses to those who actually needed it. From Helm’s standpoint, he would rather AIDS educational materials be non-offensive to religious values than effectively target those who were most at risk.103 When the amendment had passed, 11,513 AIDS cases had been reported just in New York; of these, 6,605 had already died.104

Activist Strategies

141

Prejudice against gay men became a platform for the Republican Party, summarized by Patrick Buchanan, assistant to Reagan, who stated in 1983, “The poor homosexuals . . . have declared war upon nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution.”105 The rhetoric was so inflammatory and hateful that some AIDS activists, including Haring, actually believed that the government had manufactured AIDS to eliminate drug users and gay men. Haring wrote, “They have laboratories for germ warfare. They could have done it. The original targets were just homosexual men and IV drug users. Perfect people to wipe out.”106 He was even photographed wearing a shirt he made and sold in the Pop Shop that read, “AIDS is political-biological (germ) warfare.”107 Ignoring the real political health issues, the importance of treatment, and the realities of sexual behavior, Public Service Advertising instead emphasized prevention, moralism, and guilt to stop the spread of AIDS.108 More effective advertising was disseminated by AIDS activist organizations (i.e., one advertisement by the Cascade AIDS Project captioned, “dressed for the occasion,” showed a man wearing a condom on his erect penis, emphasizing frank, safe sexuality).109 Even the next president, George H.W. Bush, stated during his presidential campaign, “Testing is more cost-effective than treatment,” a policy that would basically segregate those with a positive status and allow them to die.110 Mandatory testing with its questionable privacy assurances caused an outcry by AIDS activists, as it could easily lead to discrimination and could, therefore, discourage testing in the first place.111 Adding to the fatal lack of action and propaganda from the government, medication remained obscenely expensive and limited, characterized by activists as a purely profit-oriented business. Drug trials excluded women and minorities, and funding for and regulation on medical research and pharmaceutical companies was woefully slow given the fast pace of the deadly disease. In addition, insurance agencies increasingly refused coverage to those who were positive, and regularly discriminated against gay applicants. Due to these homophobic messages—constructing an AIDS metaphor as described by Sontag—most initial political, educational, and scientific initiatives regarding the virus were shaped by ignorance and prejudice rather than compassion or support for those affected.112 The ignorance and inaction proliferated misinformation, generated widespread homophobia, and allowed the disease to become an international disaster. Haring understood the stigma surrounding HIV and AIDS, hesitating at first to tell the world about his HIV-positive status, chiefly afraid that he would no longer be allowed to work with children. He said, “AIDS has made it even harder for people to accept [gays working with children], because homosexuality has been made to be synonymous with death. It’s a justifiable fright with people that are just totally uninformed and therefore ignorant.”113 Haring also postponed announcing his status because he did not want the press to somehow twist his story to make it sound like the Moral Majority was right.114 When Haring did reveal his diagnosis to the public, he did so in an interview with Rolling Stone in 1989, becoming the face of the disease for millions of people.115 Independently, Haring also used his fame to raise AIDS awareness and promote events and fundraising on multiple occasions.116 He sponsored buses to take activists to a Montreal AIDS conference in 1989 and designed a Christmas tree for the AIDS fundraiser “Night of 100 Trees” that raised $15,000.117 Dallas Boesendahl, director of “Night of 100 Trees,” praised Haring for “not knowing how to say no whenever

142 Activist Strategies we asked for your help in the fight against AIDS.”118 Haring was also commissioned to create several images that promote safe sex and AIDS awareness and prevention. He designed an image for the Wellness Network to benefit persons with AIDS and research, and another for the New York City Department of Health to advertise their AIDS hotline. Happy figures hold up a phone with the invitation “TALK TO US,” in an effort to make the hotline seem welcoming and friendly—especially important when stigmatization was a huge barrier to seek help (Figure 4.7). He also designed a logo for the organization Heritage of Pride for their 1986 New York Gay Pride Parade and an AIDS Benefit, which he then reproduced and distributed onto merchandise. In the logo, two same-sex couples dance, linked by their gender-symbol heads. Targeting teenagers and college students, Haring designed the cover of a college campus pamphlet produced by the Public Agenda Foundation to educate students on AIDS treatment and prevention, as well as politics.119 Two asexual figures pierce each other’s heads and stomachs with their arms, evoking sexual penetration and the transmission of sexual diseases. Made to counter AIDS misconceptions, these pamphlets were reproduced by the thousands and circulated nationally in conjunction with CNN’s special telecast, “Sex on Campus.” This image was also used for the cover of a student publication, The Yale Vernacular, in which Yale University students interviewed Haring about his life, work, and the AIDS crisis—again capitalizing on his celebrity to speak to a broad, if elite constituency.120 Furthermore, Haring designed covers for a guide on safe sex for teens for Consumer Reports Books in 1988, featuring his three hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil figures, and for the youth magazine Scholastic in 1987 (Figure 4.8). In black and white, he stacked figures on top of each other like cheerleaders, supporting one another with the headline, “AIDS: working together to meet the crisis.”121 In an era in which AIDS education was banned, limited, or inaccurate and moralistic attitudes demonized gay sex, Haring’s designs addressed the issues with a positive attitude, while still disseminating realistic information and advice. Students were an incredibly important audience for AIDS education, since they would inherit the mismanagement of the epidemic, and so would have the power to help prevent its spread in the future through responsible sex habits. He said, “Teachers everywhere ask me for safe-sex stickers.”122 Haring invented several AIDS-related characters and motifs in his signature style, like crossed out faces, anthropomorphized snakes, devil sperm, and scissor bodies working together to destroy the disease (Figure 4.9). He repeated these images across media, including merchandise, posters, paintings, and murals—even a blimp, to the point that they became ubiquitous.123 They also adorned condom holders, an accessory to ensure protection was with someone at all times. A happy penis figure holding a condom and two male figures giving each other hand jobs emphasize safe sex—safe because they are not exchanging fluids (Figure 4.10). The happy penis figure is anthropomorphized with legs and arms, pointing one finger up toward the all-capitalized, exclamation SAFE SEX! Haring also invented the character Debbie Dick, a large erect and veiny penis with a face and a blond wig, who promoted safe sex with humor.124 Like Haring’s other designs, the cartoonish style of these images is straightforward but light-hearted, a strategy used to counteract the taboo nature of the disease while also addressing the seriousness of the problem. Adept at creating iconography that was then easily diffused through his merchandise, Haring’s accessible one-man safe sex campaign infiltrated everyday life and made AIDS easier to talk about.125

Activist Strategies

Figure 4.7 Keith Haring, Talk to Us, The AIDS Hotline, 1989. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

143

144 Activist Strategies

Figure 4.8 Keith Haring, AIDS: Trading Fear for Facts, 1988. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

The opposing messages of the menacing snake and bodies working together to destroy it figures prominently in his first public AIDS mural, painted in 1989 to target a notorious neighborhood in El Raval, Barcelona, known for intravenous drug use and prostitution. Titled Together We Can Stop AIDS, the mural evokes not only pain and suffering but also hope (Figure 4.11).126 The long horizontal red design is unified by a long snake that winds around a syringe, human scissors, and a pregnant dead

Activist Strategies

145

Figure 4.9 Keith Haring, Stop AIDS, 1989. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

figure surrounded by Xs. The snake chases animated figures toward the left, with destruction in its wake, but despite the carnage, two figures embrace within it. To the right of the snake, Haring included his image of the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil figures, and the title surrounded by happy dancing and radiating figures holding hands. While Haring painted, the press showed up to photograph his progress, spreading the image and its message beyond the neighborhood on television and in newspapers. Like a permanent, site-specific billboard, the mural was “an attempt to reach out to the people who actually live there and are affected by it every day.”127 Haring painted two other public murals in New York City that took on AIDS and gay sexuality as their subject matter. One originally on FDR Drive and Houston Street,

146 Activist Strategies

Figure 4.10 Keith Haring, Safe Sex!, 1987. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

no longer extant, pictured figures drowning in pools of blood, filled from dripping dollar bills. To the right, huge capital letters screamed, “DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE, SAFE SEX OR NO SEX!” encouraging criticality on misleading AIDS coverage, with a massive figure dropping coins into a pile. Here, Haring referenced popular hip-hop music, Public Enemy’s “Don’t Believe the Hype,” to target an all-encompassing urban audience. Contextualized within Haring’s images of blood and money, it presents a message of financial corruption—those with money are controlling the narrative, so think critically. In 1989, Haring painted another mural in a bathroom at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center (LGBTCC). Covering all four walls, Once Upon a Time nostalgically harkens back to the sexual liberation of the late 1970s and early 1980s, and because of its slightly more private context (which itself invited

Activist Strategies

147

Figure 4.11 Keith Haring, Together We Can Stop AIDS, 1989. Posthumously recreated and on permanent display at the Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art using templates from original mural. Source: Photograph by author. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

sexual encounters), Haring did not hold back on any of his homoerotic imagery (Figure 4.12).128 Through an enormous orgy of interlocking bodies, penises, testicles, and sexual acts, the work exudes happiness and spontaneity. At the time, aware he was dying from an AIDS-related illness, as would many other LGBTCC patients who could have seen this mural, the work does not project regret. Instead, it is a radical vision of sex positivity, refusing to downplay or hide physical desire despite the current climate, and promoting a collective effort that required love, not intolerance and ignorance, to overcome oppression. It was also site-specific, bathrooms acted as sites for anonymous sex in the early 1980s. What's more, its location was an effective call to action: the Center acted not just as a health clinic, but also as a meeting place for AIDS activists. Haring’s contributions were one small part of a national mobilization of AIDS activism during the 1980s, primarily initiated in New York. Many other artists and activist groups worked to educate those affected and society at large about safe sex and counteract the cultural stereotypes of AIDS, as well as inspire action. Like Haring, several implemented these goals in the same spaces that they were being perpetuated, such as in the mainstream media and in the streets. Due to the dramatic and sudden impact of AIDS in New York, the city with the most reported cases of AIDS in the world, its arts community, especially, rallied to an unprecedented degree in what was quite literally a fight for survival. Many artists and individuals joined larger activist groups such as ACT UP, Group Material, Gran Fury, Damned Interfering Video Activist TV (DIVA TV), People with AIDS Coalition (PWAC, 1985), and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD, 1986) to offer effective visual expertise, including art as resource, propaganda, and mass communication. ACT UP, the most recognized and celebrated AIDS activist group, was founded in 1987. Scholar Tommaso Speretta describes it as, a “diverse, nonpartisan group united in anger and committed to direct action to end the AIDS crisis.”129 Although it was a national group, its activities were centered mainly in New York. Their well-known

148 Activist Strategies

Figure 4.12 Keith Haring, Once Upon a Time, 1989, in The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center, New York. Source: Photograph by author. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

slogan SILENCE = DEATH stressed the repression and crisis felt by thousands of individuals: without speaking up and raising awareness, many would die. The slogan “looked like a corporate logo, like some institution was speaking. . . . It’s the appropriation of the voice of authority. Like a trick.”130 This tactic was used by several artists in the 1980s, including Haring: appropriate the dominant system and its attributes and then subvert the system from within. The slogan was even lit up on the Times Square Spectacolor billboard, a format that Haring was among the first to employ for his artwork, featuring an animation by him in 1982. ACT UP’s slogan was regularly paired with a pink triangle, an inversion (and therefore reclamation) of the Nazi symbol to identify and quarantine gay persons. They were widely worn by protesters and supporters on apparel, buttons, and stickers, as well as distributed en masse on posters, pamphlets, and postcards. In fact, the sale of merchandise was one of ACT UP’s first sources of fundraising.131 Like Haring and many other activists, ACT UP understood that the high-stakes battle for AIDS education, prevention, and perceptions was in the public sphere, and organized a very aggressive strategy of public disruption to educate thousands about the disease and its treatments.132 The value of subsequent media coverage of their events (the more performative and visual, the better the news story) significantly expanded the reach of their memorable style and messages. Their goals were forthright: they aimed to make treatment more available, educate a general audience that the disease is not a gay disease or passed through casual contact, pressure government officials to act and fund medical research, and empower and humanize those who had the disease. At every rally, demonstration, or gathering, targeted toward central power structures that had mishandled the disaster (e.g., the stock market, the Catholic Church, state and city government buildings, and insurance companies) and held at highly visible public places like Times Square, thousands of pamphlets with bulleted

Activist Strategies

149

and well-researched facts were handed out to onlookers and to the press for easy talking points. The organization also raised awareness by repeating various graphic images on things they wore, as well as posters on walls or held while marching, and sponsored advertisements. Their images, culled from a variety of individual artists and art collectives, inverted media representations of political and religious figures, drug companies, and PWAs, and took on homophobia, racism, and sexism—all obstacles in the fight against AIDS.133 The artist collective Gran Fury is regularly documented as ACT UP’s main artistic arm, creating many designs for signage, posters, and apparel for the organization beginning in 1988. One member of Gran Fury wrote: I’d say that all of us are interested in creating art work—or propaganda—that addresses the AIDS crisis and that will be seen by different parts of the public. . . . It would provoke them, cause a reaction, make them think, and hopefully educate them.134 Gran Fury coupled their outdoor operations with exhibitions of their work within arts institutions, such as their exhibit Let the Record Show at the New Museum from 1987 to 1988. Like Haring, Gran Fury blurred the lines between advertising, graphic design, and art, creating challenging and provocative images that found legitimization and documentation in both art historical discourse and the press. Many of its members had worked in advertising or graphic design but understood the advantages, legitimacy, and funds that an art platform could also provide. Gran Fury also created handouts that mimicked the print media, in terms of both graphic aesthetic and physical dispersal, with information that countered the press’s false narratives within the same spaces. One of their most famous images is their 1989 outdoor bus poster that ran in New York City of same-sex couples kissing with the tagline, “Kissing Doesn’t Kill: Greed and Indifference Do.”135 Because of the fear fueled by political and religious figures, PWAs were ostracized, fired from jobs, refused from public places like pools, and rejected by health insurance companies. AIDS is not transmitted by touching or kissing, but this fact was regularly misunderstood or misreported. Like Haring’s street work and merchandise, a bus poster could travel publicly throughout the city to counteract these commonly held beliefs. Another important project that used the same approach, the New York Crimes, appropriated the look of The New York Times and included stories of corrupt political figures and their AIDS incompetence, Gran Fury graphics, and stories by PWAs—a piece of ephemera that Haring kept, still in his Foundation’s archives. Wrapped individually around The New York Times papers within vending boxes, the paper traveled covertly throughout New York City, critiquing the lack of sufficient or accurate reportage by The New York Times.136 Following in the footsteps of Haring’s initiatives, most Gran Fury designs were made into merchandise, sold to help fund the organization.137 The simple graphics on ACT UP’s merchandise attracted interest, which also gave the movement a more professional and outwardly legitimate look and helped to bring together its members mentally and visibly. These strategies, in addition to their public disruptions that attracted media coverage, amounted to a national campaign to combat AIDS. ACT UP details their approach in one of their internal reports: Guerrilla information is the seizure of the voice of authority. It is speaking to the beast in its own language. Intervention into public dialogue is one of the methods

150 Activist Strategies of controlling the public debate in this country. It is a tactic used by the powers that be. We need to use it too. . . . That is why we “advertise” our political ideas, why we choose public spaces to project them. The seductiveness of a well-turned phrase or good graphics can speak in some culturally generic way . . . imposing the “look” of authority.138 Haring is rarely associated with ACT UP by historians, although he was involved with several of the organization’s projects and demonstrations.139 After a friend brought Haring to an ACT UP meeting in 1989, he participated in their march at “Target City Hall,” a kiss-in at St. Vincent’s Hospital, and a march against Saint Patrick’s. In one photograph published on the cover of The Body Positive publication, he is shown marching holding an ACT UP poster criticizing Ed Koch for his inaction by appropriating Koch’s campaign slogan: “10,000 New York City AIDS deaths. How’m I DOIN’?”140 Haring was also photographed by a Japanese magazine wearing an ACT UP sweatshirt, showing his identification with the movement and a willingness to promote it in his spotlight abroad. Even the Rolling Stone interview in which Haring revealed his HIV status was done on behalf of ACT UP. ACT UP fundraising committee member Peter Staley said that as soon as Haring starting to come to meetings, they wanted him to be a public person with AIDS and asked him to come out to the press. Staley said, “I’m sure he took shit for it. It cost him a lot of privacy.”141 To ACT UP itself, Haring contributed designs, items for benefit auctions, a directmail fundraising letter, and several cash donations. Many of his images that he made for ACT UP were also sold on apparel along with the rest of ACT UP’s merchandise in their mail-order brochures to raise money for the organization.142 Altogether, Haring’s fundraising added up to a full third of ACT UP’s budget in 1989.143 Haring incorporated ACT UP’s slogan into his first design for them in 1988. He illustrated the 17th-century proverb, “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil,” along with their slogan “SILENCE = DEATH” combined with “IGNORANCE = FEAR,” responding to the overall panic over AIDS due to misleading information (Figure 4.13). Haring used the image as the print for ACT UP the same year, changing the three half-figures to full-sized dancing bodies, and paid to print 20,000 posters himself.144 The figures look celebratory, but juxtaposed with the text, along with the metaphor to ignore the evil that is AIDS, the image takes on a cautionary tone. Haring originally created this image for a billboard in the Art Against AIDS: On the Road exhibition in San Francisco, which originally read: “AIDS: GET THE FACTS. . . . UNDERSTAND IT. PREVENT IT.”145 The billboard exhibit was sponsored by amfAR (American Foundation for AIDS Research), an organization established in 1985 by Elizabeth Taylor that raised millions for AIDS education, prevention, and research, another celebrity activist project.146 Meant to seen quickly by individuals who drove past it, this image could be read quickly and clearly, and could be seen by many. Altering it for ACT UP, this vitality could then be reproduced onto clothing and posters to repeatedly permeate the public sphere and inspire action. Haring also used his clout and financial success as a famous artist to fundraise for ACT UP and AIDS. He appropriated the triangle from ACT UP’s slogan, enlarged it, and created a silkscreen, which was reproduced in a number of iterations, including a print to benefit the Arts Outreach Fund for AIDS and as an illustration for a Vogue article explaining what readers could do for AIDS (Figure 4.14).147 He donated his sculpture Totem to ACT UP’s 1990 Auction for Action, which sold for $70,000—one

Activist Strategies

151

Figure 4.13 Keith Haring, Ignorance = Fear, Silence = Death, 1988. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

of the biggest fundraising successes in ACT UP’s history.148 In addition, Haring used his celebrity to raise money for ACT UP, co-organizing fundraising events at clubs like Sound Factory and Palladium. In the most personal contribution Haring made to ACT UP in the last few months of his life, he wrote a fundraising letter for the organization that also raised $70,000.149 The letter is important to better understand his feelings toward the AIDS activist movement and his level of involvement. Its envelope has a cropped version of his “hear no evil” image, and inside, the five-page letter speaks to the reader on a personal level, with highly readable writing, bulleted points, underlined phrases, and short sentences. The letter reads like a testimonial, as if Haring is talking directly to the reader about his life, a detailed history of ACT UP, its demonstrations, and its accomplishments, and urging the reader to act. In the letter, Haring takes the word “positive” from HIV positive and changes it to what positive things one can do to help: “at ACT UP, ‘positive’ also has a different meaning: to take positive life-promoting steps to fight AIDS . . . to make a difference positively.”150 He defended ACT UP’s civil disobedience: “I think it’s appalling that American citizens must go to the streets and get arrested to get their government to do what it ought to do anyways . . . the bottom line is: ACT UP’s demonstrations work.”151 He urged the reader to “go get your checkbook right this minute and write out the most generous life-promoting and life-saving check you can afford,” and to come to a meeting—“I’ll probably see you there.”152 Reflecting the international reach of the letter, and encouraging pragmatic steps to get involved, no matter where one lives, Haring listed many national AIDS activist groups and their contact info at the end of the letter. In a postscript within the letter, Haring self-consciously addressed the potential for misguided perceptions about his star status:

152 Activist Strategies

Figure 4.14 Keith Haring, Silence = Death, 1989. Acrylic on canvas. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

My worst fear about this direct mail fundraising project is that people might think this is just a direct mail letter signed by a ‘celebrity’ who is simply endorsing a group, but isn’t really involved. That is not the case. I go to ACT UP weekly meetings, I go to demonstrations, I’ve given money and art repeatedly and I truly believe every word I’ve written here. Again, Haring acknowledged the resistance to his type of activism and the assumption that he, a celebrity activist, was looking solely for exposure. The letter also testifes to Haring’s commitment to ACT UP, acknowledged by Group Material, who included it—along with a Pop Shop bag—in their 1990 AIDS Timeline, an ongoing archival exhibition meant to document the history of AIDS activism.153 Beyond these specific ACT UP projects by Haring, his well-established use of merchandising, graphic aesthetics, commercial channels, and outdoor and print media strategies most likely influenced ACT UP’s own use of merchandise and their creation

Activist Strategies

153

of memorable logo-like imagery to unite the cause. ACT UP was known to appropriate ideas from the art’s community and the Downtown scene, from artists such as Barbara Kruger and Jenny Holzer, but Haring’s influence has not been cited.154 Instead, ACT UP has been credited with the innovation of using media strategies and creating posters and paraphernalia in the service of activism, which evolved out of the “all-night poster-painting parties.”155 However, Haring had already begun using the street and producing shirts, buttons, and other items to promote his social concerns by the mid-1980s, before the official founding of ACT UP in 1987, and so, he provided ubiquitous precedents that could be used to mobilize the masses and spread information for activist purposes. Overall, Haring’s participation with AIDS art collectives and his key role as a celebrity activist and merchandizer for the AIDS movement has been sidelined, if obvious at the time, in the scholarship of art history. He is absent from AIDS Demo Graphics (1990), the standard text on AIDS art activism, and any other subsequent scholarly book or article that discusses AIDS, art, and activism thereafter.156 The author of AIDS Demo Graphics, Douglas Crimp, is a former October editor and ACT UP member, plus the art historical authority on AIDS activist art, influencing the shape of AIDS art and activist history since the 1980s by being one of the first to champion its visual history.157 In part because of his influence since the 1980s and his focus on ACT UP (and that him and others survived the epidemic while other voices did not), ACT UP has been privileged in almost all accounts of AIDS activism at the expense of a more comprehensive look at AIDS activism and its art across the decade.158 In 1987, Crimp famously called on artists in a special issue of October, titled “AIDS Cultural Analysis/ Cultural Activism,” to make public artwork in order to raise awareness of the AIDS crisis to a broader audience.159 As AIDS decimated creative communities in New York City, Crimp questioned the effectiveness of showing politically charged artworks in art galleries, where the intended message would ultimately be lost and isolated from a significant amount of people whose opinions had yet to be formed.160 Driven by a sense of immediate urgency, he argued artists should instead create compressed social messages and visuals that could be effective on the street, on television, and in press photographs.161 Bill Olander, senior curator at the New Museum, reiterated Crimp’s sentiment: AIDS activism is not to be found on the walls of an art gallery. AIDS is too public to be contained within the private sector. . . . AIDS activism must be equally public in order to fight AIDS, to end discrimination, to promote research, to provide care, and to find a cure for AIDS.162 Many in the arts community were directly affected by the AIDS crisis, but segregating art within gallery walls preached to the converted and did not reach those whose opinions had yet to be formed. According to Crimp, Gran Fury and ACT UP performed his call to action most effectively, and were the premier models of the combination of activism, art, and advertising. Crimp’s writings and the many books on AIDS activism that have been written thereafter rightfully shed light on the profoundly significant and innovative contributions and leadership of ACT UP and Gran Fury, subsequently securing them a place in art history. But virtually none of these accounts fail to consider, or even mention, the relationship ACT UP and the movement more generally had with Haring. Instead, these authors

154 Activist Strategies favor collective and non-celebrity-based activism, mostly turning to (and therefore over determining) ACT UP’s role in the AIDS movement.163 Although Haring is not included in ACT UP’s history, several lesser known artists in ACT UP have been regularly given individual credit for designs such as Donald Moffett, Ken Woodard, Vincent Gagliostro, Richard Deagle, Dan Keith Williams, and Little Elvis. In addition, these authors have left out the wider influence of East Village art (beyond Kruger and Holzer), in which many artists had already experimented with street-level communication, as well as the production of multiples and merchandise. Well before ACT UP’s public work and merchandising, these experiences constituted already existing artistic approaches to activist issues in New York. Even as early as 1981, when referring to political action more generally, the Downtown artist collective Group Material expressed their opinion that “[a] rt can have the most political content and right-on form, but the stuff just hangs there silent unless its means of distribution makes political sense as well.”164 In addition, Haring, Wojnarowicz, artists from Colab, and other East Village artists started making work in the streets in the early 1980s, displaying politically charged works that cut through the clutter of the city’s outdoor environment. Among these artists, Haring had cultivated his public effectiveness the most—through the ubiquity of his stock pictographs—and then applied this to a range of activist endeavors, creating new activist pictographs that then proliferated themselves. Even if Haring’s involvement with ACT UP was known, the general distaste and exclusion of celebrity activism by academia, his populist style, and his embrace of consumerist strategies might account for his absence in this history.165 Most 1980s AIDS and art historians and scholars have emphasized ACT UP and AIDS activist collectives in an effort to prioritize the disease rather than any one individual or spokesperson. Every cause taken up by Haring related to him personally, but his involvement with AIDS activism took on a new level of urgency with his life and the lives of close friends at stake. In just one year, Haring lost his assistant, his ex-lover Juan Dubose, and his friend Bobby Breslau, the manager of the Pop Shop, all who died from AIDS-related illnesses. He then lost close friends in the art world including Yves Arman, Andy Warhol, and Jean-Michel Basquiat to non-AIDS-related deaths. After that, almost daily, Haring went to funerals or hospitals. These experiences “made [him], in a way, more respectful of life and more appreciative of life than [he] ever, ever could have been.”166

The Legacy of Haring’s Activist Model Haring was not the only artist of the 1980s to integrate activist themes in his art, but he was one of the first to widely manufacture these images onto posters and merchandise. He was also the first artist to leverage his international fame to help the cause. While many of Haring’s strategies aligned with celebrity activism, he was not active in these issues for his own self-promotion.167 Rather, Haring’s ceaseless enthusiasm demonstrated a passion and an unrelenting commitment to social issues, and created images that unified events and movements. By combining his promotional skills, star power, merchandising, and a uniquely positive and inclusive style, he drew substantial attention and money to several causes in just a few years. In part through Haring’s influence, merchandising has become a conventional activist and political approach, used subsequently by groups such as the Woman’s Action Coalition, ADAPT, Greenpeace, Black Lives Matter, the Women’s March, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and by artists such as Shepard Fairey.

Activist Strategies

155

By the 1990s, AIDS awareness and treatment became more common, and many of those affected by the epidemic increasingly turned to reflection, grief, and recovery. Although Haring died on February 16, 1990, and was unable to witness this progress himself, he ensured that his fight against AIDS and other causes continued by establishing the Keith Haring Foundation in 1989.168 Facing his own mortality, Haring was less concerned about death than he was about his activist passions. Especially with children, he was worried that they would lack a positive role model to help them feel open, free to experiment, and discover their sexuality after a decade of AIDS.169 An eternal optimist, Haring saw death as a sort of opportunity, a liberating moment in which he could sum up the lessons of his life and devise a plan to guarantee that his philanthropic legacy would carry on without him.170

Notes 1. Keith Haring Journals (New York: Viking, 1996) 88. 2. While Haring is not featured in scholarship of the period, his activist work is scattered in archives and has been included in group exhibitions on activism, and in solo shows. My claim is directed toward the lack of attention Haring’s activism and activist art has received in academic and scholarly circles and writing. Haring’s activist art and political activities are not present in scholarly articles or books on art and activism, nor art and politics in the 1980s. For sources on activist art in general, see: Nina Felshin, But Is It Art? The Spirit of Art as Activism (Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1995); Grant Kester, Art, Activism and Oppositionality: Essays from Afterimage (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998); Nicolas Lampert, A People’s Art History of the United States: 250 Years of Activist Art and Artists Working in Social Justice Movements (New York: The New Press, 2013) 252–262; Claudia Mesch, Art and Politics: A Small History of Art for Social Change Since 1945 (New York: I. B. Tauris, 2013); T.V. Reed, The Art of Protest: Culture and Activism from the Civil Rights Movement to the Streets of Seattle (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2005); and, Gregory Sholette, Dark Matter: Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture (New York: Pluto, 2011). For sources on activism in the 1980s, see Jennifer Brier, Infectious Ideas: U.S. Political Responses to the AIDS Crisis (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2009); Douglas Crimp, Melancholia and Moralism: Essays on AIDS and Queer Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002); Dangerous Bedfellow Collective, Policing Public Sex: Queer Politics and the Future of AIDS Activism (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997); Kyle Harvey, American Anti-Nuclear Activism, 1975–90: The Challenge of Peace (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); Bradford Martin, The Other Eighties: A Secret History of America in the Age of Reagan (New York: Hill and Wang, 2011); Cindy Patton, Globalizing AIDS (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002); Robert Scheer, With Enough Shovels, Reagan Bush and Nuclear War (New York: Random House, 1982); Brett C. Stockdill, Activism Against AIDS: At the Intersections of Sexuality, Race, Gender, and Class (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003); Paula Treichler, How to Have Theory in an Epidemic: Cultural Chronicles of AIDS (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999); and Spencer Weart, Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988). For sources on art activism in the 1980s, see below: Tara Burk, “Radical Distribution: AIDS Cultural Activism in New York City, 1986–1992.” Space and Culture, vol. 18, no. 2 (2015): 436–449; Tamar W. Carroll, Mobilizing New York: AIDS, Antipoverty, and Feminist Activism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2015); Douglas Crimp, et al., AIDS: Cultural Analysis/ Cultural Activism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987); Douglas Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics (Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1990); Steven C. Dubin, Arresting Images: Impolitic Art and Uncivil Actions (New York: Routledge, 1992); Nina Felshin, Disarming Images: Art for Nuclear Disarmament (New York: Adama Books, 1984); Avram Finkelstein, After Silence: A History of AIDS Through Its Images (Berkeley,

156 Activist Strategies

3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12.

CA: University of California Press, 2018); Philip Glahn, “Counterpublic Art and Social Practice,” in The 1980s: A Critical and Transitional Decade, ed. by Kimberly R. Moffitt and Duncan A. Campbell (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011); Deborah B. Gould, Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s Fight Against AIDS (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009); Kenneth Mackinnon, The Politics of Popular Representation, Reagan, Thatcher, AIDS, and the Movies (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992); Richard Meyer, Outlaw Representation: Censorship & Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century American Art (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2002); Helen Molesworth, Johanna Burton, and Claire Grace, This Will Have Been: Art, Love, and Politics in the 1980s (Chicago, IL: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2012); Joshua Oppenheimer and Helena Reckitt, eds, Acting on AIDS: Sex Drugs & Politics (New York: Serpent’s Tail, 1997); Adam Rolston, Karrie Jacobs, and Steven Heller, Angry Graphics, Protest Posters of the Reagan/Bush Era (Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith Books, 1992); David Román, Acts of Intervention: Performance, Gay Culture, and AIDS (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998); Tommaso Speretta, Rebels Rebel: AIDS, Art, and Activism in New York, 1979–1989 (Ghent, Belgium: Mer. Paper Kunsthalle, 2014); Tina Takemoto, “The Melancholia of AIDS: Interview with Douglas Crimp,” Art Journal (Winter 2003): 80–90; and, Andrea Voucher, Muses from Chaos and Ash, AIDS Artists and Art (New York: Grove Press, 1993) 141–172. The major group exhibitions on AIDS art that include Haring are: Art Against AIDS: On the Road (1989), From Media to Metaphor: Art Against AIDS (1992), Art Against Aids (1993), Art in the Age of AIDS (1994), AIDS in New York: The First Years (2013), and Art, AIDS, America (2015). While Haring is in these exhibitions, often his paintings and not his ephemera or public activist work are featured. For example, two of Haring’s paintings and an altarpiece were included in the exhibition Art, AIDS, America, but he is virtually absent from its catalog. See Jonathan David Katz, “How AIDS Changed American Art,” in Art AIDS America (Tacoma, WA: Tacoma Art Museum, 2015) 24–45. His AIDS activist art and work is represented in a few archives that have significant holdings on the AIDS activist movement, such as the Visual AIDS Archive Project, the Fales Library and Special Collections, the New York Public Library Archives; and the Keith Haring Foundation’s Archives. In Fales and the NYPL, however, Haring materials are minimal and scattered across several different collections. Keith Haring Journals, 102. See Julian Cox, “Introduction, Social Justice and Public Display,” in Keith Haring: The Political Line, ed. by Dieter Buchhart (New York: Prestel, 2014) 30. See Ruth Bass, “Crack is Wack is Back,” ARTNews (December 1986) and Jim Nolan, “Summons Whacks Artist for his Anti-Crack Mural,” New York Post (July 1986), KHF Archives, 1986 press box. See Reebee Garofalo, Rockin’ the Boat: Mass Music and Mass Movements (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1992). The emergence of celebrity activism coincided with the increasingly commonplace idea of artist as celebrity. See Scott Rothkopf, “Made in Heaven: Jeff Koons and the Invention of the Art Star,” in Pop Life: Art in a Material World, ed. by Jack Bankowsky (London: Tate Publishing, 2009) 37. For a discussion of the rise of celebrities’ influence and power in the twentieth century, see Ellis Cashmore, Celebrity Culture (New York: Routledge, 2006) 218. Mark Wheeler, Celebrity Politics: Image and Identity in Contemporary Political Communications (Cambridge, MA: Polity, 2013) 34. Also see H. Louise Davis, “Feeding the World a Line?: Celebrity Activism and Ethical Consumer Practices from Live Aid to Product Red,” Nordic Journal of English Studies, vol. 9, no. 3 (November 2010): 93–101. Roopali Mukherjee and Sarah Banet-Weiser, Commodity Activism: Cultural Resistance in Neoliberal Times (New York: New York University Press, 2012) 93. Wheeler, Celebrity Politics: Image and Identity, 10. Scholar Douglas Kellner introduced the concept of the “media spectacle” that proposes that celebrities replaced the complexities of politics with surface ideas. Douglas Kellner, Cinema Wars: Hollywood Film and Politics in the Bush-Cheney Era (Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell, 2010) 123. Andrew Smith, “All in a Good Cause,” The Observer Magazine (January 22, 2002): 46–47.

Activist Strategies

157

13. Ibid., 47. 14. See Davis, “Feeding the World a Line?,” 113–115 and Stuart Hall, The Hard Road to Renewal (New York: Verso, 1988) 251–258. A part of the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies, Hall discussed the resistance of the Left in the United Kingdom to mega events and celebrity activism in this book. 15. Martin, The Other Eighties. 16. Ibid., 68–70. 17. Paula Span, “Graffiti’s Scrawl of Success, Drawing for Millions,” Washington Post (December 30, 1985): D1 and Valerie Gladstone, “Keith Haring: Art’s Bad Boy,” Daily News (March 1986). 18. Interview with Julia Gruen by author March 22, 2016. 19. Martin, The Other Eighties, 70. Another critical response against Live Aid can be found in Helen Fielding’s novel Cause Celeb. Helen Fielding, Cause Celeb (New York: Viking, 2001). 20. Quoted in Martin, The Other Eighties, 68. George Hackatt, “Banding Together for Africa,” Newsweek (July 15, 1985): 52. 21. Darrell Yates Rist, “Keith Haring,” The Advocate (August 5, 1986): 43. 22. See for example John Gruen, Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography (London: Thames and Hudson, 1992) 113–114, 152, 199, and 203. 23. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 25. 24. Kenny Scharf said Haring’s drawings were, “pretty blatant of people in power subjugating the weak, that was a big part of the messages.” Scharf in interview for documentary Keith Haring, The Message, Dir. Maripol. ARTE Creative, 2013, documentary. 25. Peter Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground (Berkeley, CA: Last Gasp of San Francisco, 1985) 107. 26. Keith Haring Journals, 217. 27. See Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1987) 4 and Ronald Berkman and Laura Kitch, Politics in the Media Age (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986) 41–46. 28. Berman and Kitch, Politics in the Media Age, 44. 29. See Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, 90–101. 30. See Berkman and Kitch, Politics in the Media Age, x, 12, 14, 315, and 322–323. 31. Darrell M. West and John M. Orman, Celebrity Politics (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall: 2003) 48. Also see Wheeler, Celebrity Politics: Image and Identity, 65. 32. Ibid., 64–65. 33. Ibid. 34. Jenny Holzer, Sign on a Truck, film (Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL: Video Data Bank, School of the Art Institute, 2007). See Lisa Phillips, et al., Image World: Art and Media Culture (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1989). 35. Harvey, American Anti-Nuclear Activism, 24. For information on the Three Mile Island disaster, see “Ten Years Later, Nuclear Ghosts Still Haunt Three Mile Island,” People Magazine (April 3, 1989): 64. 36. Keith Haring Journals, 25. 37. Ibid., 16. 38. Scheer, With Enough Shovels, 57–58. 39. Ibid., 58. 40. Ibid., 33–34. 41. Marc Gundel, Keith Haring, Short Messages: Posters (New York: Prestel, 2002) 12. 42. Weart, Nuclear Fear, 378. 43. Murrey Marder, “Carter to Inherit Intense Dispute on Soviet Intentions,” Washington Post (January 2, 1977). Also see Anne Hessing Cahn, Killing Detente: The Right Attacks the CIA (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998). 44 Op. cit. 45. Harvey, American Anti-Nuclear Activism, 42–45, 47. 46. Ibid., 44. 47. Natalie Phillips, The Pop Apocalyptic: Keith Haring’s and Kenny Scharf’s Remaking of Contemporary Religious Art, PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine, ProQuest/ UMI, 2009 (3360928): 70–78.

158 Activist Strategies 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

60. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84. 85. 86. 87. 88.

Weart, Nuclear Fear, 406. Ibid., 405–406. Phillips, The Pop Apocalyptic, 81–117. Ibid., 71–72 and Weart, Nuclear Fear, 391–406. Ibid., 402. Ibid., 363. Ibid., 387. Ibid., 370. “The Talk of the Town: Notes and Comment,” The New Yorker (November 21, 1983): 41. Weart, Nuclear Fear, 363–365 and 378. See for example Jeffrey Deitch, “Radioactive Child,” in Keith Haring (Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum, 1986) 12. Haring was also commissioned to create a poster for the Hiroshima Peace Concert entitled, Of Course We Prefer Peace. Kaoru Yanase, Nakamura Keith Haring Collection: Approaching Primeval Energy (Tokyo, Japan: Kazuo Nakamura, 2007) 73. Haring was also going to do a Hiroshima memorial mural, but he died before getting the chance to do so. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 187. Also see Keith Haring Journals, 221. Harvey, American Anti-Nuclear Activism, 1. 61. Belsito, Notes From the Pop Underground, 104. Tullio DeSantis, “Atomic Art a Noble Fusion,” Reading Eagle (June 20, 1982): 16. Disarmament Times, vol. IX, no. 4 (June 7, 1988). Mark Hertsgaard, “Nuclear Nothing,” KHF Archives, 1982–83 Press Box. Phyllis Plous, Neo-York: Report on a Phenomenon (Oakland: The Regents of the University of California, 1984) 8. Barry Blinderman, Kenny Scharf (Normal, IL: Illinois State University, 1998) 27. Felshin, Disarming Images. Ibid., 15. Ibid., 40, catalog no. 38. Ibid., 38, catalog no. 41. Ibid., 41, catalog no. 40. Ibid., 49, catalog no. 23. Ibid., 18 and 60, catalog no. 36. Simmon’s work was one in a series of tourist landmarks, including the Taj Mahal and the Eiffel Tower, in which Simmons’s dolls visit. The nuclear “vacation” site added a level of irony. Ibid., 31, catalog no. 19. For instance, see, “Beyond Anxiety,” The New York Times (June 13, 1982): 22. Phillips, The Pop Apocalyptic, 151. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 185. Rist, “Keith Haring.” See Voucher, Muses from Chaos and Ash, 93 and Shain Caley, “Keith Haring,” Flash Art, 153 (Summer 1990): 129. Also see Marilyn J. Fox, “Haring Mad Art for People,” Eagle Times (February 1990), KHF Archives, 1990 press box. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 39. National Press, 1981, KHF Archives, 1981 press box. Quote by John Giorno, in Guy Trebay, “American Graffiti: Uncoding Keith Haring’s Language of Signs,” The Village Voice (May 6, 1986): 37. Bruce D. Kurtz, “Haring’s Place in Homoerotic American Art,” in Keith Haring, ed. by Germane Celant (London: Prestel, 1997) 19. Also see Jerome de Noirmont Gallery, “Sex is Life is Sex,” KHF Website, www.haring.com/!/selected_writing/sex-is-life-is-sex, accessed December 14, 2016. Kurtz, “Haring’s Place in Homoerotic American Art,” 18. Also see Bill Arning, “Art History: Drawing the Line from Haring,” in Powerful Babies: Keith Haring’s Impact on Artists Today, ed. by Vera Colander (Stockholm, Sweden: Art and Theory, Stockholm, 2015) 43. “Carnal Knowledge,” The Advocate (August 23, 1994): 75. Keith Haring Journals, 266. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first reported on the disease in June 1981. Lawrence K. Alterman, “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals,” The New York Times (July 3, 1981).

Activist Strategies

159

89. Ibid. 90. Mackinnon, The Politics of Popular Representation, 151. By 1986, AIDS cases jumped to over 22,000 with 2,500 new diagnoses per month. 91. Susan Sontag, AIDS and Its Metaphors (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1989) 11. 92. Ibid., 14. 93. Ibid., 16. 94. Ibid., 26–29, 60–65. 95. Ibid., 63. 96. Jerry Falwell, “AIDS and the Judgment of God,” Liberty Report (April 1987): 2. 97. Crimp, AIDS: Cultural Analysis/ Cultural Activism, 7–11. 98. Speretta, Rebels Rebel, 133. At the AIDS committee’s first meeting, ACT UP protested in the front row. 99. Crimp, Melancholia, 69. 100. Quoted in Katharine Q. Seelye, “Helms Puts the Brakes to a Bill Financing AIDS Treatment,” The New York Times (July 5, 1995). 101. Speretta, Rebels Rebel, 12. 102. Allan H. Terl, AIDS and the Law: A Basic Guide for the Nonlawyer (Washington, DC: Hemisphere Pub. Corp., 1992) 78. Also see Speretta, Rebels Rebel, 166. Helm’s amendment was attached to a Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education bill that allocated about a billion dollars for AIDS research and education in 1988. Under his amendment, “most AIDS organizations providing education and services to gay men, the group most affected and at the highest risk, would no longer qualify for federal funding.” Crimp, Melancholia, 75. Helms created the amendment as a direct response to his distaste for the success of the New York’s Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the first anti-AIDS, nonprofit organization formed in 1982 in New York. See Edward I. Koch, “Senator Helms’s Callousness Toward AIDS Victims,” The New York Times (November 7, 1987). 103. Crimp, Melancholia, 77. 104. Koch, “Senator Helms’s Callousness.” 105. Patrick Buchanan, “Homosexuals and Retribution,” New York Post (May 24, 1983). 106. David Sheff,“Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” Rolling Stone (August 10, 1989): 102. 107. See Keith Haring Journals, 169 and 171. 108. Tom Kalin, “Alive with Pleasure: Public Service Advertising and AIDS Prevention Education,” Public Art Issues (Spring 1992). 109. Ibid. 110. Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics, 12. 111. Cindy Patton, Inventing AIDS (New York: Routledge, 1990) 35–37. Cindy Patton was the first lesbian to write a serious political analysis about the AIDS epidemic and coauthored one of the first safe sex manuals for women. See Patton and Janis Kelly, Making It: A Woman’s Guide to Sex in the Age of AIDS (Ithaca, NY: Firebrand Books, 1987). 112. See Treichler, How to Have Theory in an Epidemic, 13–41; and Raymond Smith, ed., Encyclopedia of AIDS: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Scientific Record (Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998) 17–18. 113. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 102. 114. Tullio DeSantis, “Through Art, Haring Confronted Death,” Eagle Times (February 25, 1990): D1, D4. 115. Op. cit. 116. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 102. Also see Jeannie Williams, USA Today (December 11–13, 1987), KHF Archives, 1987 press box. 117. James Servin, “Radiant Baby,” 7 Days: New York, vol. 3, no. 11 (March 21, 1990): 14. 118. Asen and Co. (February 23, 1990), KHF Archives, 1990 press box. 119. Sex on Campus: Sexually Transmitted Disease, Surviving the Epidemic of the 1980s: A Report from the Public Agenda Foundation, distributed by the College Satellite Network and the National Association for Campus Activities, KHF Archives, Keith Haring 1987 press box. 120. Haring’s interview was conducted by students Melissa Biggs and Jonathan Wright, “Keith Haring: Mastering the Moment,” Yale Vernacular: An Undergraduate Publication, vol. 1, no. 2 (March/April 1987) 4–9.

160 Activist Strategies 121. Scholastic Update, Incorporating Senior Scholastic, vol. 120, no. 4 (October 16, 1987), KHF Archives, 1987 press box. Haring did a lot of other work for Scholastic to introduce kids to art, which the Keith Haring Foundation has continued. 122. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 102. 123. See Robert Atkins and Thomas Sokolowsky, From Media to Metaphor: Art about AIDS (New York: Distributed Art Publishers, 1992) 36. “Devil sperm” was termed by Brooks Adam in, “Radiant Picturesque,” Art in America (April 1998): 130. Haring at times also called them “demon sperm.” Keith Haring Journals, xxiv. In addition to sperm corrupted by the AIDS virus, the motif could be a response to the religious right’s demonization of gay sex. The devil sperm motif shows up frequently in Haring’s gallery work by the end of the 1980s, including his Apocalypse series, made in collaboration with William Burroughs. 124. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 66 and Joel Rose, “In Memoriam: The Good Fight,” New York Magazine, vol. 3, no. 11 (March 5, 1990): 26, KHF Archives, 1990 press box. Haring also used Debbie Dick on stickers, T-shirts, and buttons to make fun of George H.W. Bush’s campaign for president, with the word-play: “Debbie Dick would be a better candidate than George Bush,” and “more balls than Bush.” Haring said about Debbie Dick: I wanted to make something that communicated the message with a sense of humor. The whole subject is so morbid and anti-humor. People have the hardest time just talking about it. They can’t get used to talking about condoms, never mind going out and buying condoms. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 65 125. Servin, “Radiant Baby,” 72. Another project similar in spirit to Haring’s work in the 1980s was produced by the Canadian artist collection, General Idea. They created their famous AIDS logo in 1987 in New York City for an AIDS fundraiser, in which they appropriated the Love image by Robert Indiana and substituted the letters with AIDS. They reproduced it thousands of times as a poster, postcard, merchandise, and postal stamps first in New York and then in cities throughout the world. Initially seen as a cheap dig at the 1960s = sex and love, and 1980s = sex and AIDS, General Idea instead wanted the image to humanize the disease, inspire compassion, and to remind society that those affected with AIDS were individuals who were humans loved by family and friends. Like Haring, pairing a taboo disease with a familiar image could help domesticate AIDS as a more approachable subject, and by repeating it incessantly through different media, it became ubiquitous, helping to raise awareness. 126. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 198. 127. Ibid., 198. This mural has since been moved and restored to a prominent area next to the Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art. He also painted a mural of “viral-type images” in Pasadena, California for the AIDS focused “Day without Art” in 1989 to raise awareness about the epidemic. See Andrew Yarro, “Artists Offer ‘Day Without Art’ to Focus on AIDS,” The New York Times (December 1989), KHF Archives, 1989 press box. 128. The Message, documentary. 129. Speretta, Rebels Rebel, 116–117. 130. Quoted by ACT UP member, Adam Rolston in Rolston, Jacobs, and Heller, Angry Graphics, 12. 131. Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics, 15. ACT UP merchandise brochures that include Haring’s merchandise are available in the ACT UP New York Records, Series V Financial Records 1989–1994, r. 17 b. 24 f. 4, New York Public Library. 132. Crimp, Melancholia, 69. 133. Speretta, Rebels Rebel, 123. 134. David Deitcher, “Gran Fury,” in Discourses: Conversations in Postmodern Art and Theory, ed. by Russell Ferguson (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990) 198. 135. Gran Fury’s image was also used as a billboard in the Art Against AIDS: On the Road billboard exhibition in San Francisco. In addition, the concept was produced as a commercial. 136. See Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics, 109. ACT UP was critical of the Times for downplaying the disease, often leaving it off the front page or distorting due to homophobia. See,

Activist Strategies

137. 138. 139.

140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155.

156. 157.

161

for instance, a Times editorial from June 29, 1989 titled, “Why Make AIDS Worse than It Is?” The New York Times (June 29, 1989): A22. Michael H. Hodges, “Art Goes to War,” New York Post (June 18, 1989): 34. “ACT UP Reports, New York, no. 4, June 1989,” box 9, folder 1, New York Public Library Archives. Haring is not acknowledged in these historical accounts of ACT UP. See Bradford, The Other Eighties, 171–188; Brier, Infectious Ideas; Burk, “Radical Distribution,” 436–449; Carroll, Mobilizing New York, 131–161; Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics; Finkelstein, After Silence; Gould, Moving Politics; Lampert, A People’s Art History, 252–262; Mesch, Art and Politics, 125–147; Meyer, Outlaw Representation; Richard Meyer, “This Is to Enrage You: Gran Fury and the Graphics of AIDS Activism,” in But Is It Art?; Reed, The Art of Protest, 179–217; Speretta, Rebels Rebel; and Takemoto, “The Melancholia of AIDS,” 82. In the NYPL digital archives, the Gran Fury and ACT UP collections have over 150 visual entries but do not include any of the graphics designed by Haring for ACT UP. See https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/search/index?utf8=%E2%9C%93&keywords=gran+ fury, accessed January 8, 2019. The Body Positive: A Magazine about HIV, vol. 2, no. 4 (May 1989). Photograph by Kevin B. Smith, KHF Archives, 1989 Press Box. Quoted in Servin, “Radiant Baby,” 14. ACT UP merchandise brochures available in the ACT UP New York Records, Series V Financial Records 1989–1994, r. 17 b. 24 f. 4, New York Public Library. David Deitcher, “Crossover Dreams: Sexuality, Politics, and the Keith Haring Line,” The Village Voice (May 15, 1990): 111. Atkins and Sokolowsky, From Media to Metaphor, 38 and Servin, “Radiant Baby,” 14. The poster was also displayed at Haring’s Kutztown memorial. Ibid., 16. Cynthia Chapman, ed., Art Against AIDS, San Francisco (New York: American Foundation for AIDS Research, 1989) 220. Ibid., 4 and 13. “What We Can Do,” Vogue (November 1990): 366. Servin, “Radiant Baby,” 14. Ibid. “AIDS Timeline—Keith Haring ACT UP Fundraising Letter, pgs. 1–6, Autumn 1989,” Group Material Archive (MSS # 215), Box 4, Folder 7, the Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. Ibid., 4. Ibid., 6. The letter was archived with Group Material timeline materials at the Fales Archive, op. cit., suggesting that it was included in their timeline exhibition. Keith Haring has not been cited as a part of Group Material’s AIDS Timeline in any other source. For citations of Kruger’s and Holzer’s influence, see Bradford, The Other Eighties, 183; Burk, “Radical Distribution,” 441; Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics, 18; Felshin, But Is It Art? 25; Katz, “How AIDS Changed American Art,” 37–38; and Speretta, Rebels Rebel, 162. See Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics; Jonathan Katz, “The Birth of the Queer T-Shirt,” Newsweek (January 20, 2014): 3 and 7; Lampert, A People’s Art History, 253 and 267; Molesworth, et al., This Will Have Been, 30; Román, Acts of Intervention, 7; and Takemoto, “The Melancholia of AIDS,” 83. Op. Cit. There are several books that take on AIDS activist art in the 1980s in which the influence of Crimp’s framing on collectives and noncelebrity artists is evident. For a direct example, see a collection of essays edited by Crimp, AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism. Crimp nor its 16 other contributors discuss or mention Haring. Also see; Tara Burk, “From the Streets to the Gallery: Exhibiting the Visual Ephemera of AIDS Cultural Activism,” Journal of Curatorial Studies, vol. 2, no. 1 (2013): 37; Burk, “Radical Distribution,” 440–442; Ann Cvetkovich, “Video, AIDS, and Activism,” in Kester, Art, Activism, and Oppositionality, 182–184; Finkelstein, After Silence; Mesch, Art and Politics, 139–140; “Interchange: HIV/AIDS and U.S. History,” Journal of American History, vol. 104, no. 2 (September 1, 2017): 433, 435–436; Reed, The Art of Protest, 180;

162 Activist Strategies

158. 159. 160. 161. 162.

163.

164. 165.

166. 167. 168. 169. 170.

Román, Acts of Intervention, 40–43, 50, and 68; Robert O. Self, All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy Since the 1960s (New York: Hill and Wang, 2012) 391–394; Speretta, Rebels Rebel (2014); and Takemoto, “The Melancholia of AIDS,” 81. Op sit. Also see Crimp, Melancholia, 166; “Interchange: HIV/AIDS and U.S. History,” 434 and 447; Dubin, Arresting Images; Gould, Moving Politics; Patton, Inventing AIDS, 139; and Román, Acts of Intervention, xxi. It was published a year later as a book: AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism, op. cit. Crimp, AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism, 6–7. Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics, 20. William Olander, “I Undertook This Project as a Personal Exploration of the Human Components of an Alarming Situation,” New Observations, no. 61 (October 1988): 8. Also see Michael Kimmelman, “Bitter Harvest: AIDS and the Arts,” The New York Times (March 19, 1989): 1 and 6. Ibid. For the best examples that focus on collectives such as ACT UP and Gran Fury, see Bradford, The Other Eighties, 171–188; Burk, “From the Streets,” 32–53; and “Radical Distribution,” 436–449; Crimp, AIDS Demo Graphics; Felshin, But Is It Art? 11; Finkelstein, After Silence; Lampert, A People’s Art History, 253 and 252–262; Speretta, Rebels Rebel; and Stockdill, Activism Against AIDS, xi. Quoted in Speretta, Rebels Rebel, 60. Press release, Group Material, “Caution! Alternative Space!” 1981. When individual artists are discussed within AIDS activism, authors tend to privilege artists who respond with anger or emotion to the epidemic, producing difficult art. Relative to Haring, David Wojnarowicz is cited in activist histories more often likely because of his works’ emotional and controversial content. See Katz, “How AIDS Changed American Art,” 44; Gould, Moving Politics, 1–2; Dubin, Arresting Images, 209, 212–219; Meyer, Outlaw Representation, 243–264 and 277–278; and Voucher, Muses from Chaos and Ash, 156–157. Generally, like Haring, celebrities from the music and film industries are not cited in AIDS activist histories. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 66. Haring ACT UP Fundraising letter, op. cit. Jade Dellinger, “Keith Haring: Art and Commerce the Pop Shop (1986–2005),” Tampa Museum Catalog Essay, 2006, reproduced on KHF Website, www.haring.com/!/selected_ writing/keith-haring-art-and-commerce#.UZlq1cu9KSM, accessed January 11, 2013. Sheff, “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation,” 102. Ibid.

5

The Post–Pop Shop Its Life After Haring’s Death

“My immortality is guaranteed, in a certain sense, the mission has already been accomplished.” —Keith Haring1

Haring and his work have often, quite appropriately, been characterized as quintessentially of the 1980s, an embodiment of the decade’s street art, hip-hop, and urban energy. However, his career was also ahead of its time in several important, but still unacknowledged, ways. While Haring may not have been appreciated by art museums in his lifetime, he has received considerable recognition in a series of retrospectives in the 1990s and 2000s.2 Haring’s Pop Shop has also set important precedents in the widespread practice of artist foundations’ fundraising by licensing an artist’s work posthumously. It is now relatively common for artist foundations, and well-known contemporary artists, to license or reproduce art onto items for popular consumption—his foundation being one of the first in the early 2000s.3 These projects have fed the abundant demand of an audience who has learned to express their love for art through consumerism and apparel.4 Jeffrey Deitch’s 1989 statement was prescient: The major issue in the art world of the next decade is very likely to be the conflict between those who prefer the traditional, old fashioned art world, with a small audience, and serious galleries and museums . . . and then the constituency with Keith Haring, who is very much the leader of, in wanting to expand the art impulse into department stores, streets, and clothes that people wear.5 Manifested into a range of iterations, art’s connections to common commercialism have become a norm in art partly because Haring paved the way. Before he died, Haring established the Keith Haring Foundation (KHF) in 1989. He wanted to ensure that his art and philanthropy would carry on, and so, he gave it a mandate to “sustain, expand, and protect the legacy of Keith Haring, his art, and his ideals,” as well as support “not-for-profit organizations that assist children” and “organizations involved in education, research, and care related to AIDS.”6 Directed by his assistant of six years, Julia Gruen, and a board of close friends and family, the foundation has continued Haring’s legacy in several ways: through catalogs, exhibitions, maintaining his personal archive, valuations, lending, educational programming,

164 The Post–Pop Shop and charitable grants. The KHF also kept the Pop Shop open from 1990 until 2005, collectively taking over its responsibilities and logistics. The Pop Shop lived on in other iterations as well. It has existed as an online platform up until the present day—run by an independent party—and has been restaged in temporary pop-up shops around the world.7 While the full ramifications of the shop have yet to be studied in art historical scholarship, it has been to an extent positioned as an art project within museum exhibitions. Even at times, its products have been displayed in glass vitrines like Pop and Fluxus multiples. Haring’s merchandise, however, still exists and functions outside of the gallery, with thousands buying and using his products daily.8 Pursuing the same multitiered market strategy as Haring, the KHF has adapted his Pop Shop and its products to work within a new cultural context, continuing Haring’s populist and activist efforts to the best of their abilities and judgment.

The Posthumous Pop Shop Without much stipulation or guidance in Haring’s will, the Pop Shop remained unchanged in the first few years after Haring’s death, standing as a nostalgic memorial that many came to visit and pay their respects.9 In the mid-1990s, the KHF commissioned the interior designer Michael Andaloro of Andaloro Associates Inc. to drastically redesign the shop into a more standard retail experience, in an attempt to make it more financially viable.10 The front windows were expanded so customers could see the interior from the street, and dressing rooms were installed. They removed the curved wall to increase the ratio of retail-to-storage space and discontinued the Brookstone-like ordering system by stocking inventory on the floor, housed in an assortment of new shelving and rack displays (Figure 5.1). Except for a part of its ceiling that was preserved (and now on permanent display at the New York Historical Society), surfaces that still had Haring's original marks were painted black prior to dismantling them to avoid art-savvy scavengers. In their place, they placed glass and whitewashed steel display cases, a modular display system of shelves and hanging rods, and new lighting. The shop had become, as one news outlet described it, “a full-fledged retail shop, where ’80s street art meets ’90s retailing.”11 Along the same lines, the foundation redesigned the Pop Shop’s brochures and order catalogs with professional models and neatly lined-up products, missing the dynamism, fun, and casualness of Haring’s original designs. They also systematized the Pop Shop’s advertising, going beyond Haring’s billboards and occasional print advertisements to buying regular ads in the popular press and marketing products through strategic placements.12 Taking a much more conventional approach, the Pop Shop in the 1990s lost Haring’s personal fun touches and his creative approach to commercialism. It no longer was an experience that combined everyday retail shopping, art viewing in a gallery, and going to a nightclub. Also, the shop was less effective without the added draw of Haring’s live performative presence, which had activated the space.13 More generally, the enterprise suffered from the financial deficit left by the absence of Haring’s steady stream of income from new gallery works, which had kept the shop afloat in his lifetime. But in their efforts to recoup those funds by revamping the shop, the

The Post–Pop Shop

165

Figure 5.1 Page from Interior Design Magazine featuring Pop Shop redesign in the 1990s. Source: Photograph of Pop Shop in article by Steven Mays. Abby Bussel, “’80s Redux,” Interior Design Magazine (April 1997): 196. Photograph of page by author from the Keith Haring Foundation Archives. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

KHF did not intend to destroy the Pop Shop’s original experience, or even aim to convert it from a money pit into a gold mine. They rather endeavored to keep the store open, despite encountering several challenges—and were able to do so for 15 years. Though, in the end, it became a financial burden to the foundation, therefore depleting resources from Haring’s charitable causes.14 The foundation closed the shop in 2005. Pragmatically, Gruen explained that “it’s simply inappropriate for us to manage a business that has such losses.”15 A few at the foundation fought to keep the store open—notably Gruen—yet the foundation’s board and the Haring estate ultimately voted to shut it down. The outward explanation was that it was too expensive, and no one wanted to deal with the nitty-gritty of running a retail space.16 But some have speculated that the board believed the Pop Shop cheapened Haring’s fine-art practice, a position, if true, that fundamentally misunderstands the shop’s goals, philosophy, and legacy.17 It also misses the fact that his merchandise strengthened his reputation,

166 The Post–Pop Shop and therefore the market for his gallery works, ultimately adding value. In any case, Gruen assumed that Haring would have moved on if he were still alive, taking on new and more exciting projects.18 Without Haring and his unlimited enthusiasm and renewable revenue stream, in addition to the transformation of SoHo into an upscale shopping district with inflated rents, the Pop Shop could not remain open indefinitely. Lacking any real support in the 1990s by his board, the KHF, or the art establishment generally, it is quite amazing that the shop remained open for as long as it did. To most in the art world, and in the popular press, the closing of the shop generated little fanfare.19 But according to one news article, Haring fans produced an outcry when it closed, prompting the KHF to create an online forum as a kind of memorial (that no longer exists).20 Undercutting the actual distress by the public, only reactions by one or two fans were published for posterity. One said, “It is sad . . . it’s almost like a good friend is dying, I cried when I got the email saying it was closing.”21 Yet, even though the Pop Shop closed, the production of Haring merchandise eventually continued. Shifting to a more impactful strategy—with their stamp of authorship—the KHF decentralized costs by adapting the Pop Shop into a licensing model, transferring the production and distribution of Haring’s merchandise to third parties. Without rent, staff, or production costs, this model has proved to be much more financially sustainable than a brick-and-mortar store and offered the ability to reach almost anyone around the world. It also allowed the KHF to become a viable nonprofit institution.

Keith Haring Foundation (KHF): A Licensing Legacy The nonprofit KHF was a direct result of Haring's vision for philanthropy, and not a result of his Pop Shop. But to fulfill his charitable mission without huge cash allowances, the foundation turned to retail licensing Haring’s designs as a source of revenue in the early 2000s. This significantly lessened their overhead costs and countered the loss of Haring’s renewable art production. Gruen explained, We are self-supporting and generate income from licensing our copyrighted images and from the judicious sale of select artworks. . . . Contrary to what people think, when Keith died, he wasn’t rich . . . so the amount of philanthropy the Foundation can do is entirely dependent on the good management of our assets.22 And so, in a turn of fate, the Pop Shop, unprofitable during Haring’s lifetime, provided the model for his foundation to be financially independent and to further the legacy of his career and humanitarian work, while also continuing to offer a broad audience an accessible and affordable alternative to art ownership. In turn, licensing agreements have become a driving financial force for several other non-profit artist foundations. In the 1960s, a number of American artists began to establish private foundations to sponsor their favorite charitable and creative causes and to control the supply and demand of works left in their estate, including Jasper Johns, John Cage, and Mark Rothko.23 In the 1970s, Congress altered tax law to allow artists to deduct an artwork’s market value from their taxes upon donation, meaning that the best way

The Post–Pop Shop

167

to protect an artist’s work from heavy taxation after their death was to donate it to a charitable foundation established in a will.24 This, along with the added benefits of prolonging an artist’s legacy by exerting control over their work and helping a wide range of needy causes, caused artist foundations to become a new norm by the 1980s.25 In the 1990s and 2000s, artist foundations exploded in response to the massive growth of the contemporary art market, in which posthumous artist estates became much more valuable.26 By 2011, close to 300 artist foundations held $2.7 billion dollars in combined assets.27 In 2008, the 30 most active artist foundations disbursed $52.5 billion in grants.28 These foundations tend to have two goals: protect and further the artist’s historical legacy, and give grants and donations to groups in need.29 The KHF is by no means the largest artist foundation. In 2014, the KHF had around $46.76 million in total assets and had given away $1.46 million in donations.30 By comparison, in 2014, the Andy Warhol Foundation, established in 1987, held assets totaling $343.4 million and donated $11.86 million.31 Still, in the past 26 years, the KHF has made a considerable impact, awarding over 700 grants to hundreds of organizations that dovetail with Haring’s original social and political concerns. These include antidrug programs, AIDS awareness and prevention, education and social relief programs for disadvantaged kids, environmental causes, and arts education.32 In education, the foundation has instituted youth and child programing through various exhibitions and events and has compiled online lesson-plan databases by schools and teachers from around the world.33 It started the website www.haringkids.com in 1998 geared toward K–12 teaching programming, populated by teachers from around the world. Furthermore, grants to several museums have supported their education departments and community programming.34 For health initiatives, the KHF partnered with Planned Parenthood in 2015 to create a Project Street Beat Mobile Medical Unit, a bus covered with colorful Haring figures that brings primary health care and testing directly to disadvantaged neighborhoods.35 In 2010, the foundation began a five-year partnership with the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, with a grant of $250,000 to fund a food pantry for people with AIDS. More generally, they often leverage Haring’s activist and political designs to raise money and awareness for a variety of issues.36 Outside of philanthropy, the foundation has helped shape and document the history of Haring’s work by maintaining his archive in New York, holding a collection of his art, publishing a catalog raisonné in 2008, and being actively involved in Haringrelated exhibitions and programs.37 To fund these programs and grants, the KHF has established several licensing partnerships since the early 2000s—contracts that have drastically expanded their budget. In 2001, for example, it had $2.649 million in total assets. By 2015, the KHF’s assets swelled to $31.8 million, with $12.9 million in total revenue, allowing the foundation to give away $2.68 million that year.38 In the late 1980s, foundations rarely licensed an artist’s work for mass merchandising, since it was perceived to hurt his or her fine-art reputation.39 However, by the early 2000s, art licensing became very popular—with the KHF leading the trend.40 In 2003, the KHF partnered with the art licensing company Artestar to license Haring’s designs to retail companies. The man who runs Artestar, David Stark, was also the president and a board member of the KHF in the 1990s and had worked with Haring in his studio in 1989.

168 The Post–Pop Shop Considering this relationship, along with Haring’s already established precedent in producing his own products, it is no surprise that Haring (via the KHF) was one of Artestar’s first clients.41 Artestar has since carved itself a global niche in the artistbranded and licensing market.42 Through Artestar, the KHF also has partnered with higher-end luxury brands, such as fashion designers Patricia Field, Jeremy Scott, Tommy Hilfiger, Nicholas Kirkwood, Joyrich, Comme des Garcons, and Lucien Pellat-Finet.43 While this might appear to distort Haring’s original populist intentions, it does not betray his original multitiered commercial strategy, that is, to participate in several markets simultaneously. In his lifetime, Haring sold his work in the exclusive high-end art market through art galleries, and collaborated with fashion designers like Stephen Sprouse, Vivienne Westwood, and Malcolm McLaren. Nonetheless, the KHF has focused most of their licensing efforts on mass everyday consumer markets. The international clothing store Uniqlo, established in Japan in 1988, has had one of the longest partnerships with the Haring brand since 2003, selling a variety of products like clothing, accessories, and skateboards (Figure 5.2). The partnership with Uniqlo is especially appropriate given the positive reception of Haring in Japan, the Tokyo Pop Shop, and the exhibitions of fine art in Japanese department stores. In other collaborations, Donna Karan New York (DKNY) released a perfume in 2013

Figure 5.2 Uniqlo, Keith Haring T-shirts and merchandising, March 2013, in New York. Source: Photograph by author. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

The Post–Pop Shop

169

decorated with Haring’s design in their “Delicious Art Collection.” A Haring animation introduced the product with the tagline, “ART FOR EVERYDAY. ART FOR EVERYONE .  .  . TURNING DKNY INTO AN EVERYDAY WORK OF ART.”44 Haring’s designs also have adorned Tenga sex eggs and toys, Samsonite luggage and locks, Clarisonic face buffers, Alien Workshop skateboards, Johnnie Walker bottles, Adidas sneakers, Izola shower curtains, TOMS shoes, and Case Scenario phone accessories—to name just a few examples (Figure 5.3). These products, not designed by Haring personally but using his work, have allowed new audiences to come “to his work for the first time fresh.”45 More importantly, the KHF have used proceeds from these business collaborations to fund their charitable programs, furthering Haring’s mission. In doing so, they have continued Haring’s Pop Shop model. But unavoidably, there are some concessions and compromises. These products are no longer sold in an alternative space under Haring’s strict control, and while the KHF does not profit from these product sales, their business partners do. Consequently, the trade-off in continuing this lucrative, yet charity-driven approach is to allow corporations to profit from Haring’s creative commercial strategies and the popularity that has kept him in demand.

Figure 5.3 Keith Haring, assorted posthumous products and merchandise created through licensing agreements. Source: Photograph by author. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

170 The Post–Pop Shop Not every artist foundation could follow this model. Extensive merchandising is only an option if an artist’s work is already well liked among a large audience. Haring had cultivated and promoted the mass appreciation of his work, which was then bolstered by his rise in both the art market and art museum in the 1990s and 2000s. His style had become widely recognizable and well liked, and because of this, millions of people still want to buy products with his designs, repeatedly added to ever-new products.46 And now, this audience’s participation in the consumer culture of the Haring brand takes on a new dimension. Whether they are aware of Haring’s activist endeavors or not, buying these products ultimately funds the KHF. This means that the masses now sustain a large part of his philanthropic legacy, not art collectors or museum boards—a suitable implementation of Haring’s original populist and activist strategies. Other artist foundations have followed Haring’s and the KHF’s lead, most notably Andy Warhol’s foundation.47 Established in 1989 in accordance with Warhol’s will, the foundation only passively made a few formal licensing arrangements. This was in line with Warhol’s actions in his lifetime, who had only worked with a couple of product manufacturers and never contracted any formal licenses.48 In 1993, the Warhol Foundation directors “furiously debated whether to market Andy Warhol bedding,” worried that it might cheapen his art and instead focused on raising money for their causes through art sales and authentication services.49 By the early 2000s, however, after losing a considerable amount of money in legal battles over valuations (their assets dropped from $20 million in 1991 to $5.7 million in 1994), they altered their approach and drastically increased their licensing.50 Their marketing partner even won “Best Corporate Brand License of the Year” in 2003 by the Licensing Industry Merchandising Association.51 By 2011, they disbanded their authentication board (with the KHF and Jean-Michel Basquiat Foundation following suit) and liquidated their art holdings in order to focus on licensing as their main source of revenue.52 Now their licensed products run into the thousands, referred to as a “merchandising bonanza,” bringing in $2.5 million in 2009 (compared to $400,000 in 1997).53 At first, KHF’s licensing happened more slowly and organically without any set guidelines, other than the mantra “what would Keith have done.”54 In the last few years, however, the KHF has since matched the more aggressive initiatives of the Warhol Foundation, increasing its licensing partnerships exponentially. Though, to be fair, what-Keith-would-have-done is not a straightforward benchmark to measure. As demonstrated, Haring’s feelings toward commercialism were far from reconciled, and his often-contradictory statements and actions left ample room for interpretation.55 Indeed, in his lifetime, Haring avoided outsourcing the production of his work or the franchising of his Pop Shop and turned down several licensing opportunities to retail his designs. He said, “Look, if I really wanted to get rich I could have signed with Sears or J.C. Penney like they were asking me to do. . . . I know how to play the retail game.”56 Haring balked at the idea of putting his work on items like sheets and pillowcases (which are now available) because he still wanted it to be an art statement.57 When he did license his work to third parties, it was mainly for a small edition of products, only sold for a limited time or for a special occasion. The only licensing deal he made with a commercial brand to be produced in bulk was with Swatch.58 Nevertheless, in deciphering Haring’s decisions retrospectively, it is important to understand his motivations and insecurities. He did not seriously pursue licensing because he was a compulsive micro-manager and perfectionist and was worried that cheap imitations would hurt his reputation.59 To him, maintaining the quality of his merchandise was damage control: to keep his career within the realm of art and to preserve his

The Post–Pop Shop

171

credibility as a fine artist. In his words, “I’ve continually turned things down . . . because I’d lose control. And it would start to become whatever the other thing is. And whatever it is, it’s not art.”60 Yet, even more so than his reputation, Haring was dedicated to accessibility and his audience, pushing him to constantly expand and adjust his approach in response to changing conditions, even when he was hesitant to do so. This is evident in his transition from his subway drawings to merchandise, for example, in which he was at first reluctant to open the Pop Shop but did so anyway, since he felt it was what his work had to become.61 Therefore, his ambivalence was flexible in response to changing circumstances, especially if a decision served his overarching populist drive. And in the 2000s, a lot of circumstances changed. As Gruen pointed out, “when Keith died there was no Internet, no cell phones, no social media and in many respects, the world wasn’t like it is today.”62 In this new environment, Haring likely would have evolved his stance and condoned the production of his work by other companies. He’d recognized that the KHF’s merchandising model has continued his populist and activist efforts in good faith and intentions, accommodating the new cultural context of the 21st century. Furthermore, though Haring’s reservations with commercial projects largely had to do with his insecurity over his status as an artist, in the years since his death, his standing in the art world has been ensured. His work is in almost every major museum collection, he has been the subject of several critically acclaimed retrospectives and documentaries, and scholars keep finding new angles to explore and appreciate in his work. Thus, Haring’s main motivation for rejecting licensing—to protect his status— is no longer an obstacle. The restaging of his Pop Shop in museum exhibitions in particular has demonstrated this growing acceptance.

The Pop Shop Restaged To an extent, the art establishment that once ignored the Pop Shop as serious art has since added it to the narrative of Haring’s career. Meaning that, similar to Haring’s duel distributional approach in the 1980s, the shop has since been restaged in both art and everyday consumer spaces. However, while the Pop Shop has received a certain level of art historical legitimization, it did not receive recognition by a museum until 2006 and still has not garnered attention relative to its impact in his career or in art history.63 Haring’s first retrospectives in the 1990s, Future Primeval in 1990 at the Tampa Museum of Art and Keith Haring at the Whitney Museum of American Art in 1997, emphasized his earlier subway work and paintings and did not include the Pop Shop.64 Likewise, exhibitions such as Keith Haring 1978–1982 in 2012, the Political Line in 2014–15, and Keith Haring in 2019 did not take up the Pop Shop or Haring’s merchandising as significant areas of consideration. The 1997 Whitney exhibition provides a good case study to understand the Pop Shop’s at best lukewarm reception. Whitney curators initially had included a “Pop Shop kiosk” in its floor plan but, after meetings with the KHF, decided not to go through with it.65 An internal memo explained that after a meeting with Gruen and David Stark, “The consensus was that having a product cart on or close to the exhibition floor might appear a little heavy handed and tacky. Given the more serious nature of the show, it might send the wrong sort of message.”66 Instead, the museum sold Pop Shop items as well as a product line created in collaboration with the foundation in the lobby and in their Store Next Door. Opened in a house next to the museum in the late 1980s, the Whitney’s Store Next Door was an early iteration of the expanding museum gift shop. Still, even by the 1990s, the Store Next Door sold mainly furniture and household items that reflected

172 The Post–Pop Shop the museum’s tastes, not art reproductions or items related to its collection. While artistinspired merchandise like Haring’s may be commonplace in museum gift shops now, in the 1990s its inclusion would have been novel (and not an intuitive) choice.67 Although this decision was made behind closed doors, it is clear that the KHF and the Whitney felt that this decision protected Haring’s reputation, sharing his own ambivalence toward the label “commercial artist.” Yet, in this value judgment, they perpetuated the insinuation that common commercialism taints a fine artist’s career.68 Like Haring himself, they succumbed to the same art-world expectations and criticisms and failed to see the Pop Shop’s worth, or the irony in their decision. Haring’s projects, like the Pop Shop, were significant precisely because they upended the illusionary high/low dynamic in fine-art culture and leveled the forms that art could take to enable accessibility. Omitting the Pop Shop from his exhibition—and calling it tacky—reinforced this outmoded hierarchy and missed an opportunity to illustrate the full spectrum and originality of his art practice. Instead of heavy handed, the kiosk would have fit perfectly with the exhibition’s atmospheric installation of hip-hop music, black lights, and brightly colored walls, display techniques that attempted to capture the original nonart fun (not serious) context for many of his original works. Haring may not have exhibited his merchandise or restaged his shop in museums or galleries in his lifetime, but he contextualized the project as a work of art. Any retrospective of his work should include it, especially since it spanned such a sustained period of his career. When the Pop Shop has been exhibited in a meaningful capacity, it has been well received. When the Whitney exhibit traveled to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, for example, it added a small working Pop Shop booth within the exhibit that was staffed and “featur[ed] a cheerful sign insisting on ‘cash only’ transactions.”69 One critic from California did not particularly like the show, calling the curatorial ideas “gimmicks . . . stagy and forced” but considered the kiosk to be the most authentic inclusion: “Only the Pop Shop . . . feels absolutely right.”70 He continued, In what surely ranks as a museum first, the Haring exhibition store is not located at the show’s exit—it’s . . . part of the curatorial display. . . . One of the most radically appealing features of Haring’s work . . . is that, artistically speaking, no qualitative difference separated a Haring canvas priced in the tens of thousands of dollars from a Haring lapel button selling for 65 cents.71 While no museum has completely restaged a full-scale, functioning Pop Shop installation within an exhibition space, a few institutions have included nonfunctional installations.72 Most notably, versions were recreated in the Tampa Museum of Art in 2006, the Tate Modern in 2009, and the Nakamura Keith Haring Collection of Tokyo in 2009. The Tampa Museum of Art reconstructed the shop, painting walls based on templates provided by the KHF, and displaying vintage objects in vitrines. Tampa curator Jade Dellinger wanted to create a fully functioning Pop Shop; however, because offcial product inventory was sold out or scarce, the museum presented the shop as a historical installation.73 They did, though, sell Haring merchandise in the museum’s gift shop by buying up product from other museum stores. This approach was similar to Nakamura’s, which also displayed a historic, noninteractive installation. Interestingly, Nakamura published a book that was a hybrid exhibition catalog and retail catalog, combining essays and order forms.74 In a partial display, the New York Historical Society rotated Pop Shop items in a rotating small vitrine exhibit from 2012 to 2013 and permanently installed a section of the original New York Pop Shop ceiling over their admissions desk (Figure 5.4).75

The Post–Pop Shop

173

Figure 5.4 Pop Shop ceiling, 1986. Removed from original Pop Shop in 2005; gifted to and installed in the foyer of the New York Historical Society. Source: Photograph by author. Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

174 The Post–Pop Shop The Tate Modern in London is the largest institution to reconstruct the Pop Shop and the only major museum to ever include a display of it in a group show, Pop Life (Figure 5.5). This means that 20 years after its inception, the Pop Shop was historically contextualized—long overdue—within the legacy of Pop art. The assistant curator, Nicholas Cullinan, described its installation: We worked closely with the Haring estate on making the most faithful translation of the original Pop Shop. . . . We wanted it to be a living, breathing entity, so we have Keith Haring’s mix tapes playing and we recreated the mural . . . [and] mixed in original objects from the Pop Shop with current versions sold online. It’s a mix between the archival and the commercial.76 The containers from the Pop Shop in Tokyo were also exhibited in a similar, decontextualized way. They were sold to art publisher George Mulder, who exhibited them empty in 2005 on a beach near Saint Tropez, France, along with an outdoor show of Haring’s sculpture.77 He also showed the containers in 2009 at the Beaux-Arts de Mons in Belgium and in 2013 in Paris at the Musée d’Art Moderne de Paris and Le Centquatre with a few art books on display and merchandise behind glass, as well as Haring products sold in the museum’s gift shop.78 In these instances, the Tokyo shop’s shell was exhibited as an immersive sculpture, divorced from its original setting in a Japanese city, its original inventory and display, and its function as a working store. When displayed outside, without the mediation of a museum setting, the original

Figure 5.5 Keith Haring, Pop Shop installation from the Pop Life: Art in a Material World exhibition, Tate Modern; October 1, 2009–January 17, 2010. Source: Tate Photography; Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation. Photo © Tate.

The Post–Pop Shop

175

historical signifcance of the containers could not be communicated. And ironically, its visitors were the rich who frequented the beaches in the south of France, in complete contradiction to the shop’s original populist grounds. Once more, the shop did not interact directly with its audience through interpersonal, everyday consumption but became a representation that alluded to its once dynamic life. This is probably the best-case scenario, since recapturing the original experience of the shop in a museum is impossible. All non-site-specific or durational art that enters museum space loses its original physical, conceptual, and historical contexts. As a temporal and performative experience, activated by Haring’s presence and reliant on real-time transactions and interactions, the Pop Shop’s restaging in museums will always be imperfect. But, at the very least, its history and its legacy for contemporary art could be better appreciated and contextualized. In his essay for the Pop Life catalog, Cullinan placed the Pop Shop in a shaky timeline with two other disparate artist-run projects: Sarah Lucas and Tracey Emin’s, The Shop (1993) and Damien Hirst’s self-administered two-day auction at Sotheby’s (2008), awkwardly categorizing the three as “service oriented industry” artists from the United States and England.79 While they were all artist-run actions, and each engaged explicitly with consumer culture in varying degrees, these other examples differed from the Pop Shop drastically in terms of geography, social and historical context, concept, intention, and execution. Lucas and Emin’s shop evoked a more playful and irreverent tone, with handmade multiples that critiqued and satirized British contemporary art, culture, and consumerism—more like the stores in the East Village in the early 1980s. Hirst’s auction did not involve the selling of any merchandise or multiples and, instead, better represents the spectacle of the contemporary art market at the pinnacle of an artist celebrity’s financial power.80 It should also be noted that as Haring’s products have been featured more and more in museums, they have also entered another art-legitimizing context: the art market—ironically, a place they were meant to bypass. While still relatively cheap compared to multiples from Claes Oldenburg’s store or the Fluxus shops, which can sell from $10,000 to over $100,000 at art auctions, original stock from the Pop Shop has steadily increased in price.81 Still, it is significant that several items from the Pop Shop have been included in art auctions (and therefore framed as art) at Christie’s, Sotheby’s, Doyle Auctions, and Phillips.82 These auctions and exhibitions demonstrate that the Pop Shop has, to an extent, been accepted as a serious and valuable venture. Then again, they also prove that these objects typically fall into one of two categories: relegated to the gift shop or displayed behind glass. In addition, contrary to their populist purpose, original objects from the Pop Shop have become scarcer and more valuable over time. The difference from Fluxus and Pop art multiples, however, is that the production of new Haring merchandise continues online and through retail stores, increasing the supply to keep prices lower and affordable. Therefore, unlike Oldenburg’s Store or the Fluxus shops, which are now firmly institutionalized, the Pop Shop straddles both worlds.

A Changing Rapport: Consumer Culture and Art Since the 1980s, more and more artist foundations and artists have expanded their operations to include more affordable art options like art merchandise for a larger audience. This trend is in part because of the increasing acceptance of common commercialism in

176 The Post–Pop Shop art, driven by a sustained acceleration of the economy in the 1990s and early 2000s, and a recognition of the middle class’s economic power. Stimulated by globalization and new technology like the Internet, this booming, neoliberal period saw unconstrained capital growth and the rise of the megacorporation, bringing along with it an extraordinary escalation of both mass consumerism and the art market. To be sure, the previously spectacular auction records of the 1980s paled in comparison to the billions spent on art in the 2000s. In 2007, for instance, Christie’s alone sold $6.3 billion worth of art.83 Art fairs and biennials became a mainstay, many new art museums and galleries emerged, art celebrities gained new financial authority, and more so than ever, the art market became the reserve of the very rich. According to Hal Foster, our “fully neoliberal economy produced even more fortunes for a smaller percentage of rich individuals,” who among other power investments, such as politics, media, and real estate, spent their money on an “irrationally exuberant” art market.84 As the wealth gap widened, the art market became “highly exclusive; in fact a tight system of grand patronage has returned.”85 At the same time, art viewership attracted the masses on a grand scale. Art museums grew larger, more spectacular, and more consumer and experience oriented. In turn, artists constructed ever more immersive, crowd-drawing installations.86 In the 1990s, the art world was still viewed as an elitist, closed subculture, though by 2004, due to crowd-pleasing art exhibitions, art fairs, and celebrity artists, contemporary art gained a newfound popularity.87 Many art fans, who could not afford to own contemporary artwork, learned to engage with it and express their admiration and experiences through museum gift shops, art merchandise, photography, and digital reproductions. Youth, in particular, who grew up consumer-oriented and may have no interest in contemporary art, were willing to learn about art through T-shirts and sneakers.88 In 2009, Isabelle Graw charted the changing perceptions of the art market and commercialism at length in her book High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture and argued that “market euphoria” had become socially acceptable, both in popular culture and among art insiders.89 Up through the 1980s, most in the art world were hostile toward anything resembling commercialism. Yet, by the mid1990s, artists who achieved financial success were “no longer eyed with suspicion. On the contrary, attention was lavished on them from all sides.”90 Before, the art market was seen as a means of doing business, but over time, its status “gradually elevated to that of a normative authority.”91 By the early 2000s, even the price of an artwork alone could establish an artist’s credibility.92 Damien Hirst, for example, became ultrafamous after collector Steven Cohen bought The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1992) for $8 million in 2004. The excessive amount of money effectively validated Hirst’s career, prompting more institutional and scholarly interest in his work. In the same vein, many professionals of the art world have come to appreciate and even endorse explicit commerciality in art. Part of this shift is a generational backlash: many younger art writers have pushed back against the demonization of the market in art criticism, denouncing these views as “old-school Leftist.”93 This attitude is also a symptom of the general decreased status of highly specialized art criticism and a decline in critical thinking and theory in art writing. In his 2015 book, Bad New Days: Art, Criticism, Emergency, Foster explains that this irrelevance of criticism is evident enough in an art world where value is determined by market position above all; today “criticality” is frequently dismissed

The Post–Pop Shop

177

as rigid, rote passé, or all of the above. “Theory” fares even worse (if that is possible), serving mostly as idiot reification and scare word.94 Samuel Keller, director of Art Basel, also notes this transfer in cultural authority: “When I entered the art world, famous critics had an aura of power. . . . Now they’re more like philosophers—respected, but not as powerful as collectors, dealers, or curators. Nobody fears critics anymore.”95 For better or for worse, theoretical art criticism has become less influential, replaced with a surge of more populist-style art criticism and writing, enabled by the Internet. A populist, non-standardized format that rewards rapid information and convenience and writing (not dense theoretical frameworks or rigorous critical study), the Information Age has created diversified and expanded platforms for almost anyone to contribute an opinion. Like any other form of populism, this advancement is a doubleedged sword. While the Internet’s new access has leveled the field of art criticism, and introduced new voices, its content is unregulated and fast-paced and can often oversimplify important issues and proliferate misinformation, as well as stifle criticality.96 Nevertheless, it also has attracted new audiences to art and encouraged new perspectives and crossovers between art, commercialism, media studies, and consumerism. To an extent, academic norms have mirrored this shift, evident in the growing fields of consumer culture and visual studies, in which everyday advertising, television, film, and consumerism are considered valid areas of study.97 Another factor contributing to the new pervasive acceptance of the art market is that it has become too big to be overlooked or unequivocally condemned; it is a presence that cannot be avoided.98 Philipp Kleinmichel has argued that the long-standing expectation for the avant-garde to oppose the market has lost its relevance, since there is not any convincing or meaningful way to do so. He believes that “the old romantic belief in art as an inherently oppositional force, together with a battery of fascinating theoretical concepts still passed on in schools and universities, seems rather odd, comical and at any rate no longer sustainable today.”99 Many artists continue to produce works that critique consumerism and economic issues, and many scholars still employ theory to interpret their significance. But, more so than in the 1980s, the mainstreaming of art criticism and the expansion of academic areas into popular culture in the 1990s and 2000s have lessened the pressure for artists and art writers to be oppositional. In short, art no longer needs to reject or downplay commercialism and consumerism to be taken seriously. Partly because the stigma against mass commercial activities has lessened, Haring’s work has been more fully accepted into the art world and its market, and the foundation has been able to expand his merchandise. Yet, in academia and in certain critical circles, negative perceptions of common commercialism in art persist, explaining the lack of scholarship on Haring’s work. The 1980s, especially, is still associated with its art boom and not much else, testifying to the ingrained academic canon that continues to define the period.100 Rather than being viewed as an “open wound . . . of greed and glamour,” the 1980s should be reconsidered as the start of a paradigm shift in common culture, consumerism, and art that continues today— with Haring as a preeminent instigator.101 Because of Haring and the changing critical landscape he helped foster, artist foundations, as well as contemporary artists, are freer today to build on top of his marketing and licensing enterprises to tap into new audiences.

178 The Post–Pop Shop

Notes 1. The Universe of Keith Haring, directed by Christina Clausen, Arthouse Films, 90 minutes, distributed by New Video, 2008. 2. The Whitney Museum of American Art exhibition in 1997 was the first major museum retrospective of his work. See Elisabeth Sussman, ed., Keith Haring (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1997). In chronological order, Haring’s other major exhibition catalogs include Barry Blinderman, ed., Keith Haring: Future Primeval (New York: Abbeville Press, 1991); Germano Celant, ed., Keith Haring (New York: Prestel, 1997); Götz Adriani, ed., Keith Haring: Heaven and Hell (New York: D.A.P., 2001); Marc Gundel, Keith Haring: Short Messages (New York: Prestel, 2002); Keith Haring: Journey of the Radiant Baby (Piermont, NH: Bunker Hill Pub., 2006); Beate Reifenscheid, ed., Keith Haring: Life as a Drawing (New York: Prestel, 2007); Keith Haring: 1978–1982 (Cincinnati, OH: Contemporary Arts Center, 2010) Dieter Buchhart, ed., Keith Haring: The Political Line (San Francisco, CA: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 2014); Gianni Mercurio, Keith Haring: About Art (Florence, Italy: Gamm, Giunti, 2017); and Darren Pih, ed., Keith Haring (London: Tate, 2019). 3. Some other living contemporary artists who have licensed or merchandised their work include Jennifer Bartlett, Matthew Brannon, Maurizio Cattelan, Mark Dion, Olafur Eliasson, Tracey Emin, the Guerilla Girls, Jenny Holzer, Robert Indiana, Jeff Koons, Richard Kostelanetz, Yayoi Kusama, Cary Liebowitz, Yoshitomo Mara, Maripol, David Joseph Martinez, Paul McCarthy, Ryan McGinness, Yasumasa Morimura, Burton Morris, Sarah Morris, Vik Muniz, Yoko Ono, Julian Opie, Tom Otterness, Jack Pierson, Richard Prince, Paula Scher, Cindy Sherman, Stephen Shore, David Shrigley, Lorna Simpson, Kiki Smith, May Sun, Kara Walker, Ai Wei Wei, and Lawrence Weiner. Starting in 2014, The Museum of Modern Art has partnered with Uniqlo to create apparel from many of these artists, see http://sprzny.uniqlo.com/artists/, accessed August 26, 2016. It is also now common for foundations of deceased artists to license their artist’s works for museum gift shops or to create merchandise. Some artist foundations or estates that license their artist’s work include the Andy Warhol Foundation, Jean-Michel Basquiat Foundation, the Frida Kahlo Corporation, and the Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation. 4. See, for example, Jenny Stevens, “Van Gogh Leggings and Tracey Teacups: How Art Merch Broke Out of the Gift Shop,” The Guardian (June 25, 2018): 1–6. 5. Drawing the Line: A Portrait of Keith Haring, produced and directed by Elisabeth Aubert, Biografilm Associates, 1989, documentary. 6. Keith Haring Foundation (KHF) statement, www.haring.com/kh_foundation/research, accessed June 1, 2016. 7. The online store is unaffiliated with the KHF but is permitted to sell off excess inventory. In conversation with KHF archivist, March 13, 2015. 8. Since starting this project in 2013, I have seen a Haring design on a T-shirt, bag, or button in New York City almost daily. 9. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. 10. Ibid. 11. Abby Bussel, “80s Redux,” Interior Design Magazine (April 1997): 196. 12. In 2000, the KHF targeted magazines that featured back to school, holidays, parents, youth, and teaching, such as Parenting Magazine, Working Mother, Lucky, Elle, and Fitness. See KHF Archives, press box 2002. 13. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. 14. Ibid. Gruen explained that closing the store meant saving $100,000 of rent a year alone. The KHF also does not allow researchers to look at financial information for the posthumous Pop Shop or for licensing partnerships due to ongoing business activities. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. 15. Merrily Kerr, “Keith Haring’s Pop Shop to Close,” Art on Paper (July–August 2005). Also see Ellen Keohane, “After a Good Run, Keith Haring’s Pop Shop to Close This Month,” The Villager, vol. 75, no. 12 (August 12, 2005). 16. Ibid. 17. Interview with Alan Herman by author, February 13, 2015, and interview with Jose Martos by author, March 10, 2016. Alan Herman was the Pop Shop’s landlord, and Jose Martos, a gallery owner and dealer of Haring’s art, used to work at the KHF in the 1990s.

The Post–Pop Shop

179

18. Keohane, “After a Good Run.” 19. These are the only articles found that cover the closing: Keohane, “After a Good Run”; Kerr, “Keith Haring’s Pop Shop to Close,” 2005; and Rebecca Milzoff, “Haring’s Pop Shop Fizzles Out,” New York Magazine (September 5, 2005). 20. Jade Dellinger, “Keith Haring: Art and Commerce,” 2006, www.haring.com/!/selected_ writing/keith-haring-art-and-commerce#.V1wXFJMrLBK, accessed March 3, 2016. 21. Keohane, “After a Good Run.” 22. Maria Gabriela Brito, “Long Live the Legacy of Keith Haring: An Interview with Julia Gruen,” Huffington Post (July 21, 2014). 23. See Judd Tully, “Solid Foundations . . .” Art & Auction (November 1994) 152. 24. Ibid., 152. 25. Andras Szanto, “The Sleeping Giant of Philanthropy,” The Art Newspaper, no. 220 (January 2011): 33. 26. Tully, “Solid Foundations . . .” 153. 27. Szanto, “The Sleeping Giant of Philanthropy,” 33. 28. Christine Vincent, The Artist as Philanthropist: Strengthening the Next Generation of Artist-Endowed Foundations, vols 1 and 2 (Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 2010). 29. By law, nonprofit foundations are required to give 5 percent of their worth a year in grants. This can be a difficult amount to calculate by art-world standards, as valuations for artworks can go up and down and are at times subjective. In addition, this creates a conflict of interest: a foundation could undervalue the work in their holdings to avoid allocating funds. Foundations have run into legal trouble when it comes to authentications and valuations, since this affects the value and market of their own holdings. Vincent, Artist-endowed Foundations, 29–33. Foundations also frequently encounter complications by relying on art as an asset and must deal with opinionated friends or family of the artist who have a personal stake in the artist’s work and are often on the foundations’ or estates’ boards—another potential conflict of interest. See Szanto, “The Sleeping Giant of Philanthropy,” 33. The demands of big personalities, the lack of clear direction, and ambiguous ethical dilemmas can make it difficult to run an artist’s foundation. See Tully, “Solid Foundations . . .” 152. 30. Statistics from Foundation Center, http://webapps.foundationcenter.org/glasspocketsltr/ transparency.php?view=Tumblr, accessed February 4, 2016. Also see the Foundation Directory Online, KHF, https://fconline.foundationcenter.org/grantmaker-profile/?collection=grant makers&activity=result&key=HARI003, accessed May 17, 2016. 31. Foundation Directory Online, Andy Warhol Foundation, https://fconline.foundationcenter. org/grantmaker-profile?collection=grantmakers&key=WARH001, accessed May 17, 2016. 32. See KHF Grants, www.haring.com/kh_foundation/grants, accessed May 3, 2016. 33. Julia Gruen email to author April 4, 2016. See “New York Online,” HAEA News (October 2002), KHF Archives, 2002 press box. 34. Such as: The Queens Museum of Art, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Studio Museum in Harlem, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, the Whitney Museum of American Art, and the New Museum. 35. See Planned Parenthood, “Project Street Beat,” www.plannedparenthood.org/plannedparenthood-new-york-city/for-patients/project-street-beat#sthash.rOwopF2u.dpuf, accessed May 3, 2016. 36. “Fight AIDS Worldwide,” UN Chronicle, vol. xxxl, no. 2 (June 1994), KHF Archives, 1994 press box. Also see Lisa Faye Kaplan, “Catalogue’s Proceeds Go to Groups That Help People With AIDS,” Detroit News (December 19, 1996). 37. Jeffrey Deitch, Suzanne Geiss, and Julia Gruen, eds, Keith Haring (New York: Rizzoli, 2008). 38. “Keith Haring Foundation Inc.,” Propublica, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ organizations/110249024, accessed April 11, 2019. 39. Douglas McGill, “Marketing of Andy Warhol,” The New York Times (December 10, 1987). 40. “MM Forms Art Merchandising & Media AG,” International Showcase 2000 (March 2000), KHF Archives, 2000 press box. 41. As one of its first and most important clients, Artestar’s blog temporarily chronicled the Keith Haring partnerships. Blog, www.artestar.com/news/, accessed March 1, 2013, no

180 The Post–Pop Shop

42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

longer online. Their website also used to list Haring’s partnerships: http://artestar.com/# !keith-haring, accessed April 20, 2013. Partnerships have included: Reebok, Zara, Columbia, AXO, Case Scenario, Senseo coffee maker, Kinetico, Johnnie Walker, RMK Cosmetics, SLY, Garage Magazine, MSY Group, Tenga sex products, Alien Workshop, DKNY, 1800 Tequila, Urban Outfitters, Uniform Experiment, Vilac, Ravensburger, Izola Shower Curtains, Casabella cleaning supplies, and Brevi baby products. Haring’s designs have appeared on dishware, trays, hooks, bath mats, shower curtains, sex toys, coffee makers, umbrellas, backpacks, bags, cell phone, laptop, and tablet cases, yo-yos, key chains, necklaces, pendants, bibs, stationary, dominos, chalkboards, tables, stools, ottomans, and pillowcases. See Stevens, “Van Gogh Leggings.” See Ruth la Ferla, “The Artist’s Fall Collection,” The New York Times (November 8, 2007). Blog post on Artestar website, “DKNY Delicious Art Collection Inspired by Keith Haring,” (March 1, 2013), www.artestar.com/news/dkny-delicious-art-collection-inspiredkeith-haring#.UYvwV6KsiSo, accessed April 20, 2013. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. Social media can begin to demonstrate the broad cult following that Haring still has. A Facebook search on October 3, 2016, showed that 92,117 people were currently “talking about” #keithharing. “Keith Haring” has multiple social media fan pages as well, with 193,396 “likes.” There are also 32,500 followers for @keithharingofficial on Instagram, and 24,500 followers of the KHF on Facebook. Facebook and Instagram searches, accessed October 3, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. to 10:40 a.m. Gruen thinks the Warhol foundation learned from the KHF and the Pop Shop. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. See The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts: 10 Years Report 1987–97 (New York: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, 1997). Also see April Lamm, “High Time for the Low Down on the Atmosphere of Art,” Nu: The Nordic Art Review, vol. 4, no. 1–2 (2002): 89. Alison Leigh Cowan and Carol Vogel, “Legacy in Disarray, a Special Report: Egos, Art and Big Money: Warhol Riches Fade Away,” The New York Times (June 12, 1994). The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Two Year Report, May 1 2001–April 30, 2003 (New York: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, 2003) 30 and Cowan and Vogel, “Legacy in Disarray,” 1994. Artnet, “News” (February 24, 2006), www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artnetnews/artnet news2-24-06.asp, accessed June 1, 2016. Judd Tully, “Warhol’s World for Sale,” Art & Auction (November 2012): 97. Chin-Chin Yap, “The Little Can That Could,” ArtAsiaPacific, no. 82 (March/April 2013): 55. Also see Eileen Kinsella, “Warhol Inc.,” ARTnews vol. 108, no. 10 (November 2009): 91. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. Brito, “Long Live the Legacy of Keith Haring.” Marla Donato, “Hanging Out,” Chicago Tribune (October 1985), KHF Archives, 1985 press box. John Gruen, Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991) 148. List of licensing agreements during Haring’s lifetime from the KHF Archives sent by email to author, March 25, 2016. “Keith Haring with Halston and Philip Johnson,” Interview, vol. 14, no. 12 (December 1984): 130. McGill, “Marketing of Andy Warhol,” 1. Gruen, The Authorized Biography, 128 and Stephen Saban, “Meanwhile Back in New York City . . . Keith Haring . . .” Hamptons Newspaper/Magazine (June 30, 1983): 54. Interview with Julia Gruen by author, March 22, 2016. For example, the Pop Shop was not included in Artforum’s 40th anniversary issues that surveyed art of the 1980s, either in the essays or in its time line. See Artforum, vol. 41, no. 7 (March 2003) and vol. 41, no. 8 (April 2003). Op. cit. The Tampa Museum show was originally staged at the University Galleries of Illinois State University. Also see Brook Adams, “Keith Haring: Radiant Picaresque,” Art in

The Post–Pop Shop

181

America (April 1998): 97 and Bill Arning, “Art History: Drawing the Line from Haring,” in Powerful Babies, 40–48. 65. “Floor Plans,” Keith Haring 1997 Exhibition Files, box 175, folder 6, Whitney Museum of American Art Archives. 66. “Special Projects, Product development,” Keith Haring 1997 Exhibition Files, box 175, Whitney Museum of American Art Archives. 67. Elaine Louie, “These Shops Sell the Fine Art of Decorating,” The New York Times (June 25, 1992). And see Whitney Museum of American Art: Members Magazine, vol. 1, no. 3 (Summer 1997). The store sold: A broad sampling of Pop Shop merchandise from the Lafayette Street Pop Shop is on sale, including such Haring classics as the inflatable baby, buttons, vinyl tote bags, caps, patches, and puzzles. A line of exclusive, exhibition-related products . . . has been developed by the Museum. 68. A similar decision was made for Haring’s retrospective at the Brooklyn Museum in 2012, in which the Pop Shop was separated from the exhibition into another space. See Karen Rosenberg, “A Pop Shop for a New Generation,” The New York Times (March 22, 2012). 69. Christopher Knight, “Public Art, Remade by Keith Haring,” Los Angeles Times (June 21, 1998), http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/21/entertainment/ca-61989, accessed June 1, 2016. 70. Knight wrote two different versions of his review on the same date for the Los Angeles Times. This quote can be found in Christopher Knight, “Public Art, Remade by Keith Haring,” Los Angeles Times (June 21, 1998), http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/21/ entertainment/ca-61989/2, accessed June 1, 2016. 71. Knight, “Public Art,” http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/21/entertainment/ca-61989, accessed June 1, 2016. 72. According to Julia Gruen’s recollection, institutions have never asked to completely remake the store. Gruen wrote, It would usually be impractical for any institution, due to the parameters affecting what merchandise can be sold in which territories and potential conflicts with existing licenses in a given territory. We have actually never been asked to completely recreate the Pop Shop for any museum, but usually approve requests to create a Pop Shop-esque environment in which to sell merchandise related to a Haring exhibition. Gruen email to author, April 4, 2016

73. 74. 75.

76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

Counter to Gruen’s assertion, however, a few institutions, including the Tampa Museum of Art and the Whitney Museum of American Art, did ask to include a working shop in their exhibitions but ultimately did not go through with it for various reasons. Email to author from Jade Dellinger, March 22, 2013. See “Keith Haring: Pop Shop Brochure,” in Kaoru Yanase, ed., Keith Haring: Pop Shop, Making a New Network for Art to the Public (Yamanashi: Nakamura Kīsu Hering Bijutsukan/ Nakamura Keith Haring Collection, 2009) 15. The New York Historical Society first planned to install it in its high-end restaurant but, instead, put it over their admissions desk, more in keeping with Haring’s accessible philosophy. Glenn Collins, “Stephen Starr to Open an Italian Restaurant in the New York Historical Society,” The New York Times Blog (November 9, 2010), accessed January 10, 2015. Elizabeth Day, “Is It Art, or Is It a Shop? Keith Haring’s Iconic Pop Shop Is Reborn as Both,” The Observer/Guardian (September 26, 2009). L’art a la plage (Paris: Galerie Enrico Navarra, 2005). Gianni Mercurio, ed., Keith Haring All-Over (Milan, Italy: Skira Editore/Beaux-Arts Mons, 2009). Nicholas Cullinan, “Dreams that Money Can Guy,” in Pop Life: Art in a Material World, ed. by Jack Bankowsky (London: Tate Publishing, 2009) 65–75. See Hal Foster, “The Medium is the Market,” London Review of Books (October 9, 2008): 23–24. Candy bars from Oldenburg’s store, which he originally gave out for free to his friends and customers, sold for $10,625 at Christie’s in 2011, lot 34, sale 2412, www.christies.com//

182 The Post–Pop Shop

82.

83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96.

lotfinder/sculptures-statues-figures/claes-oldenburg-candy-bars-from-candy-counter5399539-details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=5399539&sid=46aace42–4a6f4fb1–8f14-fd87acee704e>, accessed May 19, 2016. A Fluxkit of Fluxus artworks, attributed to George Maciunas, sold for $104,500 at Christie’s in 2001, lot 0199, sale 2465, www.christies.com//lotfinder/drawings-watercolors/ george-maciunas-fluxkit-5478019-details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=54780 19&sid=0fb2b633-b05b-47d6–9059-a0830148db0c, accessed May 19, 2016. An inflatable baby was sold through Christie’s for $775, lot 0111, sale 10555 on September 17, 2015, www.christies.com//lotfinder/prints-multiples/keith-haring-inflatable-baby5927160-details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=5927160&sid=ddb7f80f-d7f444aa-9605-b0e8c2217055, accessed May 18, 2016. A signed Keith Haring sweatshirt sold in 2008 from the Freeman’s Auctioneers & Appraisers for $1,875; see Modern and Contemporary Works of Art, lot 155, sale 1306, http://auctions. freemansauction.com/auction-lot-detail/KEITH-HARING%2C-%28AMERICAN-19581990%29%2C-HOODED-SWEATSHIRT/1306+++++155+/++548877, accessed May 18, 2016. Pop Shop merchandise was sold through a Doyle auction September 27, 2016. A Pop Shop print sold for over $5,000, a signed hat for over $850, and a radio for over $400. See “Doyle: ’80s Downtown Art.” www.artsy.net/auction/doyle-80s-downtown-art, accessed September 26, 2016. In 2017 and 2018, Phillips sold small, simple Pop Shop fliers drawn with black marker that advertised sales, shop closures, or merchandise at auction from $5,250 to $20,000. A Pop Shop Tokyo Rice Bowl sold for £11,250 on June 9, 2016. See “PHILLIPS: Search Results for Haring,” www.phillips.com/search/1/?search=haring, accessed March 18, 2018. Two Pop Shop bags were listed for $1,000, and his radio for $1,500 on Artsy on April 25, 2020. See www.artsy.net/search?term=pop%20shop%20 bags, accessed April 25, 2020. “Christie’s Facts,” CNN (July 8, 2008), www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/07/07/christies. profile/index.html, accessed January 1, 2015. Foster, “The Medium is the Market,” 23–24. Ibid., 23–24. Ibid., 24 and James Meyer, “No More Scale: The Experience of Size in Contemporary Sculpture,” Artforum (Summer 2004). Isabelle Graw, High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture (New York: Sternberg Press, 2009) 108; Julian Stallabrass, Art Incorporated: The Story of Contemporary Art (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) intro, 3, and 114–125; and Julian Stallabrass, “Free Trade / Free Art,” in Art Price and Value: Contemporary Art and the Market (Florence, Italy: Centro di Cultura Contemporanea Strozzina, 2009) 62. Megan Voeller, “Thank You, Keith Haring,” Tampa Weekly Plant (April 12, 2006): 37. Also see Tim Murphy, “New York Men Embrace Summer with Bold Hues and Perky Patterns,” New York Magazine (June 3, 2016). Graw, High Price, 13. Also see Ingrid Sischy, “Money on the Wall,” Vanity Fair (December 2006), www.vanityfair.com/culture/2006/12/jeffrey-deitch-200612, accessed October 2, 2016. Graw, High Price, 19, 41, and 100. Also see Fraziska Nori, “Art, Price, and Value,” in Art Price and Value, 17–18. Graw, High Price, 56. Ibid., 37. Also see Olav Veltius, “Accounting for Taste,” Artforum (April 2008): 306 and Wolfgang Ullrich, “Icons of Capitalism: How Prices Make Art,” in Art Price and Value, 42–55. Ibid., 56. Hal Foster, Bad New Days: Art, Criticism, Emergency (New York: Verso, 2015) 115. Quoted in Marc Spiegler, “Do Art Critics Still Matter?” The Art Newspaper (April 19, 2005). See James Elkins, “The State of Art Criticism: Absence of Judgment,” in The State of Art Criticism, ed. by Elkins and Michael Newman (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2008) 72–73.

The Post–Pop Shop

183

97. See Irit Rogoff, “Studying Visual Culture,” in The Visual Culture Reader, ed. by Nicholas Mirzoeff (New York: Routledge, 2002), and James Elkins, ed., Theorizing Visual Studies: Writing Through the Discipline (New York: Routledge, 2013). 98. Philipp Kleinmichel, “The Art Boom Paradox,” The Ivory Tower (August 2012): 1. 99. Ibid., 3. 100. Graw, High Price, 95. 101. This is Jack Bankowsky’s characterization of the prevailing stereotype of the 1980s art world. Jack Bankowsky, “Editor’s Note,” Artforum, vol. 41, no. 7 (March 2003): 1. Helen Molesworth writes how the 1980s have “been regarded as a kind of embarrassment— excessive, brash, contentious, too theoretical, insufficiently theoretical, overblown, antiaesthetic, demonstrable political—as though the decade were just too much.” Helen Molesworth, et al., This Will Have Been: Art, Love, and Politics in the 1980s (Chicago, IL: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2012) 15.

6

Pop Shop Chain Reaction Artist Merchandising in the 2000s

On June 3, 2019, the retail store Uniqlo released a second line of apparel designed by the contemporary artist KAWS in Hong Kong. It caused a small riot. Customers rushed inside, pushed and fought each other, dropped phones, and pulled clothes off mannequins.1 Uniqlo’s website crashed a few minutes after going live, and within days, KAWS products were being resold online up to five times their original retail price.2 Fearing the same response at the U.S. stores’ release the next day, Uniqlo increased their security presence and limited customers to five items.3 At Uniqlos around the world, KAWS fans waited in lines for hours. While this response to KAWS’s art merchandise represents an extreme, it demonstrates that in the 30 years since the Pop Shop opened, art merchandising has turned into a phenomenon that can produce quite intense consumer behaviors. It has also become a new norm. Since the 1990s, several artists have applied the lessons of Haring’s career to a range of projects, including artist-run shops, licensing, and design collaborations. Some of the most famous include Kenny Scharf, Shepard Fairey, KAWS, Damien Hirst, and Takashi Murakami. Like Haring, these practices have paralleled these artists' success in the art world, and the rise of their celebrity, and have engaged with populism and consumer strategies to varying degrees. But overall, except for Fairey, these artists do not actively use their public platforms or merchandising for activist or philanthropic purposes.4 These artists all experimented with a brick-and-mortar store at one point or another but, for the most part, have foregone the idea of a centralized physical location, an unsustainable logistical and financial burden. Like the Keith Haring Foundation (KHF), they have modified the Pop Shop to match the acceleration of consumer culture. They have made their art merchandising more profit oriented and sustainable by outsourcing production and distribution to large-scale retail partners, who already have an international network of stores and marketing. They have also fully utilized the Internet, where a website is a lot cheaper to maintain than a store and can reach a larger audience. With these new tools and strategies, their art merchandising ventures have reached new and intensified heights. Despite their commercial projects (or because of them), the art world has legitimized these artists, reflecting shifts in attitudes and expectations. Even though they have had their share of criticism, even by some of the same voices who disparaged Haring, negative accounts have not defined or deflated their careers.5 Any antipathy has been obscured or diluted by the overwhelming validation of auctions and museums, and the influx of voices and platforms newly available online. Standards of appreciation have also changed in part because of Haring, whose groundwork helped normalize art merchandising and common commercialism in art.

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

185

Starting as street artists, Fairey and KAWS’s merchandising practices represent only the peak of graffiti and street-art merchandise production since the 1990s. As a culture especially influenced by Haring, many contemporary graffiti and street artists such as Futura 2000, Wang Les, and Invader, and several successful street brands like Supreme, A Bathing Ape, and Stüssy, have created clothing lines or affordable consumer products.6 Largely due to digital photography and the Internet, the audience and consumption for street art has spread globally. This visibility has caught the art world’s attention, making graffiti and street art a blockbuster staple of museum and gallery exhibitions, as well as a major earner in art auctions. It has also created a built-in market for merchandising: many people want to express their admiration by buying and wearing street art products. And fortuitously, since many graffiti and street art styles inherently incorporate repetition, speed, and graphic simplicity, they can transition easily to mass reproduction. Quite appropriately, a popular documentary from 2010 on street and graffiti art is titled Exit Through the Gift Shop.7 Because the practice of art merchandising since the 1980s could constitute a book in and of itself, this chapter is just a brief introduction to the merchandising practices of Scharf, Fairey, KAWS, Hirst, and Murakami. This selection of artists is based on that fact that they have all spearheaded an artist-run shop, have achieved a high degree of international success in art merchandising, and have noticeably incorporated strategies used by Haring. It should be noted, however, that most of these artists are white and male, as well as Western (apart from Murakami). One or two female artists and artists of color have also had a large impact in mass consumer markets, such as Yayoi Kusama, Frida Kahlo, and Jean-Michel Basquiat. But in these cases, Kusama’s merchandising is secondary to her art production and mostly undertaken by third parties, and Basquiat and Kahlo’s popularity exploded in the art world posthumously, which then attracted licensing deals—not a process sanctioned, initiated, or experienced by the artists themselves. Otherwise, why have there been no great women artist or artists of color merchandisers? The purpose of a mass-produced art objects is meant to increase the accessibility of art, but the practice is not an option accessible to every artist. A successful artist brand takes money, a large fan base, and a celebrity platform, all usually generated by media-driven spectacles and exhibitions, high auction prices, and an embrace of the market. In the last few decades, women artists and artists of color have made progress in the art world and its market, but by no means are their opportunities and public visibility equal to white men. They face double standards—or are overlooked—by art criticism and struggle for equity in exhibition prospects and commercial success. Most museum directors are white men; women and artists of color make up only a small fraction of museums solo shows. In 2012, not one woman made the 100 highest grossing artists in auction sales.8 Art merchandising thrives in conditions of capital and influence, which, unfortunately, are two factors that continue to be impacted by sex and race. Therefore, predictably, Fairey, Murakami, KAWS, and Hirst, as well as Haring, all made the top 20 in auction sales in 2017 and 2018, accumulating unprecedented commercial wealth and status that could support the launch and maintenance of art merchandising practices.9 For now, their careers define the history of art merchandising in the 21st century.

Kenny Scharf Kenny Scharf, Haring’s roommate and good friend in the 1980s, followed a parallel, if slower, career trajectory in the 1980s. He studied at the School of Visual Arts;

186

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

showed work in the Times Square Show in 1980; was greatly influenced by Warhol, the pop aesthetic, and graffiti; and eventually made his way into galleries. Like Haring, Scharf believed in “breaking down the elitism [of] the art world” to “bring art to the street, the public.”10 Much of Scharf’s work was especially accessible with its cartoon and science-fiction aesthetics and bright colors. In his paintings, Scharf also regularly included widely recognizable characters from popular culture, like the Jetsons and the Flintstones. Because Haring and Scharf were close and both a part of the Downtown scene, Scharf often worked and exhibited in the same spaces as Haring and participated in some of the same commercial projects—such as contributing designs to Absolut vodka in 1986 and Luna Luna amusement park in Vienna in 1987. Scharf also designed a couple products sold in the Pop Shop, collaborated with Swatch in 1994, and did oneoff collaborations with a few designers, like Todd Oldham (1989), Stephen Sprouse (1992), and Ann Turk (1996). Similar to Haring, art critics in the 1980s have dismissed Scharf’s art as superficial and cartoonish and have criticized his common commercial work. Likewise, Scharf’s supporters have defended his work but have done so at times by denigrating the significance of his work’s populism. The curator Barry Blinderman wrote, for example, “It is baffling to me that Scharf is regarded by many critics as retro or low-brow populist”—deeming populism to be an insult, rather than a purposeful strategy of the Downtown scene.11 Scharf, however, has maintained that any populist project he has done—including art merchandising work—is an extension of his art practice. In the early 1980s, in line with the Downtown’s scene junk aesthetic and DIY mentality, Scharf customized everyday objects, painting his bright, pop style on appliances, clothing, and even Haring’s glasses—an important influence on Haring translating his designs to multiple surfaces and objects.12 In 1981, fresh from the Times Square Show, Scharf started a small, tongue-in-cheek business run by his alter ego “Van Chrome.”13 He placed small advertisements in publications like The SoHo Weekly News to hire him to customize ordinary objects: “Bored with television? Hire Van to make your TV experience incredible.”14 He customized old appliances by covering them with small found objects and Day-Glo fluorescent paint (Figure 6.1). In his words, these psychedelic assemblages were so “people could engage with mundane activities with style.”15 This service did not gain much traction—except among friends, and these objects usually operated as sculptures, without any utilitarian functions.16 Van Chrome’s customization and Scharf’s exposure to the Pop Shop led him to experiment with his own small-scale shop from 1992 to 1995. Called the Scharf Schak, it was set up outside the Guggenheim SoHo in an old newspaper kiosk (Figure 6.2).17 The Schak sold shirts, magnets, hats, Swatch watches, and glasses printed with Scharf’s designs. As one journalist put it, “If you can slap an image on it, Scharf has done just that.”18 Resembling a Tahitian beach hut, Scharf decorated the entire structure with abstract patterns, a huge, box-like face on the front, and “fun for everyone” written on one side. Despite the fact that the Scharf Schak was a small operation, Scharf could only keep it open for a few months at a time and lost a lot of his own money.19 Scharf’s Schak was influenced by Haring and the Pop Shop, but like his customizations, it was more comparable in spirit to the transient shops and to the handmade, mostly nonfunctional multiples in the East Village scene. It also demonstrated that a small artist-run business could only exist long term if it was funded by a lucrative gallery

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

187

Figure 6.1 Kenny Scharf, Television Customized by Van Chrome, 1983. Source: Courtesy of Kenny Scharf Studio.

career. Scharf  did receive career recognition in the 1980s—invited to participate in Documenta in 1982 and the Whitney Biennial in 1985—though he did not achieve wider recognition until the late 1990s. At that point, he began to increase his art merchandising production through partnerships and licensing, releasing a new product a few times a year. As his career expanded, the value of his 1980s Van Chrome

188

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

Figure 6.2 Kenny Scharf, Scharf Schak, 1995. Source: Courtesy of Kenny Scharf Studio.

objects and products he made for the Pop Shop also increased, now selling for thousands of dollars.20 For Scharf’s newer products, he has partnered with brands, including the Gap (2008), Levi’s (2011), Zara (2012), and Kiehls (2012), and has licensed his work for jewelry (2007), surfboards (2016), and clothing (2008–present). In line with his west coast, Los Angeles aesthetic, he has also designed surfboards (2016 and 2018), sandals (2010), and beach towels (2012). In addition, he has produced items for the slightly more upscale fashion market with designers like Alejandro Ingelmo (2013), Louis Vuitton (2014), and Jeremy Scott (2014) (Figure 6.3).21 Through the combination of his rise in the art world with his recognizable, fun style that translated easily to mass reproduction, Scharf’s commercial and retail partnerships have been much more successful than his earlier DIY projects and shop. But his instincts in the 1980s to customize were prescient. They were a response to the increasing diversification of products and markets, and the demand by consumers to buy specialized objects that matched their interests and personalities. For Scharf, the challenge was timing. It was not until he had achieved broader success in the art world and then adopted the off-setting costs of brand partnerships that he could mass-produce his one-of-a-kind (still “customized”) Scharf aesthetic, flattening the handmade quality of his Van Chrome works.

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

189

Figure 6.3 Kenny Scharf with Jeremy Scott, 2014. Source: Courtesy of Kenny Scharf Studio.

Shepard Fairey Beginning in the late 1980s, Shepard Fairey’s art career started on the streets and then entered advertising firms and art galleries, operating in multiple worlds. These experiences led Fairey along a path extremely like Haring’s, one with a populist bent and an intention to transcend the exclusivity of contemporary art through art in public spaces, mass commercial projects, and a highly graphic and readable style. As soon as Fairey gained widespread popularity in the early 1990s, he began to produce a variety of products, including stickers, bags, hoodies, mugs, and phone cases.22 Based on one of his first and most well-known street images, he called the line “OBEY,” a critique of advertising’s pressure to “obey and consume.” He created the image—the word “OBEY” underneath the stylized face of the famous wrestler Andre the Giant— in the late 1980s while he was still a student at the Rhode Island School of Design (Figure 6.4). Realizing its appeal, he began reproducing it onto stickers and handing them out, similar in spirit to the buttons Haring handed out in the subway. By his estimates, Fairey made and gave out over a million stickers between 1989 and 1996.23 He gradually widened the application of this image, editing it down to just the word “OBEY.” Steeped in the mechanics of advertising, Fairey knows that repetition and massconsumerism are effective ways for his art to reach new audiences, especially those who do not live in cities or go to art galleries.24 Along these lines, Fairey has founded several companies throughout his career that specialize in advertising, merchandising, and art. He established Obey Giant in 1989, a company that started as a small-scale operation of stickers and T-shirts and has since expanded. He then cofounded the design firm BLK/MRKT with artist friends in 1996 but split with the company in 2003 to establish Studio Number One with his wife, a graphic design studio that creates street-art-influenced advertising campaigns for companies like Pepsi, Hasbro, and NBC. He also opened Subliminal Projects, an art gallery to show other artists’ work,

190

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

Figure 6.4 Shepard Fairey, OBEY icon. Source: Illustration courtesy of Shepard Fairey/obeygiant.com.

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

191

and Studio Number Two, where he makes paintings and prints with assistants bound for the art world. Essentially, Fairey took the original Pop Shop model and made it into a larger scale, multitiered organization, with each part dedicated to his overall goal of accessibility. As a brand, Fairey believes that OBEY is a tactic to subvert the systems of consumerism from within and, additionally, a source of revenue to maintain his street and art practice. He considers this “inside/outside strategy toward corporations somewhat of a Robin Hood effect. . . . I use their money, which becomes my money, to produce stickers, posters, stencils.”25 In the mid-1990s, Fairey extended the reach of his brand by selling merchandise on the Internet and in pop-up stores, as well as through retail and licensing partnerships. He also created a website that he has used to document his street art, communicate directly with his audience (via a blog), and offer free downloads of his art. He believes that his website, printed on his products’ tags, “might be a point of entry for a whole world they hadn’t considered,” acting like a teaser campaign.26 Like Haring, his cachet as an artist and celebrity extends across mainstream popular culture and street subcultures, as well as in the art world, infiltrating all three. In the span of one year (2008), for example, he introduced his famous Barack Obama image, Hope, that was widely used for Obama’s presidential campaign, had a solo show at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston, and was named person of the year by GQ magazine, all the while continuing to put up street art illegally. Refusing to stay in his “assigned lane as an artist and commentator,” Fairey takes advantage of any opportunity to connect with his audience—oftentimes through new technologies and other accessible platforms.27 In 2010, he advertised his gallery opening at Echo Park through a mass text message.28 In 2018, he partnered with Jacob Koo to create a virtual tour of his solo exhibition DAMAGED in Los Angeles so that fans from around the world could experience his exhibition from anywhere, even after it closed.29 Across his career, he has been featured in several feature-length documentaries and thousands of online videos, available on YouTube.30 He guest-starred on the Simpsons, and his art has appeared in video games. He designed album covers for popular musicians like the Black Eyed Peas and Tom Petty, and deejays his own exhibitions. His exhibition openings are more like club parties, with loud music and merchandise for sale, attracting lines around the block. Occupying the same in-between areas as Haring, Fairey has played with the ambiguities and perceived separations between the art world, graphic design, advertising, and consumer culture. And like Haring, his approach has invited criticism. Fairey explains, “Within the art world, I get accused of being too obvious. Within my world, I get accused of being too mysterious.”31 Because of his retail projects, Fairey has been called a sellout by other street writers and artists, but he insists that the profits from his products subsidize his activist and street work, “because that is [his] love, not money.”32 In addition, far from abandoning a street career to take up retailing, Fairey has worked consistently in both spheres since the beginning of his career. He never “sold out” one for the other. Fairey dismisses the negativity as “underground elitism,” merely complaints from peers who want street art to solely target an exclusive, in-the-know audience.33 In the art world, he has also faced some criticism, reproached as corporate, conventional, a sellout, and shallow.34 Despite all this negativity, though, Fairey's reception has been generally positive in art circles. His work has been exhibited and collected by many major art museums, including The Museum

192

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

of Modern Art (MoMA), the New Museum, the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston, and the Smithsonian. He screened the film Andre the Giant has a Posse at the MoMA in 1997 and had a solo show at the Boston Museum as early as 2002, as well as received an honorary doctorate from the Pratt Institute in 2015. With a career that has infiltrated so many different facets of culture, Fairey’s celebrity has certainly rivaled Haring’s, with devoted fans who line up for hours to see his shows or buy his merchandise. Like Haring, the public’s demand for Fairey’s merchandise and art transcends borders, with OBEY flagship retailers in Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Paris. His fan base is so dedicated to him that their consumer behavior warranted an essay in one of Fairey’s exhibition catalogs—perhaps the first time this type of engagement has been written about in an art publication.35 The author, G. James Daichendt, immersed himself in the warehouse sale “initiation” of buying Fairey’s products at discounted rates.36 He explains how buying and owning merchandise is a way for fans to identify with the artist: When you wear an OBEY shirt, all the rights and privileges of being associated with the brand come along. . . . The wearer displays his or her taste in art. . . . The Obey Clothing line is the easiest way to profess allegiance to the OBEY propaganda campaign.37 In perhaps the most signifcant extension of Haring’s legacy, Fairey has leveraged his public infuence, as well as his merchandise and his work, to beneft an array of social, environment, and political causes, described as “the artist-in-residence for just about every good cause you think of.”38 Since the early 2000s, Fairey’s work has frequently critiqued or featured political and social issues in an instantly readable, populist, and accessible style, with impactful high contrast colors and lines, straightforward concepts, and minimal text—lessons learned from his background in advertising.39 In 2004, he created a series of portraits of George W. Bush during his presidency. One print, entitled Bush Hell (2004), features Bush smiling with blood dripping from his lips and wearing a satanic pentagram lapel. Surrounded in harsh red tones, his threatening face is captioned, “ONE HELL OF A LEADER.” In 2008, once his Obama Hope poster made him a household name, Fairey focused even more so on creating highly accessible, politically themed work that tapped into the rising progressive movements happening across the nation. Understanding the impact his images could make, he upped the mass production of his work onto prints and products and used them to raise awareness and money for activist issues like freedom of speech, gun control, the environment, hunger, education, and medical research, as well as LGBT and black rights. He has created and disseminated iconic visuals for free for historic demonstrations, like Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and the 2017 Women’s March and also for progressive politicians, like Bernie Sanders (Figures 6.5 and 6.6). He also regularly raises money for charities by donating a percentage of his works’ earnings— proceeds from his Hope (2008) poster, for example, were given to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Feeding America charity. Combining the aforementioned actions with his merchandise, Fairey started the Obey Awareness Program in 2007, which sells political merchandise and donates 100 percent of profts to the various causes they promote.

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

193

Figure 6.5 Women’s March in Washington, DC, 2017, featuring We the People Are Greater Than Fear. Source: Photograph by author. Artwork by Shepard Fairey for Amplifier.org.

Fairey’s passion for social justice as well as the populist philosophy behind his work and merchandise connects most directly to Haring, perhaps more so than any other artist.40 Underlining this connection, Fairey has called Haring his role model and even collaborated with the KHF in 2012, combining Haring’s three-eyed face with OBEY on a line of clothing to “perpetuate [Haring’s] imagery to a new audience” (Figure 6.7).41 Fairey’s career began much like Haring’s, and in several ways, he adapted and evolved Haring’s populist spirit to take advantage of new communication technologies like the Internet.42 If Haring were still alive, his career would most likely closely match Fairey’s expansive, populist, and activist art practice.

KAWS KAWS, also known as Brian Donnelly, is a graffiti artist–turned–fine artist, who has amassed a substantial subcultural following since the 1990s. He has also received considerable art-world recognition, especially after his first museum retrospective in 2010 at the Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, his “unofficial grand induction to the institutionalized art world.”43 Like Fairey, his career path has closely emulated Haring’s, building his fame first with a broader, nonart Japanese/New York audience through graffiti, street art, and merchandising, attending the School of Visual Arts (SVA), opening his own store in Tokyo, and then finding success in the fine-art

194

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

Figure 6.6 Shepard Fairey, Bernie Sanders design, 2016. Source: Illustration courtesy of Shepard Fairey/obeygiant.com.

world.44 A white kid from Jersey City, KAWS spent his childhood skateboarding in New York City and spray painting on top of billboard advertisements, eventually joining the graffiti scene. After he graduated from the SVA in 1993 with a degree in illustration, KAWS began working in an animation studio. He also started a multiyear project of removing bus shelter advertising posters, painting over them, and then reinstalling them—first in New York, then in several other cities, including San Francisco, London, Paris, and Tokyo. Seamlessly, and illegally, merging his style with commercial advertisements, he referred to these works as “forced collaborations.”45 This series made him a major name in graffiti culture and were the first paintings he sold to friends.46 Like Haring’s subway drawings, KAWS used his bus poster paintings to develop and establish his own highly recognizable style and cast of characters, shaped also in part by the graphic design he studied at the SVA. In fact, his style lends itself so well to commercial images, he has been commissioned to design multiple magazine covers

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

195

Figure 6.7 Keith Haring × OBEY graphic for OBEY Clothing, 2012. Posthumous product. Source: Keith Haring artwork © Keith Haring Foundation.

and spreads in Japan and New York.47 Departing from Haring and other street artists, KAWS street work did not co-opt, deface, or subvert outdoor media efforts, he integrated his own style with the already existing corporate imagery—reflecting a cultural context where artists are not expected to condemn popular commercial culture. On

196 Pop Shop Chain Reaction the contrary, KAWS approach has garnered him a cult-like status, amassing a large and dedicated fan base.48 And also like Haring’s subway drawings, he became so popular that admirers started stealing his bus shelter works as soon as he installed them, upsetting KAWS since they could no longer be seen by a broader public.49 And so, also like Haring, he turned to an alternate, merchandising approach—an easy transition given his simple graphic style and public approval—and to channels like Instagram, which he calls his “direct portal” to fans.50 In the late 1990s, KAWS went to Tokyo and began to manufacture and sell small toy figurines of one of his characters, Companion, and collaborated with companies to produce apparel of his work, including realmadHECTIC, Hikaru Iwanaga from Bounty Hunter (a company that fabricates artist toys), A Bathing Ape company, Undercover, and Shinsuke Takizawa from the company Neighborhood. From 2002 to 2013, KAWS began selling products on his website. Initially launched without products, his website did not receive a lot of traffic. But in just a couple of days after posting objects for sale, more than 100,000 people visited the site.51 From 2006 to 2013, to accompany the success of his website, KAWS opened his own physical store in Tokyo named OriginalFake with Medicom Toy Company. The name of the store, OriginalFake, which also became the brand name for his lines of clothing and toy products, poked fun at the logic of mass reproduction, especially within its Japanese context. OriginalFake was a big success.52 KAWS and others have cited his affinities with Haring, as well as Claes Oldenburg and Takashi Murakami.53 In the most notable explanation of his artistic lineage, Germano Celant situates KAWS’s practice within a long timeline of artists who created both functional products and art multiples, including Haring’s Pop Shop and many other East Village projects and practices.54 Haring, especially, is a pivotal influence on KAWS because of Haring’s focus on accessibility, and his ability to work in both the fine art and commercial worlds.55 KAWS said that because of Haring, “[i]t almost seems like a natural thing these days to be an artist and make products.”56 In effect, KAWS took Haring’s Pop Shop model and substituted in his own cast of characters. Haring and his Pop Shop also helped introduce KAWS to fine art as a child and, as a result, inspired him to pass it on to a new generation. KAWS said, For me [merchandising is] about cross-pollinating, it’s that chance to bring kids who follow me into museums. When I was a kid my first introduction to art came through graffiti, skateboarding, and the Pop Shop. . . . I remember the way Keith Haring’s art made me feel comfortable walking into a gallery or a museum. I just want to make stuff that no one is ever too stupid to get.57 Because of his encounters with Haring, populism has been a driving force for KAWS.58 Unlike Haring, however, KAWS only sold limited editions of his toys in sets of 500 and 1000 in his store due to production costs, logistics, and convenience. This imposed scarcity meant that they became coveted objects and were almost immediately marked up and resold on sites like eBay.59 Perhaps in response to this, KAWS closed his store in 2013 and has since taken up licensing, partnering with companies such as Marc Jacobs, Levi’s, Nike, Vans, and Hennessy. With them, he has produced a range of products that include apparel, pillows, skateboards,

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

197

watches, and sneakers. In April 2016 and June 2019, Uniqlo produced lines of his clothing with KAWS that sold out within days.60 He also continues to sell dolls in a range of new characters (Figure 6.8). Learning from Haring, KAWS understands the value in operating within multiple markets, especially to counter, in his words, the “hypocrisy in the fine art world, in their snobbery about products.”61 He believes his “product work reinforces the painting and the painting reinforces the product,” and both are equally part of his practice.62 The first overt overlap of his figurines with the art world occurred early on in 1999 at the New Museum in New York, when he asked to display his Companion figurine in their gift shop.63 Unlike Haring, who wanted to be considered foremost a fine artist and at times distanced himself from commercialism, KAWS has refused to label or rank his activities one way or the other and has not expressed ambivalence.64 This is partly due to changes in cultural circumstances and expectations but also because KAWS spent a substantial amount of time as a graphic designer and commercial animator before becoming an artist. KAWS’s art merchandising has already been given more serious consideration in the art world than Haring’s. Rather than a hindrance, his merchandising has accelerated his acceptance into the institutional art world. The Aldrich exhibition catalog, for instance, contains an entire section illustrating his products in the same manner as

Figure 6.8 KAWS, assorted dolls in 2019 in shop in Paris, France. Source: Courtesy of Serge Mouraret/Alamy Stock Photo.

198

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

his singular artworks, with high-resolution photographs and labels listing title, date, materials, and dimensions. After the Aldrich, KAWS has had several solo shows at blue chip galleries, such as Honor Fraser in Los Angeles, Emmanuel Perrotin in Paris, and Mary Boone Gallery in Chelsea. He has also had two major museum shows at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in Philadelphia (2013) and the Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art in Kansas (2013). KAWS’s merchandise has also had much less difficulty infiltrating the art market, with several of his toys and objects selling for thousands of dollars at auction.65

Multinational Corporate Merchandising Takashi Murakami and Damien Hirst’s merchandising practices have also stemmed from Haring’s but differ from the artists thus far in that they supercharged his model with strategies gleaned from the global escalation of the economy and corporate culture. Their production has involved a more explicit embrace of consumerism, celebrity, and the spectacle—usually without any overt political or social critiques (unless one considers their consumerist spectacle extreme enough to be satire). And compared to the Pop Shop, which barely broke even, Murakami and Hirst’s operations have become tools for branding and large sources of revenue, not platforms motivated by populism or charity. In addition, despite their larger scale and profits, these projects have been accepted more readily by the art market and art museums, as well as academia and art critics. Rightfully so, Murakami and Hirst are often framed within the legacy of Jeff Koons, highly influenced by Koons’s work in the 1980s and sharing with him an unbridled embrace of consumerism, the market, and the spectacle, “with a rigor that puts Warhol to shame.”66 According to art historian Scott Rothkopf, Koons “succeeded like no artist ever before” in reaching a large audience through publicity.67 Koons took and expanded Warhol’s idea of the artist celebrity into the tabloid sphere of the press, foreshadowing the headline-stealing antics of Murakami and Hirst in the following decades. But within this narrative, historians tend to miss or undervalue the influence of Haring’s public image construction and fame, as well as his impact on Murakami and Hirst’s art merchandise production.68 Murakami’s and Hirst’s endeavors are important recipients of the progression of the multiple to merchandise, of which Haring is a key transitional figure and Koons is not. Moreover, like Koons, Haring invented new ways to engage his art practice with mainstream print, broadcast, and outdoor media but pursued these avenues in order to foster art engagement to more people. Koons’s work may have been admired by a broad audience in the 1980s, though its popularity was more in line with the popularity of Pop art: accessible subject matter in his gallery works, but not accessible in price, ownership, or everyday usability. He aimed to “have the art stay on the highest orders,” arguing that popular forms in art can get “the mass of people in the door.”69 Even Koons’s forays into advertising were geared toward an art crowd, such as his placement of advertisements in art-specific magazines like Artforum, Flash Art, and Art in America from 1988 to 1989. Koons wanted to attract a general audience into the art world through a top-down approach, distributing his work through art galleries, museums, and the art market. In contrast, Hirst and Murakami, like Haring,

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

199

aimed to connect their mass audience to their art on familiar ground—in the realm of mass consumer culture.

Takashi Murakami Across his career, many of Murakami’s merchandising activities have resembled the basic premise of the Pop Shop but at a much bigger and more complex scale: a multinational corporate empire, complete with branding and ever-expanding product lines.70 Continuously looking for new commercial opportunities, Murakami has expanded his work to shops, apparel, toys, bars, animation, movies, popular conventions, and restaurants, and even has had plans to start his own bottled-water line.71 Although Murakami has not publicly acknowledged Haring’s influence, he did visit the Pop Shop in the late 1980s and lived in New York City in the 1990s and would have been introduced to Haring while living in Tokyo.72 In fact, in 1996, just one year after leaving New York, he established a workshop and studio in Tokyo that produced art and T-shirts he called the Hiropon Factory. Duplicating his business efforts like Haring, but in the reverse direction, he then added another Hiropon location in Brooklyn in 1998. Hiropon was a precursor to the much larger Kaikai Kiki Co., a company Murakami founded in 2001 that was also based in the two cities. To this day, Kaikai Kiki Co. produces and promotes artwork, events, and products, as well as manages the careers of select young artists. It employs about a total of 250 people in its dual headquarters in Tokyo and Long Island City and has over 18 departments that focus on painting, advertising, packaging, animation, branding, consumer goods, publishing, filmmaking, and animation—“a kind of Gesamtkunstwerk for the new millennium.”73 One of the first mass-produced projects Murakami spearheaded with Kaikai Kiki Co. was the Superflat Museum in 2005, a line of miniature sculptures sold cheaply as sets. Produced in the same materials and forms as his larger anime and mangainspired gallery sculptures, he called these smaller figurines “shokugans,” a customary collectible, cheap toy sold in Japanese convenience stores. Murakami saw the set as a starter kit for collecting art, since, as he put it, it is “not common to purchase and live with a work of art.”74 In total, Murakami sold 300,000 Superflat figurines for 3.50 USD each, which have since resold for over $1,000.75 Since then, Murakami has immersed himself in merchandising, collaborating with other artists and celebrities, as well as brands and companies. Derived from and inspired by popular culture, his cartoonish and childlike aesthetic, bright colors, and signature characters (such as his smiling flowers and Mr. DOB) has translated especially well to mass production. Murakami’s next famous, mass-produced project stemmed from a collaboration with designers Marc Jacobs and Louis Vuitton in 2007 (a long-term partnership that lasted from 2003 to 2016). Blending his art with the Louis Vuitton logo, they created bags and products ranging from $695 to $960 that were sold in a working store, placed directly within the galleries of his 2007 traveling museum retrospective. His Louis Vuitton bag sold so well during and after the exhibition, it became the “it bag” of the early 2000s.76 In addition to high-end design, Murakami has become a fixture in streetwear markets. Along with the musician Pharrell Williams, he hosts and designs the annual ComplexCon, a pop culture, and streetwear expo, and has

200

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

collaborated with several streetwear designers like Virgil Abloh and hip-hop artists Kanye West and Drake to make sweatshirts, album art, shirts, toys, mugs, and accessories. In 2018, Gagosian exhibited Murakami and Abloh’s work in a show entitled, Future History, selling 400 limited-edition T-shirts for the occasion. The show was so popular that a line of people started forming at 3:00 a.m.77 Based on these successes, Murakami regularly sells his merchandise in tandem with his exhibitions and opened his first directly managed shop in Tokyo in 2018, called Tonari No Zingaro (Figure 6.9). It sells plush toys, posters, apparel, key chains, watches, and other items covered with Murakami’s work. In Rothkopf’s 2009 essay for the Pop Life exhibition, he commends Murakami, who “does the thing itself,” beating licensing-happy foundations, heirs, and the museum shop’s “posthumous punch” to mass merchandising.78 Rothkopf then touches on Haring briefly as a precedent but downplays Haring’s commercial activities as unsophisticated “folksy populism,” understating Haring’s much more nuanced and productive relationship to self-promotion and consumerism.79 He also describes Haring’s interviews as “filled with sanctimonious tales of refusal concerning lucrative corporate projects.”80 By contrast, Murakami is more “unself-conscious—and thus ironically, far more conscious—about his role in this system . . . we could call this stance complicit or collusive, or we could simply call it honest.”81 Rothkopf is correct that Haring’s inner conflict prevented him from fully embracing commercialism in interviews. But his comparison fails to acknowledge important differences that drove their respective behaviors. Murakami has pursued commercialism without restraint not because he is more fearless or less self-conscious than Haring but because of the

Figure 6.9 Murakami Takashi’s exhibition at a shopping mall in Shanghai, China, with art merchandise for sale, 2017. Source: Courtesy of ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo.

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

201

distinct geographical and historical contexts that shaped his philosophy. Furthermore, their careers were not concurrent; Murakami’s success would not have been possible without Haring’s. Haring had already charted a path for mass market–based art practices through a less-than-receptive art world, helping to clear the way for others to follow. Generally, Japanese art history does not have the same highly coded and antagonistic hierarchy between high and low culture that has traditionally concerned Western art, especially in the 1980s. As curator Alison Gingeras writes, “Murakami is no ‘sellout’ as would be said of an artist in the West.”82 Murakami explained, Japanese people accept that art and commerce will be blended; and in fact, they are surprised by the rigid and pretentious Western hierarchy of “high art.” In the West, it certainly is dangerous to blend the two because people will throw all sorts of stones. But that’s okay—I’m ready with my hard hat.83 Murakami did not inherit the same degree of critical baggage that troubled Haring. Quite the reverse, he saw overt commercialism as an opportunity to inform contemporary Japanese art and identity, and to overcome the long-term hegemony of Western culture. Rather than “confound[ing] high and low,” a nonissue in Japan, Murakami’s goal was to proudly elevate Japanese popular culture to “reverse the tide of Japan’s post-war cultural inferiority complex” that resulted from U.S. occupation.84 From 2000 to 2005, Murakami fused multiple sources and concepts to create his Superflat style, exemplified in his shokugan artworks. He came up with the name after an encounter with Los Angeles gallery workers, who, when choosing which of his works to sell, said, “How about this one? It’s super flat, super high quality, and super clean!”85 Flat, shallow, childlike, and empty, Superflat embodies an amalgamation of Japanese culture formed after World War II. Infantilized by postwar U.S. occupation during the 1940s and 1950s, the Japanese internalized a long-term sense of inadequacy and subordination. Many turned to forms of expression through consumerism and popular culture, particularly otaku. Otaku is basically understood as a nonconforming geek youth subculture in which individuals became obsessed with aspects of popular culture—like anime and mange—to the detriment of their social skills, maturity, and personal ambitions. Becoming mainstream in the late 1970s and a major industry by the late 1980s, otaku principally impacted a younger Japanese generation, which included Murakami, who centralized its themes within his art practice. To him, otaku was an expression of the degenerative, shallow, and aimless state of the Japanese in the 1980s and 1990s. Though, rather than regretting this emergence of “low” culture that most considered to be both degenerative and shallow, Murakami believed that marginalized subcultures like otaku could inform Japanese art and reinvent the country’s identity, “turn[ing] the present system of contemporary Japanese art upside down.”86 Using otaku as inspiration, he aimed to create a new and inclusive art paradigm that could level (flatten) high and low, centralize mass commercialism, and allow art to leave the sacred zone of high culture.87 In large part, Murakami has succeeded. His pop-culture-inspired work has become a force in both fine-art and mainstream cultures, sold for millions in the art market, but also “leveled,” translated into affordable and readily available commodities. Ironically, however, although Murakami jettisons Western hierarchical conventions to pursue a uniquely Japanese contemporary style, he has found more popularity and

202

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

success in the West than in Japan. He admitted, “[T]here has been this tendency for the Japanese to be very jealous of people who are successful—especially those who succeed overseas in the West.”88 The animosity has at times been mutual, with Murakami stating in one instance that he does not have “any desire to be understood by the Japanese audience or to even show them my work.”89 Instead, Murakami has focused his attention on a global audience and has often defined his goals and philosophy against Western standards. Recently, when asked how he fit into the history of Japanese art he said, “In contemporary Japanese society, my standing is nothing. And also, you know, I’m not interested in going back to Japanese art. I want to combine with Western art history.”90 Murakami has employed a singular populist and cross-cultural approach to art making, fusing Japanese popular culture with his Eastern perspective of Western art history and popular culture, which has then been shaped and cultivated by his Western reception. This compounded mediation has, to an extent, insulated Murakami from any lingering Western ambivalence toward common commercialism, allowing him more freedom to experiment. To be sure, when Murakami has described his motivations, he sounds less like an active participant and more like a removed ethnographer. He said, I am looking for the crossing point between fine art and entertainment. I have learned in Europe and America the way of the fine art scene. Few people come to museums. Much bigger are movie theaters. The museum, that space is kind of oldstyle media, like opera. That’s why I am really interested in making merchandise for ordinary people.91 As a relative outsider to the West and primed by his Japanese upbringing to appreciate multiple forms of art and entertainment equally, Murakami has been free to interpret and selectively adopt the West’s most accessible and popular strategies to appeal to mass audiences.92 Although Murakami’s career has been to an extent defined by his relationship with the West, his main objective has been to present Japanese popular culture to a global audience via art, while at the same time using Japanese popular culture to revive and reframe Japan’s contemporary art scene. Outside of his own art practice, Murakami has promoted this agenda by creating events and opportunities to introduce general Japanese audiences to Pop-inspired art and to young and emerging Japanese artists. In 2001, for example, he established the GEISAI biannual art fair in Tokyo, an art expo open to any new artist to show their work at their own artist-run booth. Murakami “wanted to increase awareness of art among everyday Japanese people,” with a fair that had “a more egalitarian feeling than Western art fairs, which are really exclusive and oriented to the high-end consumer.”93 Investing millions of his own money, the event became a well-attended spectacle that continued until 2014, combining contemporary art with several elaborate otaku-inspired events and installations. Through his inclusive initiatives, Murakami has amassed immense financial and institutional success and fame as an artist, mainly in Europe and the United States. Since the 1990s, he has had major solo museum shows that attract recordbreaking crowds and has sold work in auctions for exorbitant sums.94 Like Haring, Murakami has used this celebrity both as a jumping-off point to extend his art

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

203

production into mass culture initiatives, like art merchandise, and to establish a public persona—both of which further reinforce his mass recognition and the popularity of his work. Echoing the practice of cosplay in otaku, Murakami regularly performs for the media, wearing ostentatious costumes to public events and exhibition openings. He has invested heavily in the cultivation of his public image, devoting an entire department to it in Kaikai Kiki, and has been featured in many photographs in mainstream publications in Japan and the United States. But in contrast to Haring, Murakami’s business acumen and celebrity have been acknowledged by art institutions as a major component of his art practice. The centralization of his Louis Vuitton products in his 2006–09 traveling retrospective is a case in point. Describing its significance, Murakami said, “The shop project is not a part of the exhibition; rather it is the heart of the exhibition itself. . . . The Louis Vuitton project brings to life a wonderful new world.”95

Damien Hirst Damien Hirst gained fame in the early 1990s with his own long list of international art exhibitions and commercial projects. A leading member of the Young British Artists (YBAs) in London, a group that started exhibiting together in the late 1980s, Hirst epitomized their reputation to grab headlines. Since the beginning of his career, he built his notoriety through several controversial stunts and provocations: he posed with a cadaver’s severed head in a photograph, exhibited dead animals in large tanks, and, most striking of all, his art has sold for unprecedented amounts of money—the amounts alone prompting public media coverage. In the late 1990s, Hirst capitalized on his reputation by initiating more popular commercial projects: launching a restaurant, designing album covers, directing music videos, and partnering with companies like Absolut Vodka.96 In perhaps one of his biggest media stunts in 2008, at the peak of his career, he sold $200.7-million worth of artwork in an auction he produced and managed himself. The largest amount ever made by a living artist in an auction, he regarded the act as a part of his art practice. By this time, Hirst was one of the richest and most famous men in Britain, facts that have become inextricably linked with his art and its interpretation. He has time and again leaned into this impression of his work, believing that his engagement with publicity and the market is “very democratic” and a “natural evolution for contemporary art.”97 Ever a provocateur, he has used his celebrity platform to provoke the art world itself, exposing its norms, pretentions, and rituals to critique and demystify its unapproachability. Hirst also has leveraged his celebrity to expand his art market into art merchandising. Although the Tate Modern’s exhibition Pop Life grouped Damien Hirst’s 2008 auction with Haring’s Pop Shop (as both DIY initiatives), a more apt comparison came afterward with the opening of Hirst’s series of stores called Other Criteria in 2009. Other Criteria sold limited editions and multiples, including T-shirts, sweatshirts, scarves, wallpaper, posters, books, jewelry, housewares, and prints by Hirst and other artists.98 Hirst founded Other Criteria as a publishing company in the late 1990s and converted it into a retail establishment in the 2000s. It existed first as a website, and then became physical stores in three locations: London in 2009, Devon in 2013, and SoHo, New York, in 2014 (just blocks away from the original Pop Shop).

204 Pop Shop Chain Reaction Hirst’s business partner, Hugh Allan, accounted for its origin: The idea, I suppose, in a way was to make the purchasing or acquiring of art less threatening and easier to do, by creating the retail environment which everybody’s familiar with . . . it’s definitely widened the audience who can participate in the collection of art.99 This populist sentiment is also evident in the name of the shop, after critic Leo Steinberg’s book Other Criteria (1972), in which Steinberg offered new, more accessible criteria to evaluate art in the 1960s, set apart from the abstract expressionist dogma of Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg. Hirst followed new criteria to make art for the 21st century: art that is meant to be mass produced, sold online, and inclusive— a model of art making that has proven to be very popular. The store attracted many different types of people with record sales in its frst few months, even despite the economic collapse in 2008.100 In 2011 alone, Other Criteria brought in 7 million pounds.101 Other Criteria fourished in the same neighborhood that the posthumous Pop Shop failed to proft in because of Hirst’s more corporate management style, global brand, and large stockpile of funds. Its success became such a signifcant aspect of Hirst’s artistic identity that merchandise was included in his 2012 Tate Modern retrospective, selling several items in the museum gift shop and featuring exclusive Hirst products in an insert within the catalog.102 To get to this point, Hirst’s career closely paralleled Haring’s in several ways, and even faced similar historical circumstances. Hirst’s cohort picked up several lessons from the East Village scene, adapting them to their cultural context. They were exposed to their work through several exhibitions that traveled to London, most notably New York Art Now in 1987, produced and funded by Charles Saatchi, a British advertising mogul and prominent art collector.103 Formative for Hirst, this show introduced him to Koons, whose vacuum cleaners inspired Hirst’s medicine cabinet sculptures (i.e., commodities curated within a minimalist structure).104 Beyond the exhibit, Hirst was also heavily influenced by Saatchi and his advertising campaigns, which he described as “massive,” saying, “I want to make art that does what [his advertising] does.”105 Like Haring and other East Village artists, Hirst and his peers looked to preexisting advertising techniques to disseminate their art and ideas themselves. This was in part a strategy for survival. The British art world and its market were even more exclusive than New York’s Uptown galleries of the 1980s. What’s more, Margaret Thatcher’s austerity measures in the 1980s included a marked decrease in public arts funding. Therefore, like the Downtown artists, the YBAs produced exhibitions themselves, but in contrast, they were not necessarily concerned with populism or having fun—they wanted to make money and be in the press. Their works’ accessibility was usually an unintentional byproduct of their focus on careerism.106 Nonetheless, Hirst has discussed his work in populist terms. In 1992, he said, “I want to speak a language [the audience] can understand and communicate things that they think they are probably not quite capable of receiving.”107 He understood that for the most part, many people thought of art as beyond their comprehension, or boring, and believed that his group was one of the first to make art popular and appealing—through their art’s subject matter and through mass publicity.108 Hirst, in particular, viewed his celebrity platform as a conduit to introduce art to the masses.109 Like Haring, Hirst has expressed both ambivalence and exasperation toward the art

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

205

world’s and the popular media’s focus on his celebrity and wealth, though he often fixates on the topics himself in interviews and unapologetically defends his pursuit of profits.110 In 1999, he reasoned, What makes the most money? The Mona Lisa, or the T-shirts, the earrings, the mugs, the postcards, the souvenir pens? If somebody said to you, “you have a choice. I’ll give you the actual Mona Lisa itself, or the merchandising rights,” what would you take?111 But while Haring was dismissed due to the (inaccurate) assumption of his proftseeking, Hirst’s unabashed style has found a more overall receptive historical context, again benefting from Haring and the new norms in Western culture and art history. Like the United States, the United Kingdom has had their own lineage of Pop art, beginning with artists like Richard Hamilton and the Independent Group in the 1950s. This legacy generated the same ongoing debates concerning high and low culture that persisted to later generations. Though, along with the influence of U.S. Pop and the East Village artists’ digestion of Pop art ideas, the YBAs had a robust baseline to accept art’s adoption of popular culture without reservation. In addition, in the 1980s, British academics in the Birmingham School led to a new appreciation of popular culture. Scholars like Dick Hebdige and Stuart Hall worked to debunk the arbitrary hierarchical divisions of culture, contextualize art within everyday social practices, and theorize mass culture as a primary site where subjectivity is formed. Following their lead, Hirst and his contemporaries treated mass culture as an equally valid subject and mode of address in their art.112 Similar to the Birmingham School, the YBAs’ work was also to an extent a reaction against the overdetermination of critical theory in the 1980s. By the end of the decade, the problems of postmodernism seemed less problematic and urgent. Moreover, its theories had become rigidly institutionalized and, therefore, the de facto status quo for this new generation to react against. Again, however, the YBAs’ motivations to move away from headier issues seem to be less a pursuit of accessible art concepts or ownership, and instead more opportunistic: populist art is effective in gaining attention among a nonspecialist audience more accustomed to consumerism and media spectacles than highly conceptual contemporary art. As a result, while the YBAs were popular with the masses, many art critics condemned the YBAs for their lack of criticality and retreat from difficult subject matter. Due to his prominence within the group, Hirst received a large share of the criticism, especially when it came to Other Criteria (described as a “step too far”) and was regularly accused of selling out.113 Art critic Julian Stallabrass famously censured the YBAs and Hirst in his highly regarded book, High Art Lite (1999), a self-professed backlash to the seemingly universal praise over the movement. Stallabrass comprehensively discussed the complex historical factors that contributed to the YBAs’ rise and then fall—with the (unaccounted for) exception of Hirst, whose career has solidly endured even several years after the book was published. Stallabrass’s writing took a tone akin to the more high-minded art criticism that targeted Haring in the 1980s, the kind of criticism that acts as fine art’s watchdog against populism and tabloid-like publicity. He compared the YBAs to fast food and described them as a fake avantgarde (“high art lite”), who propagated false accessibility and hollow grand gestures in their art, purposefully playing dumb. These conclusions still are based mainly on his subjective opinions and observations.114

206 Pop Shop Chain Reaction Ironically, rather than relegating Hirst and the YBAs to the bin of history, and proving the emptiness of their work, Stallabrass’s effort to deflate the movement’s significance had the opposite effect. His book mapped out the historical context surrounding the artists and their work, and in the book’s widespread recognition, it added an additional layer to the YBAs’ history. His account in context inadvertently pointed to a noteworthy paradigm shift of art making and reception in late-stage capitalism but mistook these innovations as failures by evaluating them against outdated modernist principles. Additionally, he neglects to fully connect, analyze, or appreciate their practices within the histories of celebrity, populism, and consumer culture. Thomas Crow reconsiders Hirst’s career in an essay for Hirst’s 2012 retrospective at the Tate Modern.115 Diverging from Stallabrass, Crow explains that the YBAs pioneered a new style that combined simplified versions of Pop art with Minimalism, movements that had “effectively become de-sacralised commodities themselves,” shedding their original critical aspects.116 In the 1990s, the YBAs believed that the theory behind these movements could be adjusted to better accommodate their cultural context, to be “unapologetically at home in an everyday media realm, however sensational or personal, then translating and validating that familiarity within the reigning vocabulary of art.”117 In short, the YBAs appropriated and reframed elements from past art movements to match new circumstances of everyday life— bringing popular culture into art. Therefore, media attention and celebrity were not unseemly byproducts of Hirst’s career; they were purposeful and insightful strategies that catered to new forms of mass communication and consumption. Undeniably, Hirst’s career has withstood—and even benefited from—Stallabrass’s and other’s criticism, evident from his ever-expanding opportunities and achievements in museums, galleries, and the art market. This, once more, is a marked difference from the more substantial and long-term negative impact of 1980s criticism against Haring’s career and the Pop Shop, which delayed his acceptance into museums and the art market for over a decade after his death, and prevented serious academic inquiry of either until the 2010’s.118 Despite its popularity, Hirst shuttered Other Criteria in New York and Devon in July 2017 and returned the business to book publishing, ceasing the selling of art merchandise and editions. Without much explanation, some have thought that the closing of the stores came after the negative reviews of Hirst’s 2017 show in Venice.119 After the shops closed, Hirst scaled back his corporate model to focus on his art, laid off about 50 staff members, and closed his gallery in Ilfracombe.120 His spokesperson claimed that Hirst wanted to spend more time in his studio, and the changes were not driven by the need to reduce costs but, rather, by a “desire to cut the corporate elements of the business to get back to a simpler way of working.”121 Otherwise, Hirst’s studio has declined to comment.122 Reading the subtext in various interviews, one could speculate that Hirst was burned out by the massive corporate-like nature of his career.123 Largely, like Haring, Hirst cut out the middleman throughout his career. He circumvented the curator by organizing shows himself, bypassed the art critic as a mainstream media star, and reconceptualized the art market by selling his work directly through the auction house.124 Nevertheless, Hirst’s auction might have been the beginning of the end of his business-minded approach. Achieving extraordinary and unexpected prices just prior to one of the largest recessions in recent history, he realized that “something really wasn’t right. . . . I couldn’t even process it—it was going crazy.”125 Perhaps, Hirst had reached a personal breaking point in benefiting from the obscene wealth disparity of late-stage capitalism. Or, more likely, he came to a stage in his life

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

207

where the exhaustion and distancing-effects of management were no longer worth the corporate-like control and scale of his mega-career. Regardless, Hirst’s works are still available to be licensed through the company Artimage, and his merchandise is regularly sold through multiple retail partnerships in a variety of forms, as well as in the Gagosian gallery, museum gift shops, and online art auction sites.

New Century, New Criteria In Other Criteria, Leo Steinberg wrote, “The deepening inroads of art into non-art continue to alienate the connoisseur as art defects and departs into strange territories leaving the old stand-by criteria to rule an eroding plan.”126 Although it closed, Keith Haring’s Pop Shop helped establish new criteria for art making and engagement. Its conceptual and populist underpinnings continue to thrive, especially through more accessible and diversified media platforms and in an art world that increasingly sanctions, rather than censures, commercial art activities. While pursuing incredibly diverse practices, the artists discussed here all have several qualities that prove to be baseline criteria for merchandise production. First, they all developed a public presence and following, whether through subcultures like graffiti or art-world hype and spectacles. Many times, this recognition has extended beyond traditional art-world channels, generating a ready-made fan base who want to demonstrate their veneration by buying and wearing apparel marked with the artists’ work. These artists have then built on this fame by broadening and reinforcing their involvement with popular culture, in line with the marketing strategies of brand extension and integrated communications. Most times, this process is informed by the artists’ own professional experience in graphic design or advertising or by street-level circulation methods first developed in the 1980s. Finally, these artists evolved Haring’s model for a new century by outsourcing their production and distribution to third parties and the Internet to reduce costs. Taken together, this has proven to be an effective methodology to carry on the legacy of Haring and his shop. In his last interview, Haring described his Pop Shop as a romantic idea of the artist as an artist of the people, as a communicator of the people, and as a part of the general population and culture. A lot of artists have strived for that and not that many people have really succeeded at it.127 These artists succeeded, as Haring had, and went even further, benefting from a new century, as well as the lessons, tribulations, and strategies provided by Haring and his Pop Shop.

Notes 1. Brian Ashcraft, “Chaos Breaks Out at Uniqlo in China Over KAWS Shirts,” Kotaku East (June 5, 2019). Also see Matt Welty, “KAWS on His New Uniqlo Collaboration,” Complex (April 29, 2017). 2. “The Claws Come Out for KAWS x Uniqlo T-shirts,” MSN (June 6, 2019). 3. In Manhattan on June 8, 2019, I counted eight different people in public wearing KAWS Uniqlo T-shirts. I interviewed one, who described the regulated experience at a New York Uniqlo. Also see Lisette Voytko, “KAWS Collaboration with Uniqlo Debuts—Chaos Ensues,” Forbes (June 4, 2019). 4. Damien Hirst’s career has been targeted by activists, who have protested his use of dead animals in his art. “Animal Rights Activists Target Damien Hirst’s Venice Exhibition,” Artforum (March 15, 2017).

208

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

5. See “Elite Art in the Age of Populism,” in Contemporary Art: 1989 to the Present (Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, 2013); Eddie Chambers, “Review Publications,” AN Magazine (June 1998): 25; Alison M. Gingeras, “Lost in Translation: The Politics of Identity in the Work of Takashi Murakami,” in Pop Life: Art in a Material World, ed. by Jack Bankowsky, Alison Gingeras, and Catherine Wood (London: Tate Publishing, 2009) 77 and 88; Julian Spalding, “Damien Hirsts Are the Sub-prime of the Art World,” The Independent (March 26, 2012); Julian Stallabrass, High Art Lite: British Art in the 1990s (New York: Verso, 1999); and Vanessa Thorpe, “Top Critic Lashes Out at Hirst’s ‘Tacky’ Art,” The Guardian (September 6, 2008). 6. The following are some graffiti and street artists who have created merchandise or streetwear, or have collaborated with designers or companies for products: Invader (sells limited editions of puffy stickers and “invasion kits”), Futura 2000 (sold T-shirts in the original Pop Shop, collaborated with designer Agnes B, Levi’s, Nike, Vans, and Hennessy), André Saraiva (collaborated with Louis Vuitton, sells posters, pins, and other objects), James Jean (collaborated with the Hundreds Cp. to make hats, T-shirts, sweatshirts, and skateboards), BÄST (sneakers with Marc Jacobs), Wes Lang (line of Rolex watches, clothing line, merchandise for Kanye West’s tour), Lady Aiko (collaborated with Louis Vuitton), Hebru Brantley (apparel, stickers, products through website), KR (sold products with Alife company for streetwear), STASH (streetwear), and Mr. Brainwash (eyeglasses for New York SoHo’s Sunglass Hut). Several companies, brands, and websites sell street art and graffiti designs on merchandise without permission. See Julie Zerbo, “Graffiti Artists Fight Copying by Fashion Brands,” Business of Fashion (February 26, 2016). Banksy, the most famous street/graffiti artist, has probably the most merchandise in the market—but none of the products are produced by him. Since he does not copyright or license his name or his work, anyone can produce Banksy merchandise, capitalizing on his popularity and wide appeal. Because he is disengaged from the practice, he is not discussed at length. 7. Jaimie D’Cruz, et al., Exit Through the Gift Shop (New York: Company Limited, 2010) DVD. 8. Kira Cochrane, “Women in Art: Why Are All the ‘Great’ Artists Men?” The Guardian (May 24, 2013). 9. Thierry Ehrmann, “The Contemporary Art Market Report 2018: Artist Prices,” Artprice. com (2018). 10. Helen Kohen, “Scharf on Scharf,” The Miami Herald (April 16, 1995). 11. Barry Blinderman, ed., Kenny Scharf (Normal, IL: Illinois State University, 1998) 24. Also see Bill McBride, “Who Wants Gum? Apocalyptic Fun in Kenny Jelly Jungle,” in Kenny Scharf (Illinois State, 1998) 71–72, 75, and 88. 12. Kathleen Beckett, “Kenny’s Scharf Schack,” Hamptons (July 7, 1995) 38. 13. The business was called: “Van Chrome’s Customised Appliances.” See Francesco Spampinato, “Kenny Scharf: Bringing the Fantasy into Reality,” Apartamento, no. 7 (May 2011): 195. 14. Kenny Scharf, “Chrome on the Range,” The SoHo Weekly News (1981). 15. Blinderman, ed., Kenny Scharf (1998) 20. 16. See Susan Ainsworth, “The Scharfer Image,” South Florida (November 1994). Scharf’s customized sculptures have been exhibited several times in museums and galleries, like at the Queens Museum of Art (1991). 17. Scharf rented the kiosk from Peter Brandt, a mega art collector who also owns Interview and Art in America. Interview with Carlo McCormick by author, February 11, 2016. The New York store was modeled after Scharf’s Scharf Shop in Miami from 1994, which existed for six months. 18. Beckett, “Kenny’s Scharf Schack,” 38. 19. Laurice A. Parkin, “Kiosk of Kool,” Daily News (August 3, 1995). Interview with Kenny Scharf by author, March 18, 2015. 20. See www.artsy.net/artwork/kenny-scharf-kenny-scharf-weird-magnets-1990-s-6-pack-scharfshack-original-sealed-packaging, accessed May 2, 2020 and www.phillips.com/detail/kennyscharf/NY000410/61, accessed May 2, 2020. 21. Scharf features his art merchandise on his website. “Kenny Scharf Products,” http://kenny scharf.com/products/, accessed January 4, 2019. In addition, they have been positioned as

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

45. 46. 47.

48. 49. 50.

209

art in auctions. See www.liveauctioneers.com/item/61863121_kenny-scharf-monsterwall-clock-b1958 and www.liveauctioneers.com/price-guide/kenny-scharf/14220/ accessed January 1, 2019. OBEY Clothing, “About,” http://zine.obeyclothing.com/about/, accessed June 10, 2016. Pedro Alonzo, “Introduction,” in Covert to Overt: The Under/Overground Art of Shepard Fairey, ed. by Simon Steinhardt (New York: Rizzoli, 2015) 14. Sabrina Maddeaux, “Haute Topic: Does Shepard Fairey’s Obey Clothing Line Make Him a Sellout?” Now Toronto (October 5, 2014). “Interview with Shepard Fairey: Still Obeying After All These Years,” AIGA (June 4, 2004). Ibid. Shepard Fairey, “Preface,” in Covert to Overt, 13. G. James Daichendt, Shepard Fairey Inc.: Artist, Professional, Vandal (Petaluma, CA: Cameron + Company, 2013) 57. “VRT Ventures and Shepard Fairey Launch ‘Damaged’ VR/AR Experience,” Obey Giant, https://obeygiant.com/vrt-ventures-and-shepard-fairey-launh-damaged-vr-ar-experience/, accessed June 1, 2019. In 2013, he had over 25,000 YouTube videos online. Daichendt, Shepard Fairey Inc., 215. Jori Finkel, “After ‘Hope’ and Lawsuit: Shepard Fairey Tries Damage Control,” The New York Times (November 3, 2017). This sellout charge is usually reported indirectly by Fairey or by writers covering his work. See Daichendt, Shepard Fairey Inc., 83 and 126; Michael Dooley, “He Might Be Giant,” PRINT (May/June 2000): 48; “Interview with Shepard Fairey,” 2004; Shepard Fairey, “Obey-Commerce,” (March 2003), https://obeygiant.com/essays/obey-commerce/, accessed June 10, 2016; and Maddeaux, “Haute Topic.” Ibid. Daichendt, Shepard Fairey Inc., 20, 26, 43, 60, and 132. See Daichendt, Shepard Fairey Inc., 150–156. Also see D*Face, “Sound and Vision,” in Covert to Overt, 73–74. Daichendt, Shepard Fairey Inc., 150–156. Ibid., 150. Russell Brand, “Art in the Streets,” in Covert to Overt, 22. Fairey, “Covert to Overt,” 239. See Julia Gruen interview in “Keith Haring × OBEY Collaboration,” 2010, https://vimeo. com/44836243, accessed June 10, 2016. Ibid. In 2010. Fairey also designed a T-shirt of a Haring portrait for the AIDS Walk. Dooley,“He Might be Giant,” 49. Also see Brand,“Art in the Streets,” in Covert to Overt, 23. “Interview with Toby McGuire, KAWS,” Interview (May 2010). KAWS had his first gallery show in 2001 in Tokyo at the Parco Gallery, a Japanese shopping center. In addition, Haring and KAWS both made work for children; were interested in comics; collaborated with celebrities, musicians, and MTV; designed Times Square billboards; had their merchandise exhibited at the store, Colette, in Paris; and had a balloon of their work created for the Macy’s Day Parade. “Interview with Toby McGuire, KAWS.” “26 Questions for Street Artist KAWS,” Artinfo (September 2011): 12 and Chris Lee, “Tag, this artist is definitely it,” The Los Angeles Times (2009). KAWS did covers and spreads for popular magazines like Nylon, Interview Magazine, and New York Magazine in New York; Cream Magazine and Touch Magazine in Hong Kong; Huge Magazine, Relax Magazine, and Eyescream Magazine in Japan; Sleazenation Magazine and I-D Magazine in England; Giant Robot Magazine, Complex, and Juxtapoz Magazine in the United States; enRoute in Canada; and Harper’s Bazaar in Korea. Peter Davis, “The Cult of KAWS,” PAPERMAG (August 20, 2012). Also see Carlo McCormick, “From Streets to TV to Fine Art Galleries, KAWS Is Everywhere,” PAPERMAG (November 2013). Germano Celant, “BD and K,” in KAWS 1993–2010 (New York: Rizzoli Electa, 2010) 55. Steff Yotka, “Inside KAWS’s Studio with the Artist—and His Snoopy for Uniqlo Toys,” Vogue (April 27, 2017).

210

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

51. Welty, “KAWS on His New Uniqlo Collaboration.” 52. “Gary Panter Interviews KAWS at Gary’s Studio,” in KAWS 1993–2010, 213. Also see McCormick, “From Streets to TV.” 53. KAWS cites Murakami in “26 Questions for Street Artist KAWS.” Murakami, Koons, and Oldenburg are referenced in “Interview with Toby McGuire, KAWS”; Haring in McCormick, “From Streets to TV”; and Claes Oldenburg in Kathryn Branch, “The KAWS Effect,” New York Times Magazine (June 7, 2011). In Lee, “Tag, this artist is definitely it,” Haring and Murakami are referenced. Art collector, Susan Hancock, thinks of KAWS as the “U.S. Murakami Equivalent.” 54. Celant, “BD and K,” 47–48 and 50–52. 55. Jeremy Abbott, “Big up to KAWS—the Man Behind the Cartoons,” I-D Magazine. The Stepping Stone Issue (July 2008): 73. 56. Ibid. Quoted in The Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art KAWS Exhibition Brochure (Ridgefield, CT: The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, 2010) 12. 57. McCormick, “From Streets to TV.” In a few interviews, KAWS mentions Haring’s New York Pop Shop but not the Tokyo connection. 58. See Sean Baker, “KAWS and Supreme Founder James Jebbia,” i-D magazine (November 21, 2013); Branch, “The KAWS Effect”; Celant, “BD and K,” 55; “Interview: Gary Panter and KAWS,” 212; McCormick, “From Streets to TV,” Pop Magazine, UK, no. 15 (Spring/ Summer, February 2007): 265; and Monica Ramirez-Montagut, “KAWS: Seeing You Seeing Yourself,” in KAWS 1993–2010, 121. 59. Ramirez-Montagut, “KAWS: Seeing You Seeing Yourself,” 128. 60. Welty, “KAWS on His New Uniqlo Collaboration.” 61. “Interview with KAWS, D. Villorente, & T. James,” in Mascots & Mugs: The Characters and Cartoons of Subway Graffiti, ed. by David Villorente and Todd James (New York: Testify; D.A.P., 2007) 284. 62. Celant, “BD and K,” 55. KAWS also asserted the equal importance of his merchandise and art in Branch, “The KAWS Effect” and Pop Magazine, 265. 63. See Celant, “BD and K,” 53. 64. See McCormick, “From Streets to TV.” 65. See www.phillips.com/artist/4271/kaws, accessed May 3, 2020. 66. Hal Foster, “The Medium is the Market,” London Review of Books (October 9, 2008): 23–24. 67. Scott Rothkopf, “Made in Heaven: Jeff Koons and the Invention of the Art Star,” in Pop Life, 44. 68. Ibid., 45. Also see Holland Cotter, “Carving a Pop Niche in Japan’s Classical Tradition,” The New York Times (June 24, 2001). 69. Quoted from “From Criticism to Complicity; Koons, Halley, Steinbach, Bickerton, Levine,” Flash Art, no. 129 (Summer 1986). 70. Scott Rothkopf, “Takashi Murakami: Company Man,” in ©Murakami, ed. by Paul Schimmel (Los Angeles, CA: The Museum of Contemporary Art, 2007) 128. 71. Alison Gingeras, “Takashi Murakami,” Interview Magazine (July 10, 2010). 72. Rothkopf, “Takashi Murakami: Company Man,” 143. More often, Murakami and his scholars cite the influence of Warhol. See Carol Vogel, “The Warhol of Japan Pours Ritual Tea in a Zen Moment,” The New York Times (May 7, 2007) and Louisa Buck, “The Louis Vuitton Project Is My Urinal!” The Art Newspaper, no. 184 (October 2007): 35. 73. Rothkopf, “Takashi Murakami: Company Man,” 132. Murakami directly references Warhol when he calls his studios “factories.” 74. Ibid., 138. 75. See www.ebay.com/itm/KAIYODO-Set-Of-4-Complete-Takashi-Murakami-Super-FlatMuseum-NEW-YORK-NY-ED-/121458914359, accessed June 22, 2016. 76. Ruth la Ferla, “The Artist’s Fall Collection,” New York Times (November 8, 2007). 77. Fionnuala McHugh, “New Takashi Murakami Show at Gagosian Hong Kong Looks to Youth and the Inevitable Future,” South China Morning Post (September 22, 2018). 78. Rothkopf, “Takashi Murakami: Company Man,” 137–138. 79. Ibid., 132. 80. Ibid., 144.

Pop Shop Chain Reaction 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

87. 88.

89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94.

95. 96. 97. 98.

99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105.

211

Ibid., 145. Gingeras, “Lost in Translation,” 80. Magdalene Perez, “Takashi Murakami,” Blouin Artinfo (May 17, 2007). Gingeras, “Lost in Translation,” 77 and 79. Also see Patrick Galbraith, The Otaku Encyclopedia: An Insider’s Guide to the Subculture of Cool in Japan (New York: Kodansha International, 2009) 6. Dick Hebdige, “Flat Boy vs. Skinny: Takashi Murakami and the Battle for Japan,” in ©Murakami, 30. Midori Matsui, “Murakami Matrix: Takashi Murakami’s Instrumentalization of Japanese Postmodern Culture,” in ©Murakami, 42, 80–106, and 108 and Takashi Murakami, “Hello, You Are Alive. Tokyo Pop Manifesto,” Kokoku hihyd, no. 226 (April 1999): 58–59. Paul Schimmel, “Making Murakami,” in ©Murakami, 68 and Takashi Murakami, “Towards a Strong Art that Departs from a Sacred Zone,” Atelier (Tokyo, March 1992): 96–97. Andrew Lee, “Takashi Murakami: A Reluctant Homecoming,” The Japan Times (2015). Also see Lee, “Takashi Murakami: The Face of Japanese Contemporary Art Abroad, Underappreciated at Home,” The Japan Times (March 13, 2019). Murakami said the Japanese detested him ever since his highly sexualized sculpture, My Lonesome Cowboy (2008), sold for $15 million, believing it loudly misrepresented a shameful part of otaku culture to western audiences. Kendall Morgan, “Prolific Pop Artist Takashi Murakami on Jellyfish Eyes and Being Detested in Japan,” Culture Map Dallas (May 2, 2014). Lee, “Takashi Murakami.” Kevin Griffin, “Takashi Murakami Still Looking for Acceptance in Japan,” Vancouver Sun (February 2, 2018). Quoted in Peter Marks, “A Japanese Artist Goes Global,” The New York Times (July 25, 2001). Schimmel,“Making Murakami,” in ©Murakami, 58–59 and Matsui,“Murakami Matrix,” 81. Also see Murakami, “Towards a Strong Art” and Mika Yoshitake, “The Meaning of the Nonsense of Excess,” in ©Murakami, 117–118. Perez, “Takashi Murakami.” Sotheby’s, October 2015, lot 12, $1.03 million, www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/ 2015/contemporary-art-evening-auction-l15024/lot.12.html, accessed June 22, 2016; and Sotheby’s November 2013, lot 40, $1.565 million, www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/ 2013/nov-2013-contemporary-evening-n09037/lot.40.html, accessed June 22, 2016. “Brooklyn Museum Announces Exclusive Vuitton Store Within Murakami Exhibition,” Art Daily (2008). Pernilla Holmes, “The Branding of Damien Hirst,” ARTnews (October 1, 2007): 2. Ann Gallagher, et al., Damien Hirst (London: Tate Modern, 2012) 180. Scarves by Peter Halley and Raymond Pettibon sold for £260, and insecticide wallpaper by Mat Collishaw for £125. See https://othercriteria.com/uk, accessed June 22, 2016. Also see “The 15 Best Items in the Other Criteria Online Store,” www.complex.com/style/2014/12/ the-15-best-items-in-the-other-criteria-online-store, accessed January 5, 2019. Shannon Denny, “Meet Hugh Allan, Damien Hirst’s Partner in the Other Criteria Art Business,” Marylebone Journal (2012). Ibid. “Damien Hirst Enter Through the Gift Shop,” Artlyst (April 2, 2012). Products ranged from a silk scarf for 125£, as high as 36,800£ for a limited-edition painted plastic skull. Ibid. Dan Cameron, New York Art Now: The Saatchi Collection (London: G. Politi, 1987). New York Art Now was the first time Hirst disagreed with his teachers from Goldsmith, who thought East Village art was “shit.” Damien Hirst, On the Way to Work (London: Fabor, 2001) 170. Gallagher, et al., Damien Hirst, 92. Also see Hirst, On the Way to Work, 119 and 170. Haring and many other artists from the East Village scene were omitted from New York Art Now. The exhibition also had no women artists, and only one artist of color. However, Haring’s work was included in several other group exhibitions in London in the 1980s and 1990s, and he had a solo show there in 1983.

212

Pop Shop Chain Reaction

106. Naomi Siderfin and Duncan McCorquodale, eds, Occupational Hazard: Critical Writing on Recent British Art (London: Black Dog Publishing, 2002) 11, 14–15, 20, 24, 33, and 36–37. 107. Hirst, On the Way to Work, 32–34. 108. Ibid., 32–34, 71, and 169. Also see Gallagher, et al., Damien Hirst, 7 and 96. 109. Hirst, On the Way to Work, 49. 110. Ibid., 63, 71, 75, 82, 83, 86, 94, 135, 141, 154, 190, 192, and 200. 111. Ibid., 71. 112. Siderfin and McCorquodale, et al., Occupational Hazard, 61–74. 113. Hendrik Hansson, “Damien Hirst Opens Gift Shop in New York,” Artnet, August 15, 2014. Also see Julien Scalding, Con Art—Why You Should Sell Your Damien Hirsts While You Can (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2012) and Hirst, On the Way to Work, 184. 114. Stallabrass, High Art Lite, 2, 4, 9, 86, 100, and 141. A critic in the 1980s also negatively compared Haring to fast food. In addition, Haring himself described his Pop Shop (positively) as a fast-food Brookstone. Op. cit. 115. Thomas Crow, “In the Glass Menagerie: Damien Hirst with Francis Bacon,” in Damien Hirst, ed. by Ann Gallagher, et al. (London: Tate Modern, 2012). 116. Ibid., 192 and 197. 117 Ibid., 197. 118. Siderfin and McCorquodale, et al., Occupational Hazard, 19–20. 119. Sebastian Shakespeare, “Damien Hirst Is Closing Shops in Devon and New York,” Daily Mail (July 17, 2017). Damien Hirst and his studio declined to comment on any of Hirst’s stores. Email to author March 1, 2019. They also refused to allow any images to be featured of the store, saying it was closed. Email to author June 30, 2020. 120. Anny Shaw, “Damien Hirst Scales Back Business to Focus on Making Art,” The Art Newspaper (October 1, 2018). 121. Ibid. 122. Email to author, March 1, 2019. 123. See Shaw, “Damien Hirst Scales Back.” Even early in 1999 and 2000, Hirst was worried that he was turning out too many “Damien Hirsts.” Hirst, On the Way to Work, 115, 141, and 148. 124. Gallagher, et al., Damien Hirst, 14. 125. Shaw, “Damien Hirst Scales Back.” 126. Leo Steinberg, Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth Century Art (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972) 91. 127. Jason Rubell, “Keith Haring: The Last Interview,” Arts Magazine (September 1990): 55.

Epilogue Populist Art for a Populist World

The growing scholarship concerning consumer culture can provide a new lens to look back to the 1980s and reevaluate everyday commercial art practices and their significance in art history.1 From this perspective, the Pop Shop was not an unfortunate stain that represents the kitsch or greed of the decade. It was an art concept that was both of its time, taking part in an interdisciplinary movement toward the popular and appreciation of the everyday, and ahead of its time, being the first of many artist-run merchandising operations to utilize mass consumption to make the art world more accessible. Beyond that, Haring’s groundbreaking set of nonart tactics has allowed artists who followed to rethink how art can function within its contemporary environment and encourage participation from an unprecedented range and number of people. Haring proved that access to an international nonart audience is increasingly based on how well an artist navigates networks outside traditional art institutions. Disembodied and dispersed, these channels represent a new kind of alternative space for art that can unsettle power dynamics, and engage with and draw substantial attention and money to important issues on a larger scale. In a globalized and digitized era, in which the experience of art has changed dramatically and public funding for the arts is scarce or shrinking, art institutions and spaces risk losing relevance to those outside of the art world.2 But at the same time, it is easier than ever for contemporary artists to show and distribute their work through social media channels and websites and to license their designs for mass production. For better or for worse, digital media channels and consumerism are the primary means to reach a mass audience. Artists should inhabit this space as much as possible. Since the 1990s, the Internet and globalization have introduced unprecedented access to information, as well as to communication tools. This has transformed the way people think and learn and has yielded a range of social actions and cultural production that range from go-fund-me campaigns to full-fledged revolutions, from direct artist-to-audience interaction to international exposure and education of the arts outside the walls of a gallery or museum. Nevertheless, these networks and their ease of exchange have allowed a troubling increase in populist tactics—such as the exploitation of fear and facts—by those with authority as well, swinging governments and leadership to the Right around the world. In the guise of populism, extreme tax cuts for the rich and the corporate class have matched (and intensified) the overall consolidation of wealth to a relatively few individuals. This acceleration of unconstrained corporate power has also exacerbated environmental crises like climate change, as well as the erosion of environmental protections. Left unchecked, right-wing populism thrives on and encourages a lack of criticality and misinformation—bolstered by propaganda,

214

Epilogue

corruption, surveillance, and a disinvestment in social benefits like healthcare, welfare, and education, and leads to a rise in tyrannical control. More so than ever before, it is imperative to understand how messages and information are packaged and circulated, and respond with effective measures to counter corruption and inequality. As Haring has demonstrated, this could include grassroots activism using one’s celebrity to give a platform to underserved communities, or raising awareness on social or political issues through popular culture’s consumer and media channels. Responding to the overall cultural context of the United States since the presidential election in 2016, which has included the escalation of white supremacism, and, along with it, xenophobia, isolationism, and racism, Shepard Fairey created the series “We the People” for the Women’s March in January 2017 (Figure 6.5). The works feature individual portraits of a black woman, a Hispanic woman, and a Muslim woman staring directly out toward the viewer with the text,“We the people are greater than fear.” In the same graphic style as Fairey’s Obama Hope image, in red, white, and blue, these women take on the style and space of posters previously reserved for politicians in Fairey’s work. They resist the narrative on the Right and in Donald Trump’s populist campaign and presidency—that real American citizens are white heterosexual males, whose history of outright privilege and power represents an ideal time of “greatness” to return to. An empowering message meant to address an extraordinary period of mass anxiety and alarm in anticipation of a Trump presidency, Fairey’s artwork filled a need for collective relief and resistance. The women had learned just two months prior to the march that their new president had boasted he could “grab ’em by the pussy” without facing any consequences. The Women’s March attracted over 500,000 people in Washington, DC, and over 5,000,000 people in 670 other sister marches and events worldwide. Fairey’s images were available free to download and were well represented at the event, visually uniting the cause—along with pink pussy hats—with a positive and galvanizing message (Figure 6.5). Since the Women’s March, Fairey’s graphics have been used countless times at subsequent protests, displayed in classrooms and civic institutions, and sold and exhibited in galleries and auctions. Fairey has also reproduced and sold them on a variety of merchandise from his website. Of their proceeds, 100 percent go to the Amplifier Foundation, an organization that aims to bolster grassroots movements through art and community engagement. To counteract the upsurge in right-wing populism, Fairey adopted Haring’s activist model, using populism against itself. While his posters and T-shirts may be relatively small acts to help mobilize an overall campaign of other oppositional efforts, its effects should not be underestimated. Haring’s Pop Shop and his populist use of art merchandise and public forums have presented tools and strategies that can be adapted by anyone to critique dominant ideologies. His career has shown the necessity of art to infiltrate the everyday and the public sphere to make a difference in today’s world, as well as the importance of creating welcoming and inclusive spaces for new audiences to participate and create meaning in culture—experiences that can help change attitudes and inspire action.

Notes 1. See Marcia Tucker’s reassessment of mass cultural forms in the 1980s in Impresario: Malcolm McLaren and the British New Wave (New York: The New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1988) 7–8.

Epilogue

215

2. Holand Cotter, “Toward a Museum of the 21st Century,” The New York Times (October 28, 2015). A visitor-centered approach has been adopted by many museums in the last decade— it is when a museum prioritizes the needs and wants of their audience to make their museums as relevant as possible. See Graeme Farnell, Interpreting the Art Museum: A Collection of Essays and Case Studies (Boston, MA: Museums etc., 2015) and Peter Samis and Mimi Michaelson, Creating the Visitor-Centered Museum (New York: Routledge, 2017). Also see Alina Cohen, “How Art Museums Can Remain Relevant in the 21st Century,” Artsy (June 15, 2018) www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-art-museums-remain-relevant-21st-century, accessed June 28, 2019.

Bibliography

“26 Questions for Street Artist KAWS.” Artinfo (September 2011): 12. “A. More Store Advertisements.” Artforum (December 1984): 72–79. Abbott, Jeremy. “Big up to KAWS—The Man Behind the Cartoons.” I-D Magazine. The Stepping Stone Issue (July 2008): 73. ACT UP New York Records. Series V Financial Records 1989–1994, r. 17 Box 24, folder 4. New York Public Library. “ACT UP Reports, New York, no. 4, June 1989.” Box 9, folder 1. New York Public Library Archives. Adams, Brook. “Keith Haring: Radiant Picaresque.” Art in America (April 1998): 94–98, 130. Adorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge, 1991. Adriani, Götz, editor. Keith Haring: Heaven and Hell. New York: D.A.P. Distributed Art Publishers, 2001. “AIDS Timeline—Keith Haring ACT UP Fundraising Letter, pp.  1–6, Autumn 1989.” Group Material (MSS # 215), Box 4, Folder 7. The Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. Ainsworth, Susan. “The Scharfer Image.” South Florida (November 1994). Alberro, Alexander. Conceptual Art and the Politics of Publicity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. The Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art KAWS Exhibition Brochure. Ridgefield, CT: The Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum, 2010. Alinovi, Francesca. “Twenty-first Century Slang.” Flash Art, no. 114 (November 1983): 29. Alloway, Lawrence. Modern Dreams: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Pop. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988. Alterman, Lawrence K. “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals.” The New York Times (July 3, 1981). “American Graffiti.” The Face, no. 43. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts: 10 Years Report 1987–97. New York: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, 1997. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Two Year Report, May 1 2001–April 30, 2003. New York: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, 2003. “Announcement: A. More Store at Jack Tilton Gallery.” Box 1, Folder 86, Andrea Collard Papers, MSS 156. The Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. Appadurai, Arjun. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Applebroog, Ida. “The Woman’s Movement in Art, 1986.” Arts Magazine (September 1986): 57. Appleton, Helen. Robert Henri. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1931. Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art. “Machines.” http://objetsvendart.com/machines.html, accessed January 14, 2016.

Bibliography

217

Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art. “Press.” http://objetsvendart.com/press.html, accessed January 17, 2016. Armstrong, Elizabeth, editor. In the Spirit of Fluxus. Minneapolis, MN: Walker Art Center, 1993. “Art and Fashion NBC—Today.” KHA-0694, Tape Number: KH094/095/096/097, 35 minutes 17 seconds, July 12, 1988. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. Artforum, vol. 41, no. 7 (March 2003). Artforum, vol. 41, no. 8 (April 2003). “Artist at Work.” Identification number KHA 0565, 28 minutes 28 seconds, 1986. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. “Art-o-mat.” The Washington Times (October 20, 1986). Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” Art Price and Value: Contemporary Art and the Market. Florence, Italy: Centro di Cultura Contemporanea Strozzina, 2009. “Arts Alive in Downtown Durham.” Durham Morning Herald (August 30, 1985). Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” Asen and Co. (February 23, 1990). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1990 press box. Ashcraft, Brian. “Chaos Breaks Out at Uniqlo in China over KAWS Shirts.” Kotaku East (June 5, 2019). https://kotaku.com/chaos-breaks-out-at-uniqlo-in-china-over-kaws-t-shirts-1835262 791, accessed June 13, 2019. Atkins, Robert and Thomas Sokolowsky. From Media to Metaphor: Art about AIDS. New York: Distributed Art Publishers, 1992. Ault, Julie, editor. Alternative Art, New York: 1965–1985. New York: Drawing Center, 2002. Auping, Michael. Urban Theater: New York Art in the 1980s. New York: Rizzoli, 2014. Bagdikian, Ben. The Media Monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1987. Baker, Sean. “KAWS and Supreme Founder James Jebbia.” i-D Magazine (November 21, 2013). Baldwin, Harry Eugene. “Drawing Outside the Lines.” Frontiers (October 16, 1998): 91. Bankowsky, Jack. “Editor’s Note.” Artforum, vol. 41, no. 7 (March 2003): 1. ———, Alison Gingeras, and Catherine Wood, editors. Pop Life: Art in a Material World. London: Tate Publishing, 2009. Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang, 1957. Bass, Ruth. “Crack is Wack is Back.” ARTNews (December 1986). Baudrillard, Jean. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1998. ———. “The Masses: The Implosion of the Social in the Media.” New Literary History, vol. 16, no. 3 (Spring 1985): 577–589. Becker, Howard. Art Worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982. Beckett, Kathleen. “Kenny’s Scharf Schack.” Hamptons (July 7, 1995): 38. Belkin, Lisa. “The Gentrification of the East Village Scene.” The New York Times (September 2, 1984): R1.2. Belsito, Peter. Notes From the Pop Underground. Berkeley, CA: Last Gasp of San Francisco, 1985. Berry, Robert. “Vending-machine Art Makes Splash at Rio.” Atlanta Journal (September 16, 1987): 1-C. “Beyond Anxiety.” The New York Times (June 13, 1982): 22. Biggs, Melissa and Jonathan Wright. “Keith Haring: Mastering the Moment.” Yale Vernacular, vol. 1, no. 2 (March/April 1987). Blinderman, Barry, editor. Keith Haring: Future Primeval. Normal, IL: Illinois University Gallery, Illinois State University, 1990. ———, editor. Kenny Scharf. Normal, IL: Illinois State University, 1998. The Body Positive: A Magazine About HIV, vol. 2, no. 4 (May 1989). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1989 press box.

218

Bibliography

Bouloukos, Ted. “Art to GO-GO.” Albany Review (July 1, 1989): 48. Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. ———. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996. Branch, Kathryn. “The KAWS Effect.” New York Times Magazine (June 7, 2011). Brier, Jennifer. Infectious Ideas: U.S. Political Responses to the AIDS Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2009. Brito, Maria Gabriela. “Long Live the Legacy of Keith Haring: An Interview with Julia Gruen.” Huffington Post (July 21, 2014). “Brooklyn Museum Announces Exclusive Vuitton Store Within Murakami Exhibition.” Art Daily (2008). http://artdaily.com/news/23679/Brooklyn-Museum-Announces-Exclusive-Vuitton-StoreWithin-Murakami-Exhibition#.XPEux9NKjBI, accessed November 6, 2016. Bryan, Susan Mckearney. “Painting the Town: Keith Haring Makes Art Seem like Play, and it is Paying Off.” The Phoenix Republic (December 1986). Pop Shop Archives. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY. Buchanan, Patrick. “Homosexuals and Retribution.” New York Post (May 24, 1983). Buchhart, Dieter, editor. Keith Haring: The Political Line. San Francisco, CA: Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, 2014. Buchholz, Daniel, editor. International Index of Multiples from Duchamp to the Present. Cologne, Germany: W. König, 1993. Buchloh, Benjamin. “Documenta 7: A Dictionary of Received Ideas.” October, vol. 22 (Autumn 1982): 110. ———. “Three Conversations in 1985: Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Robert Morris.” October, vol. 70 (Autumn 1994): 33–54. Buck, Louisa. “The Louis Vuitton Project is My Urinal!” The Art Newspaper, no. 184 (October 2007): 35–36. Burk, Tara. “From the Streets to the Gallery: Exhibiting the Visual Ephemera of AIDS Cultural Activism.” Journal of Curatorial Studies, vol. 2, no. 1 (2013): 32–53. ———. “Radical Distribution: AIDS Cultural Activism in New York City, 1986–1992.” Space and Culture, vol. 18, no. 2 (Fall 2015): 436–449. Burroughs, William. Electronic Revolution. Bonn, Germany: Pociao’s Books, 2001. ———. The Ticket That Exploded. New York: Grove Press, 1967. ———, Gregory Corso, Colin Fallows, et al. Cut-ups, Cut-ins, Cut-outs: The Art of William S. Burroughs. New York: DAP Distributed Art Publishers, 2012. ——— and Brion Gysin. The Third Mind. New York: Viking Press, 1978. Bussel, Abby. “80s Redux.” Interior Design Magazine (April 1997): 196. Cahill, Timothy. “Art in the Machine.” Metroland, Albany (October 6, 1988): 33. Cahn, Anne Hessing. Killing Detente: The Right Attacks the CIA. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. Cameron, Dan, editor. East Village USA. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art, 2004. “Carnal Knowledge.” The Advocate (August 23, 1994): 75. Carroll, Tamar W. Mobilizing New York: AIDS, Antipoverty, and Feminist Activism. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, 2015. Casert, Raf. “Grand Graffiti: Artist Utilizes World as a Stage for his Unusual Images.” Morningstar, Fortworth, Texas (July 1987). Cashmore, Ellis. Celebrity Culture. New York: Routledge, 2006. Celant, Germano, editor. Keith Haring. New York: Prestel, 1997. ———, Ida Gianelli, and Castello di Rivoli. Keith Haring. Milan, Italy: Charta, 1994. ——— and Monica Ramirez-Montagut. KAWS 1993–2010. New York: Rizzoli Electa, 2010.

Bibliography

219

Chambers, Eddie. “Review Publications.” AN Magazine (June 1998): 25. Chapman, Cynthia, editor. Art against AIDS. New York: American Foundation for AIDS Research, 1989. Chizuko, Ueno. “Seibu Department Store and Image Marketing.” In Asian Department Stores. Edited by Kerrie MacPherson. 177–205. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1998. “Christie’s Facts,” CNN (July 8, 2008). www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/07/07/christies.profile/ index.html, accessed January 1, 2015. Clammer, John. Contemporary Urban Japan: A Sociology of Consumption. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1997. “The Claws Come Out for KAWS x Uniqlo T-shirts.” MSN (June 6, 2019). Cochrane, Kira. “Women in Art: Why Are All the ‘Great’ Artists Men?” The Guardian (May 24, 2013). Cohen, Alina. “How Art Museums Can Remain Relevant in the 21st Century.” Artsy (June 15, 2018). www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-art-museums-remain-relevant-21st-century, accessed June 28, 2019. Colab Inc. “About Colab.” https://collaborativeprojects.wordpress.com/, accessed July 21, 2017. “Colab: Times Square Show Advertisements.” Callard Papers. Series 1B, Box 1, folder 51, 55, and 59. The Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. “Colab Times Square Show: Narrative of process and context.” Callard Papers. Series 1B, Box 1, folder 51, 55, and 59. The Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. Colander, Vera, editor. Powerful Babies: Keith Haring’s Impact on Artists Today. Stockholm, Sweden: Art and Theory Stockholm, 2015. Collins, Glenn. “Stephen Starr to open an Italian Restaurant in the New York Historical Society.” The New York Times Blog (November 9, 2010), accessed January 10, 2015. Constance, Glenn. The Great American Pop Store: Multiples of the Sixties. Santa Monica, CA: Smart Art Press, 1997. Cook, Deborah. The Culture Industry Revisited. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. Cook, Karen. “Little House of Haring’s.” Manhattan, Inc. (December 1984): 114. Cooper, Shawna and Karli Wurzelbacher, editors. Times Square Show Revisited. New York: Hunter College, 2012. Cortez, Diego and Edit DeAk. “Baby Talk.” Flash Art, no. 107 (May 1982). Cotter, Holland. “Carving a Pop Niche in Japan’s Classical Tradition.” The New York Times (June 24, 2001). ———. “Toward a Museum of the 21st Century.” The New York Times (October 28, 2015). Cowan, Alison Leigh and Carol Vogel. “Legacy in Disarray, a Special Report: Egos, Art and Big Money: Warhol Riches Fade Away.” The New York Times (June 12, 1994). Coward, Rosalind and John Ellis. Language and Materialism: Development in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject. New York: Routledge, 1977. Cox, Christopher. “Art Smart.” US Magazine (March 10, 1986): 53. Cox, Meg. “Just Try Telling Your Date You Thought Dada was a Kind of Cola.” Wall Street Journal (December 9, 1987): 1. Crimp, Douglas. AIDS: Cultural Analysis/ Cultural Activism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987. ———. AIDS Demographics. Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1990. ———. Melancholia and Moralism: Essays on AIDS and Queer Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. Currid, Elizabeth. The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art, and Music Drive New York City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. Daichendt, James G. Shepard Fairey Inc.: Artist, Professional, Vandal. Petaluma, CA: Cameron + Company, 2013. “Damien Hirst Enter through the Gift Shop.” Artlyst (April 2, 2012). www.artlyst.com/news/ damien-hirst-enter-through-the-gift-shop/, accessed February 25, 2019.

220

Bibliography

Dangerous Bedfellow Collective. Policing Public Sex: Queer Politics and the Future of AIDS Activism. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1997. Danziger, James. “A Corner on Street Art.” Week in View (October). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1980s press box. Davis, Louise H. “Feeding the World a Line?: Celebrity Activism and Ethical Consumer Practices from Live Aid to Product Red.” Nordic Journal of English Studies, vol. 9, no. 3 (November 2010): 89–118. Davis, Peter. “The Cult of KAWS.” PAPERMAG (August 20, 2012). Day, Elizabeth. “Is It Art, or Is It a Shop? Keith Haring’s Iconic Pop Shop Is Reborn as Both.” The Observer/Guardian (September 26, 2009). D’Cruz, Jaimie et al. Exit Through the Gift Shop. New York: Company Limited, 2010, DVD. Deitch, Jeffrey. Keith Haring: Paintings, Drawings, and a Vellum. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum, 1986. Deitcher Jeffrey, Robert Pincus-Witten and David Shapiro. Keith Haring. New York: Tony Shafrazi Gallery, October 1982. ———. “Report from Times Square.” Art in America (September 1980). ———, Suzanne Geiss, and Julia Gruen, editors. Keith Haring. New York: Rizzoli, 2008. ——— and Martin Guttmann. “Art and Corporations.” Flash Art (March/April 1988): 79. ———, Robert Pincus-Witten, and David Shapiro. Keith Haring. New York: Tony Shafrazi Gallery, October 1982. Deitcher, David. “Crossover Dreams: Sexuality, Politics, and the Keith Haring Line.” The Village Voice (May 15, 1990): 111. ———. “When Worlds Collide.” Art in America (February 1990): 121–126. Dellinger, Jade.“Keith Haring: Art and Commerce the Pop Shop (1986–2005).”Tampa Museum Catalog Essay, 2006. www.haring.com/!/selected_writing/keith-haring-art-and-commerce#. UZlq1cu9KSM, accessed March 3, 2016. Denny, Shannon. “Meet Hugh Allan, Damien Hirst’s Partner in the Other Criteria Art Business.” Marylebone Journal (2012). DeSantis, Tullio. “Atomic Art a Noble Fusion.” Reading Eagle (June 20, 1982): 16. ———. “Haring Update: Subterranean Artist Rode Subway to the Stars.” National Press (1982). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1982 press box. ———. “This Working Class Hero’s Making Subterranean News.” Reading Eagle (January 17, 1982): 20. ———. “Through Art, Haring Confronted Death.” Eagle Times (February 25, 1990): D1, D4. Dickson, Jane. “Symposium: Keith Haring: The Political Line.” de Young Museum, San Francisco, CA (February 29, 2015). “Die Bunte Welt des Keith Haring.” Ambiente (June 1986): 166. Disarmament Times, vol. IX, no. 4 (June 7, 1988). Dittmar, Helga. The Social Psychology of Material Possessions. Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992. “Documenta 7, Kassel, Germany: May 1982.” Fashion Moda. Series I, Subseries B, Box 1, folder 21. The Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. “Doing the Devil’s Work.” Columbia Journalism Review, vol. 18, no. 5 (January/February 1980): 22–23. Donato, Marla. “Hanging Out.” Chicago Tribune (October 1986): 29–32. Dooley, Michael. “He Might Be Giant.” PRINT (May/June 2000): 48. Drane, James. A New American Reformation: A Study of Youth Culture and Religion. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1974. Drawing the Line: A Portrait of Keith Haring. Produced and directed by Elisabeth Aubert, Biografilm Associates, 1989, documentary. Drenger, Daniel. “Art and Life: An Interview with Keith Haring.” Columbia Art Review (Spring 1988): 44–53. Dubin, Steven C. Arresting Images: Impolitic Art and Uncivil Actions. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Bibliography

221

Dumbadza, Alexander, editor. Contemporary Art: 1989 to the Present. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. East Village Eye, 1979–87. Sylvere Lotringer Papers and Semiotext(e) Archive. Box 61, Folder 55, MSS 221. The Fales Library & Special Collections, New York University Bobst Library. Ehrmann, Thierry. “The Contemporary Art Market Report 2018: Artist Prices.” Artprice.com (2018). www.artprice.com/artprice-reports/the-contemporary-art-market-report-2018/artistsprices, accessed June 15, 2019. Elgstrand, Greg and Dave Dyment, editors. One for Me and One to Share: Artists’ Multiples and Editions. Toronto, Ontario: YYZ Books, 2012. Elkins, James, editor. The State of Art Criticism. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2008. ———, editor. Theorizing Visual Studies: Writing Through the Discipline. New York: Routledge, 2013. Emily H. Davis Gallery. Mass Production: Artists’ Multiples & the Marketplace. Akron, OH: The University of Akron, 2006. Enroth, Ronald, Edward Ericson, and C. Breckinridge Peters. The Jesus People. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972. “Evening Magazine.” Identification number KHA-0564, 9 minutes 4 seconds. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. “Events: Fashion Moda: December 13 1980—January 8 1981.” New Museum Archive. http:// archive.newmuseum.org/index.php/Detail/Occurrence/Show/occurrence_id/433, accessed January 15, 2016. Falcon, Sylvia. “You Call Yourself Barbara Kruger.” East Village Eye (May 1984): 32–33. Falwell, Jerry. “AIDS and the Judgment of God.” Liberty Report (April 1987): 2. Farnell, Graeme. Interpreting the Art Museum: A Collection of Essays and Case Studies. Boston, MA: Museums etc., 2015. “Fashion Moda Documenta.” Fashion Moda. Subseries A, Box 21, folder 32c and 32a. The Fales Library & Special Collection, New York University Bobst Library. Featherstone, Mike. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: SAGE Publications, 1991. Felshin, Nina. But Is It Art? The Spirit of Art as Activism. Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1995. ———. Disarming Images: Art for Nuclear Disarmament. New York: Adama Books, 1984. Ferguson, Russell, editor. Discourses: Conversations in Postmodern Art and Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. Ferla, Ruth la. “The Artist’s Fall Collection.” The New York Times (November 8, 2007). Fielding, Helen. Cause Celeb. New York: Viking, 2001. “Fight AIDS Worldwide.” UN Chronicle, vol. xxxl, no. 2 (June 1994). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1994 press box. Fineberg, Jonathan. Art Since 1940: Strategies of Being. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1995. Finkel, Jori. “After ‘Hope’ and Lawsuit: Shepard Fairey Tries Damage Control.” The New York Times (November 3, 2017). Finkelstein, Avram. After Silence: A History of AIDS Through Its Images. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2018. Firat, Fuat A. and Nikhilesh Dholakia. Consuming People: From Political Economy to Theaters of Consumption. London: Routledge, 1998. “Floor plans.” Keith Haring 1997 Exhibition Files, box 175, folder 6. Whitney Museum of American Art Archives. Foderaro, Lisa. “Museums Step Up Their Retailing to Turn Art Into Revenue.” The New York Times (February 18, 1997). Foster, Hal. Bad New Days: Art, Criticism, Emergency. New York: Verso, 2015. ———. “The Medium is the Market.” London Review of Books (October 9, 2008): 23–24. ———. Recordings: Art, Spectacle, Cultural Politics. Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1985. ———, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain Bois, Benjamin Buchloh, and David Joselit. Art Since 1900: Modernism, Anti-modernism, Postmodernism. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2011. Foundation Directory Online. “Andy Warhol Foundation.” https://fconline.foundationcenter. org/grantmaker-profile?collection=grantmakers&key=WARH001, accessed May 17, 2016.

222

Bibliography

———. “Keith Haring Foundation.” https://fconline.foundationcenter.org/grantmaker-profile/? collection=grantmakers&activity=result&key=HARI003, accessed May 17, 2016. Fox, Marilyn. “Haring Mad Art for People.” Eagle Times (February 1990). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1990 press box. Frackmand, Noel and Ruth Kaufmann. “Documenta 7: The Dialogue and a few Asides.” Arts Magazine, no. 57 (October 1982): 91–97. Frank, Peter. “Guerilla Gallerizing.” The Village Voice (May 1, 1979): 95. ——— and Michael McKenzie. New, Used, and Improved: Art for the 80s. New York: Abbeville Press, 1987. Frank, Thomas. The Conquest of Cool. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997. Freedberg, David. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Freeman, Joshua. Working Class New York: Life and Labor Since World War Two. New York: The New Press, 2000. Frieden, Jeffrey. Global Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Friend, Tad. “Downhill from Here.” Spy (New York, October 1986). Pop Shop Archives, Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY. Friis-Hansen, Dana. “Empire of Goods: Young Japanese Artists and the Commodity Culture.” Flash Art (March/April 1992): 78–81. Fuller, Mark. “Whizz Bam Keith Haring at the Stedelijk Museum.” (1986): 5. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1985 press box. Gablik, Suzi. Has Modernism Failed. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1984. ———. “Report from New York the Graffiti Question.” Art in America (October 1982): 36. Galbraith, Patrick. The Otaku Encyclopedia: An Insider’s Guide to the Subculture of Cool in Japan. New York: Kodansha International, 2009. Gallagher, Ann, et al. Damien Hirst. London: Tate Modern, 2012. Gardner, Paul. “Gee, What’s Happened to Andy Warhol?” ARTnews, vol. 79 (November 1981): 73–77. Garofalo, Reebee. Rockin’ the Boat: Mass Music and Mass Movements. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1992. “Gentrification.” (December 10, 1984) 14. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1984 press box. Gilbert, Leslie. “From the Subways to His Own Pop Shop, Haring Has Arrived.” Daily News (March 1986). Pop Shop Archives, Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY. Gingeras, Alison. “Takashi Murakami.” Interview Magazine (July 10, 2010). Gladstone, Valerie. “Keith Haring: Art’s Bad Boy.” Daily News (March 1986). Goldman, Robin (March 22, 1984) article, Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1984 press box. Goldstein, Richard. “Fire Down Below, Art Beat: The Politics of Culture.” The Village Voice (January 25, 1983): 39. ———. “The First Radical Art Show of the ’80s.” Village Voice (June 16, 1980): 1. Gould, Deborah. Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s Fight against AIDS. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Graw, Isabelle. High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture. New York: Sternberg Press, 2009. Graybill, Larry. “The Jesus Movement: Its Common Tenets and Its Word to Brethren.” Brethren Life and Thought, vol. 17, no. 3 (1972): 149–160. Greenberg, Clement. Art and Culture, Critical Essays. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1961. Green, Roger. “Carnival Store Combines works of N.O. and N.Y. Residents.” New Orleans Times, Picayune (1982). Gregg, Gail. “From Bathers to Beach Towels.” ARTnews, vol. 96, no. 4 (April 1997): 120–123. Griffin, Kevin. “Takashi Murakami Still Looking for Acceptance in Japan.” Vancouver Sun (February 2, 2018).

Bibliography

223

Grimes, William. “Instant Acquisitions.” New York Magazine (August 5, 1985): 24. Gross, Michael. “Notes on Fashion.” The New York Times (April 22, 1986): A22. “The Growing Popularity of Transit Ads.” The New York Times (April 16, 1984). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1984 press box. Gruen, John. Keith Haring: The Authorized Biography. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991. Grunenberg, Christoph and Max Hollein. Events: Fashion Moda, Taller Boricua, Artists Invite. New York: New Museum, 1981. ———, editors. Shopping, a Century of Art and Consumer Culture. Liverpool: Tate Gallery, 2002. Gundel, Marc. Keith Haring: Short Messages. New York: Prestel, 2002. Hackatt, George. “Banding Together for Africa.” Newsweek (July 15, 1985): 52. Hager, Steven. Art After Midnight: The East Village Scene. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986. ———. “Art on the Block: Keith Haring.” East Village Eye (October 1981). Hall, Stuart. The Hard Road to Renewal. New York: Verso, 1988. Hansson, Hendrik. “Damien Hirst Opens Gift Shop in New York.” Artnet (August 15, 2014). https://news.artnet.com/art-world/damien-hirst-opens-gift-shop-in-new-york-79009, accessed February 25, 2019. Hargrove, Barbara. Reformation of the Holy: A Sociology of Religion. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Co., 1971. Haring, Keith. Art in Transit. New York: Harmony Books, 1984. ———. “A Real Artist is Only a Vehicle.” Flash Art (March 1984): 20–24. ——— and Robert Harris Thompson. Keith Haring Journals. New York: Viking, 1996. “Haring’s Atomic Babies Going Legit.” New York Post (November 1984). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1984 press box. Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. ———. The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Harvey, Kyle. American Anti-Nuclear Activism, 1975–90: The Challenge of Peace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York: Routledge, 1979. Henri, Robert. The Art Spirit. New York: Harper & Row, 1923. Hershkovits, David. “Art in ‘Alphabetland.’” ARTnews, vol. 2, no. 7 (September 1983): 90. Hertsgaard, Mark. “Nuclear Nothing.” Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1982–83 Press Box. Higgins, Tim. “Selling, Not A Sell Out Keith Haring Draws a Line Between Himself and The Art World.” The Morning Call (September 18, 1987). Hills, Matt. Fan Cultures. London: Routledge, 2002. Hirst, Damien. On the Way to Work. London: Fabor, 2001. Hodara, Susan. “When a South Bronx Collective Went International.” The New York Times (March 23, 2012). Hodges, Michael. “Art Goes to War.” New York Post (June 18, 1989): 34. Hoffmann, Jens, editor. The Studio: Documents of Contemporary Art. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2012. Holbrook, Morris and Elizabeth Hirschman. The Semiotics of Consumption. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993. Holmes, Pernilla. “The Branding of Damien Hirst.” ARTnews (October 1, 2007): 2. Holt, Doug. How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2004. Holzer, Jenny. Sign on a Truck. Chicago: Video Data Bank, 1984. www.vdb.org/titles/sign-truck, accessed January 4, 2016. Homer, William Innes. Robert Henri and His Circle. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969. Hoover, Stewart. Mass Media Religion: The Social Sources of the Electronic Church. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1988. Horkeimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Frameworks. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1994.

224

Bibliography

Hughes, Robert. “Art and Money.” The New Art Examiner (October/November 1984). ———. “Careerism and Hype Amidst the Image Haze.” Time (June 17, 1985): 79. ———. Nothing If Not Critical. New York: Penguin Books, 1992. ———. “On Art and Money.” The New York Review of Books (December 6, 1984): 20. ——— (byline Junius Secundus). “The SoHoiad: Or, the Masque of Art: A Satire in Heroic Couplets Drawn from Life.” New York Review of Books (March 29, 1984): 17–18. Ilnytzky, Ula. “The Year of the Rabbit: From Dali to Marilyn Monroe, Playboy Sells Art at Christie’s.” Art Daily (2010). “Interchange: HIV/AIDS and U.S. History.” Journal of American History, vol. 104, no. 2 (September 1, 2017): 431–460. “Interview with Shepard Fairey Still Obeying After All These Years.” AIGA (June 4, 2004). www. aiga.org/interview-with-shepard-fairey-still-obeying-after-all-these-year/, accessed August 27, 2016. “Interview with Toby McGuire. KAWS.” Interview (May 2010). Jacob, Mary Jane and Michelle Grabner, editors. The Studio Reader: On the Space of Artists. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Jerome de Noirmont Gallery. “Sex is Life is Sex.” Keith Haring Foundation Website. www.haring. com/!/selected_writing/sex-is-life-is-sex, accessed December 14, 2016. Jetzer, Gianni et al. Brand New: Art & Commodity in the 1980s. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2018. Jones, Alan. “Keith Haring Art or Industry.” New York Talk (June 1986): 44. Jones, Amelia. Self/Image: Technology, Representation, and the Contemporary Subject. New York: Routledge, 2006. Jones, Terrill. “U.S. Pop Artist Sets up Shop in Tokyo.” Associated Press (1987). “Julia Gruen interview in “Keith Haring x OBEY Collaboration.” (2010). https://vimeo. com/44836243, accessed June 10, 2016. Kaizen, William. Against Immediacy: Video Art and Media Populism. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press, 2016. Kalin, Tom. “Alive with Pleasure: Public Service Advertising and AIDS Prevention Education.” Public Art Issues (Spring 1992). Kaplan, Lisa. “Catalogue’s Proceeds Go to Groups That Help People With AIDS.” Detroit News (December 19, 1996). Kates, Brian. “Beneath the Ground, Chalking It up to Art.” Daily News (Summer 1982): M3. Katz, Jonathan David. “The Birth of the Queer T-Shirt.” Newsweek (January 20, 2014). Kaye, Nick. Multi-Media: Video, Installation, Performance. 32–71. New York: Routledge, 2007. Keith Haring: Journey of the Radiant Baby. Piermont, NH: Bunker Hill Pub., 2006. Keith Haring, The Message. Dir. Maripol. ARTE Creative, 2013, documentary. www.dailymotion. com/video/xzb9ki_keith-haring-the-message-version-integrale_creation, accessed 15 December, 2015. “Keith Haring, Pop Shop.” Identification number KHA-0879, 2 minutes 34 seconds. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. “Keith Haring Self Portrait” on CBS This Morning. Identification number KHA-0671, April 11, 1988, 5 minutes. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. “Keith Haring, Shop Art.” The Economist (July 24, 1997). “Keith Haring with Halston and Philip Johnson.” Interview, vol. 14, no. 12 (December 1984): 129–132. Kellerman, Regina. The Publications and Reproductions Program of the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Brief History. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1996). Kellner, Douglas. Cinema Wars: Hollywood Film and Politics in the Bush-Cheney Era. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Kelly, William. Fanning the Flames: Fans and Consumer Culture in Contemporary Japan. New York: State University of New York Press, 2004.

Bibliography

225

Kenny Scharf. New York: Tony Shafrazi Gallery, 1998. Keohane, Ellen. “After a Good Run, Keith Haring’s Pop Shop to Close this Month.” The Villager, vol. 75, no. 12 (August 12, 2005). Kerr, Merrily. “Keith Haring’s Pop Shop to Close.” Art on Paper (July/August 2005). Kester, Grant. Art, Activism and Oppositionality: Essays from Afterimage. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998. Kimmelman, Michael. “Bitter Harvest: AIDS and the Arts.” The New York Times (March 19, 1989): section 2, pp. 1 and 6. ———. “Keith Haring’s Subway Ride to Success.” The Philadelphia Inquirer (November 23, 1985): 24–36. Kinsella, Eileen. “Warhol Inc.” Artnews, vol. 108, no. 10 (November 2009): 86–93. Kirwin, Liza. “East Side Story.” Artforum (October 1999). Kitamura, Hiroshi. Screening Enlightenment: Hollywood and the Cultural Reconstruction of Defeated Japan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010. Kleinmichel, Philipp. “The Art Boom Paradox.” The Ivory Tower (August 2012). www.theivory tower.tv/kleinmichel%20-%20the%20art%20boom%20paradox.pdf, accessed May 3, 2016. Knight, Cher Krause. Public Art: Theory, Practice, and Populism. New York: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Knight, Christopher. “Public Art, Remade by Keith Haring.” Los Angeles Times (June 21, 1998). http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/21/entertainment/ca-61989 and http://articles.latimes. com/1998/jun/21/entertainment/ca-61989/2, accessed June 1, 2016. Koch, Edward. “Senator Helms’s Callousness Toward AIDS Victims.” The New York Times (November 7, 1987). Koch, Stephen. Stargazer: The Life, World, and Films of Andy Warhol. New York: Marion Boyars, 1973. Kohen, Helen. “Scharf on Scharf.” The Miami Herald (April 16, 1995). Kolossa, Alexandra. Keith Haring 1958–1990: A Life for Art. Los Angeles, CA: Taschen, 2009. Koppel, Nike. “Little Angel Was Here: A Keith Haring Collaborator Makes His Mark.” The New York Times (August 5, 2008). Kornbluth, Jess. “Keith Haring’s Art and Industry.” Metropolitan Home (July 1986). Koshalek, Richard. “MOCA Stores.” The Contemporary, vol. 6, no. 2 (July 1, 1989). Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” Kozloff, Max. “Pop’ Culture, Metaphysical Disgust, and the New Vulgarians.” Art International, vol. 6, no. 2 (March 1962): 35–36. Kramer, Hilton. “The Age of the Avant-Garde.” Commentary (October 1972): 35–51. ———. “A Note on The New Criterion.” New Criterion (September 1982): 1–2. ———. “Modernism and its enemies.” New Criterion (March 1986): 4, 6–7. Krauss, Rosalind. “Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism.” October, vol. 1 (Spring 1976): 50–64. Kurtz, Bruce D., editor. Keith Haring, Andy Warhol, and Walt Disney. New York: Neues Publishing Company, 1992. Kuspit, Donald. The Cult of the Avant-garde Artist. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ———. “Keith Haring.” Artforum (February 24, 1986): 102–103. ———. “Of the Immature, by the Immature, for the Immature: Keith Haring and Cindy Sherman.” Art New England, vol. 19 (December 1997/January 1998): 13. ———. “Sincere Criticism: Decadence of the 80s.” Arts (November 1990): 62. Lamm, April. “High Time for the Low Down on the Atmosphere of Art.” Nu: The Nordic Art Review, vol. 4, no. 1–2 (2002): 89. Lampert, Nicolas. A People’s Art History of the United States: 250 Years of Activist Art and Artists Working in Social Justice Movements. New York: The New Press, 2013. Larkin, J. “‘All Museums Will Become Department Stores’: The Development and Implications of Retailing at Museums and Heritage Sites.” Archaeology International, no. 19 (2016): 109–121.

226

Bibliography

Larson, Kay. “Art of the Newest: Big Money, Superstar Painters Fuel the Fantasy Machine.” New York Magazine (December 25, 1989): 76–79. ———. “Love or Money.” New York (June 23, 1986): 65–66. ———. “Masters of Hype.” New York (November 19, 1986): 100–103. ———. “Rooms with a Point of View.” ARTnews (October 1977). L’art a la plage. Paris: Galerie Enrico Navarra, 2005. Lasanki, Medina D., editor. Architecture and Tourism: Perception, Performance, Place. New York: Berg, 2004. Lash, Scott. Sociology of Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, 1990. Lash, Scott and John Urry. The End of Organized Capitalism. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. Lawrence, Tim. Life and Death on the New York Dance Floor. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016. Lawson, Thomas. “Andy Warhol.” Artforum 20 (April 1982). Lee, Andrew. “Takashi Murakami: The Face of Japanese Contemporary Art Abroad, Underappreciated at Home.” The Japan Times (March 13, 2019). ———. “Takashi Murakami: A Reluctant Homecoming.” The Japan Times (2015). Lee, Chris. “Tag, this artist is definitely it.” The Los Angeles Times (2009). Levin, Kim. “The Times Square Show.” Arts Magazine (September 1980): 87–89. Lewisohn, Cedar. Street Art: The Graffiti Revolution. New York: Abrams, 2008. Lewton-Leopold, Gabi. The Fashion Moda Stores, 1982: Selections from Documenta 7. Purchase, NY: Neuberger Museum, 2012. Lindquist, One. “Ona Lindquist.” and “Artists.” http://objetsvendart.com/, accessed January 5, 2016. Lippard, Lucy (Anne Ominous). “Sex and Death and Shock and Schlock: A Long Review of the Times Square Show.” Artforum (October 1980). Lipson, Karen. “Original Art in Small Packages the Vend’art Way.” Newsday (December 2 1987). Little, David. “Colab Takes a Piece, History Takes It Back: Collectivity and New York Alternative Spaces.” Art Journal, vol. 66, no. 1 (2007): 60–74. Livingstone, Marco. Pop Art: A Continuing History. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2003. ———. Pop Art: An International Perspective. New York: Rizzoli, 1992. Louie, Elaine. “These Shops Sell the Fine Art of Decorating.” The New York Times (June 25, 1992). Lunt, Peter and S. Livingston. Mass Consumption and Personal Identity: Everyday Economic Experience. Buckingham and Bristol, England: Open University Press, 1992. Lury, Celia. Consumer Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2015. Mackinnon, Kenneth. The Politics of Popular Representation, Reagan, Thatcher, AIDS, and the Movies. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992. MacPherson, Kerrie L., editor. Asian Department Stores. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1998. Maddeaux, Sabrina. “Haute Topic: Does Shepard Fairey’s Obey Clothing Line Make Him a Sellout?” Now Toronto (October 5, 2014). Magliozzi, Ronald and Sophie Cavoulacos, editors. Club 57: Film, Performance, and Art in the East Village, 1978–1983. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2017. Magnuson, Ann. “The East Village 1979–1989, A Chronology: Ann Magnuson on Club 57.” Artforum 38 (October 1999): 121. Mamiya, Christin. Pop Art and Consumer Culture: American Super Market. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1992. Manchanda. Catharina. Pop Departures. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014. Manurin, Matt. “Subterranean Cool.” GQ (June 1986): 44. Marcuse, Herbert. The Aesthetic Dimension. Boston, MA: Beacon, 1978.

Bibliography

227

Marder, Murrey. “Carter to Inherit Intense Dispute on Soviet Intentions.” Washington Post (January 2, 1977). Marks, Peter. “A Japanese Artist Goes Global.” The New York Times (July 25, 2001). Martin, Bradford. The Other Eighties: A Secret History of America in the Age of Reagan. New York: Hill and Wang, 2011. Martin, Scott. “Museum Copyright Licensing Agreements and Visual Artists.” scha-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts (Spring 1986): 421–451. McCormick, Carlo. “Art Seen.” East Village Eye (October 1983): 23. ———. “Boyz in the Hood.” Artforum (October 1999). ——— and Janet Kardon. The East Village Scene. Philadelphia, PA: Institute of Contemporary Art, 1984. ———. “From Streets to TV to Fine Art Galleries, KAWS is Everywhere.” PAPERMAG (November 2013). ———. Guide to East Village Artists: Supplement. Santa Barbara, CA: University Art Museum, 1984. McCracken, Grant. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988. McGill, Douglas. “Marketing of Andy Warhol.” The New York Times (December 10, 1987). McGonigal, Thomas. “Andy Warhol.” Arts Magazine, vol. 54 (January 1980): 17. McGuigan, Jim. Cultural Populism. New York: Routledge, 1992. McHugh, Fionnuala. “New Takashi Murakami Show at Gagosian Hong Kong Looks to Youth and the Inevitable Future.” South China Morning Post (September 22, 2018). Mercurio, Gianni. Keith Haring: About Art. Florence, Italy: Gamm, Giunti, 2017. ———. Keith Haring All-Over. Milan, Italy: Skira Editore/Beaux-Arts Mons, 2009. ———. The Keith Haring Show. Milan, Italy: Skira, 2005. Mesch, Claudia. Art and Politics: A Small History of Art for Social Change Since 1945. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2013. Meyer, James. “No More Scale: The Experience of Size in Contemporary Sculpture.” Artforum (Summer 2004). Meyer, Richard. Outlaw Representation: Censorship & Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century American Art. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2002. Michalka, Matthias, editor. Changing Channels: Art and Television 1963–1987. Wien: Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig Wien, 2010. Millard, Rosie. The Tastemakers: UK Art Now. London: Thames and Hudson, 2001. Miller, Daniel. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1987. ———. “The Poverty of Morality.” Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 1, no. 2 (July 2001): 225–243. Miller, Marc. ABC No Rio Dinero: The Story of a Lower East Side Art Gallery. New York: Collaborative Projects, 1985. http://98bowery.com/return-to-the-bowery/abcnorio-relatedgroups.php, accessed December 6, 2015. ———. Television’s Impact on Contemporary Art. New York: The Queens County Art and Cultural Center, 1985. Miller, M.H. “The Artists Who Defined the East Village’s Avant Garde Scene.” The New York Times (April 17, 2018). Milzoff, Rebecca. “Haring’s Pop Shop Fizzles Out.” New York Magazine (September 5, 2005). Mirzoeff, Nicholas, editor. The Visual Culture Reader. New York: Routledge, 2002. “MM Forms Art Merchandising & Media AG.” International Showcase 2000 (March 2000), Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 2000 press box. Moffitt, Kimberly R. and Duncan A. Campbell, editors. The 1980s: A Critical and Transitional Decade. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011. Molesworth, Helen, et al. This Will Have Been: Art, Love, and Politics in the 1980s. Chicago: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2012.

228

Bibliography

Mollenkopf, John Hull. New York City in the 1980s: A Social, Economic, and Political Atlas. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1993. Mollenkopf, John Hull and Manuel Castells, editors. Dual City: Restructuring New York. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1991. Moneyhan, Barbara. “Japan from New York.” Flash Art (April/May 1985): 64–65. Montez, Ricardo. Keith Haring’s Line: Race and the Performance of Desire. New York: Duke University Press, 2020. Moore, Alan. Art Gangs: Protest and Counterculture in New York City. New York: Autonomedia, 2011. Moore College of Art. Landslides and A. More Store. Philadelphia, PA: The College, 1983. Morgan, Kendall. “Prolific Pop Artist Takashi Murakami on Jellyfish Eyes and being Detested in Japan.” Culture Map Dallas (May 2, 2014). Morgan, Stuart. “Andy Warhol: Whitney Museum.” Artforum 18 (February 1980) 96. Morgan, Tiernan. “Christy Rupp on Rats, Geese, and the Ecology of Public Art.” Hyperallergic (February 20, 2015). http://hyperallergic.com/179810/christy-rupp-on-rats-geese-and-theecology-of-public-art/, accessed January 4, 2016. Morphett, Alexandra. “Keith Haring Above Ground.” Express (Fall 1982): 3. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1982 press box. Morris, Sarah. “Art under the Sign of the Commodity: The ‘Real’ Under the Sign of Art.” Defunct! (February 1989): 19–27. Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. The Technological Transformation of Japan: From the Seventeenth to the Twenty-first Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Moufarrege, Nicolas. “Lightning Strikes (Not Once but Twice): An Interview with Graffiti Artists.” Arts, vol. 57, no. 3 (November 1982). Mudde, Cas and Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. London: Oxford University Press, 2017. Mukherjee, Roopali and Sarah Banet-Weiser. Commodity Activism: Cultural Resistance in Neoliberal Times. New York: New York University Press, 2012. Murakami, Takashi. “Hello, You Are Alive. Tokyo Pop Manifesto.” Kokoku hihyd, no. 226 (April 1999): 58–59. ———. Tokyo Pop: New Images of Japanese Art. Hiratsuka: Hippocrene Books, 1996. ———. “Towards a Strong Art that Departs from a Sacred Zone.” Atelier, Tokyo (March 1992): 96–97. Murphy, Tim. “New York Men Embrace Summer with Bold Hues and Perky Patterns.” New York Magazine (June 3, 2016). Nagy, Peter, Haim Steinbach, and Ashley Bickerton. “From Criticism to Complicity; Koons, Halley, Steinbach, Bickerton, Levine.” Flash Art, no. 129 (Summer 1986). Nairne, Sandy. State of the Art. London: Chatto & Windus, 1987. National Press, 1981. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1981 press box. “NBC Evening Magazine.” Identification number KHA-0683, 1986, 11 minutes 48 seconds. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. Neuberger Museum.“The Fashion Moda Stores 1982: Selections from Documenta 7.” (March 4– May 6, 2012). www.neuberger.org/exhibitions/past/view1/249.html?width=660&height=500, accessed January 4, 2016. “News.”Artnet (February 24, 2006). www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artnetnews/artnetnews224-06.asp, accessed June 1, 2016. “New York Online.” HAEA News (October 2002). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 2002 press box. Nilson, Lisbet. “Making It Neo.” ARTnews, vol. 82 (September 1983): 62–70. Niskanen, William. Reaganomics: An Insider’s Account of the Policies and the People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Nolan, Jim. “Summons Whacks Artist for his Anti-Crack Mural.” New York Post (July 1986). Foundation 1986 press box.

Bibliography

229

Olander, William. “I Undertook this Project as a Personal Exploration of the Human Components of an Alarming Situation.” New Observations, no. 61 (October 1988): 8. Oldenburg, Claes. Store Days: Documents from the Store. New York: Something Else Press, 1967. Oldenburg, Claes and Hayward Gallery. Claes Oldenburg: The Multiples Store. London: The South Bank Centre, 1996. Oppenheimer, Joshua and Helena Reckitt, editors. Acting on AIDS: Sex Drugs & Politics. New York: Serpent’s Tail, 1997. O’Pray, Michael, editor. Andy Warhol: Film Factory. London: BFI Publishing, 1989. Orcutt, Kimberly. Painterly Controversy William Merritt Chase and Robert Henri. Greenwich, CT: Bruce Museum, 2007. Owens, Craig. “Commentary: The Problem with Puerilism.” Art in America, vol. 72, no. 6 (Summer 1984): 162–163. “Page 6.” New York Post (Fall 1986). “Painting Pop Shop Container.” Identification number KHA-0803, 20 minutes 40 seconds. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. “Painting Pop Shop Tokyo container.” Identification number KHA-0806, January 1988, 20 minutes 47 seconds. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. Parkin, Laurice A. “Kiosk of Kool.” Daily News (August 3, 1995). Patrizio, Andrew, Henry Meyric Hughes, and Hilary Lane. Art Unlimited: Multiples of the 1960s and 1990s. London: South Bank Centre, 1994. Patton, Cindy. Globalizing AIDS. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. ———. Inventing AIDS. New York: Routledge, 1990. Patton, Cindy and Janis Kelly. Making It: A Woman’s Guide to Sex in the Age of AIDS. Ithaca, NY: Firebrand Books, 1987. Patton, Pil. “Other Voices, Other Rooms: The Rise of the Alternative Space.” Art in America (Summer 1977). Pearlman, Alison. Unpackaging Art of the 1980s. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. Perez, Magdalene. “The Ai Interview: Takashi Murakami.” Art + Auction (June 9, 2006). ———. “Takashi Murakami.” Blouin Artinfo (May 17, 2007). www.blouinartinfo.com/news/ story/265986/takashi-murakami, accessed May 3, 2019. Phillips, Deborah. “Bright Lights, Big City.” ARTnews (September 1985): 82. Phillips, Lisa, Marvin Heiferman, and John Hanhardt. Image World: Art and Media Culture. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1989. Phillips, Natalie. The Pop Apocalyptic: Keith Haring’s and Kenny Scharf’s Remaking of Contemporary Religious Art. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine, ProQuest/UMI, 2009 (3360928). ———. “The Radiant (Christ) Child.” American Art, vol. 21, no. 3 (2007): 54–73. Pih, Darren, editor. Keith Haring. London: Tate, 2019. Pincus-Witten, Robert. “Entries Big History Little History.” Arts Magazine (April 1980): 184. Planned Parenthood. “Project Street Beat.” www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthoodnew-york-city/for-patients/project-street-beat#sthash.rOwopF2u.dpuf, accessed May 3, 2016. Platow, Raphaela, et. al. Keith Haring: 1978–1982. Cincinnati, OH: Contemporary Arts Center, 2010. Plous, Phyllis, Mark Looker, and Carlo McCormick, editors. Neo-York: Report on a Phenomenon. Santa Barbara, CA: University Art Museum, 1984. “Pop Goes his Easel on ABC 20/20.” Identification number KHA-0535, 12 minutes 56 seconds, 1986. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. Pop Magazine. UK, no. 15 (Spring/Summer, February 2007): 265. “Press Conference and Roof Painting for Pop Shop Tokyo Container.” Identification number KHA-0805, 1988, 21 minutes 7 seconds. Keith Haring Foundation Online Video Archive. Printed Matter. “A Show about Colab and Related Activities.” www.digicult.it/news/a-showabout-colab-and-related-activities/, accessed January 8, 2016.

230

Bibliography

Radakovich, Anka. “Keith Haring Tells You How to Put the Writing on Your Walls.” New York Post (May 29, 1986): 25. Raven, Arlene, editor. Art in the Public Interest. Ann Arbor, MI: U.M.I. Research Press, 1989. Reed, T.V. The Art of Protest: Culture and Activism from the Civil Rights Movement to the Streets of Seattle. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2005. Reifenscheid, Beate, editor. Keith Haring: Life as a Drawing. New York: Prestel, 2007. Return of Private Foundation, 2001 Form 990-PF. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ organizations/110249024, accessed June 2, 2016. Revson, James. “Haring’s Gift: Gifts.” Newsday, Section 1 (April 18, 1986): 2–3. Ricard, Rene. “The Radiant Child.” Artforum (December 1981). Risen, James. “Only the Rich Got Richer.” Los Angeles Times (January 7, 1992). Rist, Darrell Yates. “Keith Haring: Behind the Graffiti Art, A Gay Man and His Message.” Advocate, no. 452 (August 5, 1986): 42–47. Robbins, D.A. “The meaning of ‘New’ the 70s/80s Axis: An Interview with Diego Cortez.” Arts, vol. 57, no. 5 (January 1983). Robinson, David. SoHo Walls: Beyond Graffiti. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1990. Robinson, Walter and Carlo McCormick. “Report from the East Village: Slouching Toward Avenue D.” Art in America (Summer 1984): 134–161. Rolston, Adam, Karrie Jacobs, and Steven Heller. Angry Graphics, Protest Posters of the Reagan/Bush Era. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith Books, 1992. Román, David. Acts of Intervention: Performance, Gay Culture, and AIDS. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998. Romine, John. “Interview.” Upstart (1983): 31. Rose, Joel. “In Memoriam: The Good Fight.” New York Magazine, vol. 3, no. 11 (March 5, 1990): 26. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1990 press box. Rose, Tricia. Black Noise: Rap Music and Black Culture in Contemporary America. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1994. Rosenberg, Harold. “The Art World: Marilyn Mondrian.” The New Yorker, 8 (November 1969): 167. Rosenberg, Karen. “A Pop Shop for a New Generation.” The New York Times (March 22, 2012). Roszak, Theodore. The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and its Youthful Opposition. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969. Rothkopf, Scott. “Other Voices: Scott Rothkopf Four Critical Vignettes.” Artforum International, vol. 41, no. 7 (2003): 43+. Rounthwaite, Adair. Asking the Audience: Participatory Art in 1980s New York. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2017. Rubell, Jason. “Keith Haring: The Last Interview.” Arts Magazine (September 1990): 52–59. Ruhe, Harry. Multiples, et cetera. Amsterdam: Tuja Books, 1991. Saban, Stephen. “Meanwhile Back in New York City . . . Keith Haring . . .” Hamptons Newspaper/Magazine (June 30, 1983): 54. Sabatino, David di. The Jesus People Movement: An Annotated bibliography and General Resource. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999. Samis, Peter and Mimi Michaelson. Creating the Visitor-Centered Museum. New York: Routledge, 2017. Sandler, Irving. Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s. New York: Harper Collins, 1996. Sapin, Julia. “Merchandising Art and Identity in Meiji Japan.” Journal of Design History, vol. 17, no. 4 (2004): 317–336. Sassatelli, Roberta. Consumer Culture. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2007. Sawhill, Isabel. “Reaganomics in Retrospect: Lessons for a New Administration.” Challenge, vol. 32 (May/June 1989): 57–59.

Bibliography

231

Scalding, Julian. Con Art—Why You Should Sell Your Damien Hirsts While You Can. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace, 2012. Scharf, Kenny. “Chrome on the Range.” The SoHo Weekly News (1981). Scheer, Robert. With Enough Shovels, Reagan Bush and Nuclear War. New York: Random House, 1982. Schimmel, Paul, editor. ©Murakami. Los Angeles, CA: The Museum of Contemporary Art, 2007. Scholastic Update, Incorporating Senior Scholastic, vol. 120, no. 4 (October 16, 1987). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1987 press box. Schor, Juliet and Douglas Hold. The Consumer Society Reader. New York: New Press, 2000. Schultz, Don. Integrated Marketing Communications. Chicago: NTC Publishing Group, 1993. Schumann, Max, editor. A Book About Colab (and Related Activities). New York: Printed Matter, 2015. Seaman, Debbie. “Haring’s Exacting Approach to Absolut.” Archive Adweek Marketing (October 1986). Pop Shop Archives. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY. Seelye, Katharine. “Helms Puts the Brakes to a Bill Financing AIDS Treatment.” The New York Times (July 5, 1995). Self, Robert O. All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy Since the 1960s. New York: Hill and Wang, 2012. Servin, James. “Radiant Baby.” 7 Days: New York, vol. 3, no. 11 (March 21, 1990): 10–16. ———. “Radiant Baby.” Poz (February/March 2001): 72. Sex on Campus: Sexually Transmitted Disease, Surviving the Epidemic of the 1980s: A Report from the Public Agenda Foundation, distributed by the College Satellite Network and the National Association for Campus Activities. Keith Haring 1987 press box. Shakespeare, Sebastian. “Damien Hirst is closing shops in Devon and New York.” Daily Mail (July 17, 2017). www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4705488/Damien-Hirst-closing-shopsDevon-New-York.html, accessed October 8, 2017. Shaw, Anny. “Damien Hirst Scales Back Business to Focus on Making Art.” The Art Newspaper (October 1, 2018). www.theartnewspaper.com/news/damien-hirst-scales-back-business-tofocus-on-making-art, accessed March 10, 2019. Sheets, Hilarie. “Creeping Cats and Fish in Hats.” ARTnews, vol. 105, no. 4 (April 2006): 129. Sheff, David. “Keith Haring: An Intimate Conversation.” Rolling Stone (August 10, 1989): 58–66. Sholette, Gregory. Dark Matter: Art and Politics in the Age of Enterprise Culture. New York: PlutoPress, 2011. Siderfin, Naomi and Duncan McCorquodale, editors. Occupational Hazard: Critical Writing on Recent British Art. London: Black Dog Publishing 2002. Siegal, Jeanne. Art Talk: The Early 80s. New York: de Capo Press, 1990. Simpson, Charles R. SoHo: The Artist in the City. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1981. Singh, Prasidh Raj. “Consumer Culture and Postmodernism.” Postmodern Openings, vol. 5, no. 5 (March 2011). Sischy, Ingrid. “Money on the Wall.” Vanity Fair (December 2006). www.vanityfair.com/culture/ 2006/12/jeffrey-deitch-200612, accessed October 2, 2016. Sladen, Mark and Ariella Yedgar, editors. Panic Attack! Art in the Punk Years. New York: Merrell, 2009. Slesin, Suzanne. “An Artist Turns Retailer.” The New York Times (April 18, 1986): 22. Sloan, John. Catalogue of a Memorial Exhibition of the Work of Robert Henri. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1931. Small, Michael. “Drawing on Walls, Clothes, and Subways, Keith Haring Earns Favor with Art Lovers High and Low.” People Magazine, vol. 20, no. 23 (December 5, 1983). Smith, Andrew. “All in a Good Cause.” The Observer Magazine (January 22, 2002): 46–47.

232

Bibliography

Smith, David. “Where the Boys are.” The SoHo Weekly News (May 1981), Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1981 press box, KHA 1202. Smith, Raymond, editor. Encyclopedia of AIDS: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Scientific Record. Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998. The SoHo Weekly News (May 28 1980; September 10, 1980; September 17, 1980; February 18, 1981) 33. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1980 press box, KHA 12006. Sontag, Susan. AIDS and Its Metaphors. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1989. Southerton, Dale, editor. Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, 2011. Spalding, Julian. “Damien Hirsts are the Sub-prime of the Art World.” The Independent (March 26, 2012). Spampinato, Francesco. “Head Space: Fashion Moda.” Waxpoetics, no. 55 (May 2013): 90–94. ———. “Kenny Scharf: Bringing the Fantasy into Reality.” Apartamento, no. 7 (May 2011): 195. Span, Paula. “Graffiti’s Scrawl of Success, Drawing for Millions.” Washington Post (December 30, 1985): D1. “Special Projects, Product development.” Keith Haring 1997 Exhibition Files, box 175. Whitney Museum of American Art Archives. Speretta, Tommaso, Ellen Neipris, TEM McKitterick, Loring McAlpin, and Gran Fury. Rebels Rebel: AIDS, Art, and Activism in New York, 1979–1989. Ghent, Belgium: Mer. Paper Kunsthalle, 2014. Spiegler, Marc. “Do Art Critics Still Matter?” The Art Newspaper (April 19, 2005). Stallabrass, Julian. Art Incorporated: The Story of Contemporary Art. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. ———. High Art Lite: British Art in the 1990s. New York: Verso, 1999. Statistics from Foundation Center. http://webapps.foundationcenter.org/glasspocketsltr/trans parency.php?view=Tumblr, accessed February 4, 2016. Steinberg, Leo. Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth Century Art. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. Steinhardt, Simon, editor. Covert to Overt: The Under/Overground Art of Shepard Fairey. New York: Rizzoli, 2015. Stevens, Jenny. “Van Gogh Leggings and Tracey Teacups: How Art Merch Broke Out of the Gift Shop.” The Guardian (June 25, 2018): 1–6. Stockdill Brett C. Activism Against AIDS: At the Intersections of Sexuality, Race, Gender, and Class. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003. Stokes, Henry Scott. “Art Museum: A Symbol of Turnabout in Japan.” The New York Times (October 11, 1981). Sussman, Elisabeth, editor. Keith Haring. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1997. ———. Keith Haring. New York: Skarstedt Gallery, 2008. Swenson, Gene. “What Is Pop Art?” ARTnews, vol. 62, no. 7 (November 1963): 24–25. Szanto, Andras. “The Sleeping Giant of Philanthropy.” The Art Newspaper, no. 220 (January 2011): 33. Tagebücher. Frankfurt: S. Fischer, 1997. “The Talk of the Town: Notes and Comment.” The New Yorker (November 21, 1983): 41. Takemoto, Tina. “The Melancholia of AIDS: Interview with Douglas Crimp.” Art Journal (Winter 2003): 80–90. Taylor, Marvin J., editor. The Downtown Book: The New York Art Scene 1974–1984. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006. Taylor, Paul. Post-Pop Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989. “Ten Years Later, Nuclear Ghosts Still Haunt Three Mile Island.” People Magazine (April 3, 1989): 64. Terl, Allan. AIDS and the Law: A Basic Guide for the Nonlawyer. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Pub. Corp., 1992.

Bibliography

233

Thompson, Graham. American Culture in the 1980s. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Thompson, Margo. “The Times Square Show.” Streetnotes, 18 (Spring 2010). Thorpe, Vanessa. “Top Critic Lashes Out at Hirst’s ‘Tacky’ Art.” The Guardian (September 6, 2008). Tobin, Joseph. Re-made in Japan: Everyday Life and Consumer Taste in a Changing Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992. Tomkins, Calvin. “The Art World: Up from the I.R.T.” New Yorker, vol. 60, no. 6 (March 26, 1984): 102. Trebay, Guy. “American Graffiti: Uncoding Keith Haring’s Language of Signs.” Village Voice (May 6, 1986): 37. ———. “The Pop Shop.” Village Voice, New York (May 1986). Treichler, Paula. How to Have Theory in an Epidemic: Cultural Chronicles of AIDS. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999. Tretmann, Frank. The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, Power and Identity in the Modern World. New York: Berg, 2006. “Trompe L’oeil Fantasy.” Almanac (January 1, 1989): 42. Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” Trucco, Terry. “The Shopping Boom at Your Local Museum.” ARTnews, vol. 76, no. 8 (October 1977): 56–60. Tucker, Marcia. Impresario: Malcolm McLaren and the British New Wave. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1988. Tully, Judd. “Solid Foundations . . .” Art & Auction (November 1994): 152–156. ———. “Warhol’s World for Sale.” Art & Auction (November 2012): 97. Tunnicliffe, Wayne, editor. Pop to Popism. New York: Prestel, 2014. Tyson, Janet. “Artist stays one step ahead of Chic.” Time Tribune (December 1985). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1985 press box. The Universe of Keith Haring. Directed Christina Clausen, Arthouse Films, 90 minutes. Distributed by New Video, 2008. Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: A.M. Kelley Bookseller, 1965. Veltius, Olav. “Accounting for Taste.” Artforum (April 2008): 305–309. Vending Times (January 1, 1989): 33. Archival Memoir of Objets Vend’art, “Press.” Villorente, David and Todd James, editors. Mascots & Mugs: The Characters and Cartoons of Subway Graffiti. New York: Testify, D.A.P, 2007. Vincent, Christine. The Artist as Philanthropist: Strengthening the Next Generation of ArtistEndowed Foundations, vol. 1 and 2. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 2010. Vincent, Steven. “Events.” East Village Eye (Xmas 1980): 12. Voeller, Megan. “Thank you, Keith Haring.” Tampa Weekly Plant (April 12, 2006): 37. Vogel, Carol. “The Warhol of Japan Pours Ritual Tea in a Zen Moment.” The New York Times (May 7, 2007). Voucher, Andrea. Muses from Chaos and Ash, AIDS Artists and Art. New York: Grove Press, 1993. Voytko, Lisette. “KAWS Collaboration with Uniqlo Debuts—Chaos Ensues.” Forbes (June 4, 2019). Walker, John A. Art and Celebrity. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2003. ———. Art in the Age of Mass Media. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 1983. Walker, Richard. “Inside the Art Market.” ARTNews (November 1988): 130. Wallis, Brian, editor. Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1984. Warhol, Andy. The Philosophy of Andy Warhol: From A to B and Back Again. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975. Warsh, Larry, editor. 31 Keith Haring Subway Drawings. New York: Art Issues Editions, 2012.

234

Bibliography

Weart, Spencer. Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Weinberg, Helene Barbara. American Impressionism & Realism. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2009. Weitman, Wendy. Kiki Smith: Prints, Books, and Things. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2003. Welty, Matt. “Kaws on His New Uniqlo Collaboration.” Complex (April 29, 2017). West, Darrell M. and John M. Orman. Celebrity Politics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003. “What We Can Do.” Vogue (November 1990): 366. Wheeler, Mark. Celebrity Politics: Image and Identity in Contemporary Political Communications. Cambridge, MA: Polity, 2013. Whiting, Cecile. A Taste for Pop: Pop Art, Gender, and Consumer Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Whitney Museum of American Art: Members Magazine, vol. 1, no. 3 (Summer 1997). Whittington, Clark. www.artomat.org, accessed January 20, 2016. “Whizz! Bam! Keith Haring at the Stedelijk Museum.” Article clipping, interview. Pop Shop Archives. Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY. “Why Make AIDS Worse Than It Is?” The New York Times (June 29, 1989): A22. Wile, Rob. “The True Story of the 1980s, When Everyone Was Convinced Japan Would Buy America.” Business Insider (September 5, 2014). Williams, Jeannie. USA Today (December 11–13, 1987). Willis, Paul. Common Culture. Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 1990. Woubshet, Dagmawi. The Calendar of Loss: Race, Sexuality, and Morning in the Early ERA of AIDS. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015. Wu, Chin-tao. Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s. New York: Verso, 2002. Wye, Deborah. Thinking Print: Books to Billboards, 1980–85. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1996. Yanase, Kaoru. Keith Haring/It Is Art as I Know It. Hokuto: Nakamura Keith Haring Collection, 2008. ———, editor. Keith Haring: Pop Shop, Making a New Network for Art to the Public. Yamanashi: Nakamura Keith Haring Collection, 2009. ———. Nakamura Keith Haring Collection: Approaching Primeval Energy. Tokyo, Japan: Kazuo Nakamura, 2007. Yap, Chin-chin.“The Little Can That Could.” Artasiapacific, no. 82 (March/April 2013): 55–56. Yarro, Andrew. “Artists Offer ‘Day Without Art’ to Focus on AIDS.” The New York Times (December 1989). Keith Haring Foundation Archives, New York, NY, 1989 press box. Yarrow, Andrew. “Keith Haring, Artist, Dies at 31; Career Began in Subway Graffiti.” The New York Times (February 17, 1990). Yates, Michael. “The Great Inequality.” Monthly Review, vol. 63 (March 2012): 1–18. Yotka, Steff. “Inside KAWS’s Studio with the Artist—and His Snoopy for Uniqlo Toys.” Vogue (April 27, 2017). Zelevansky, Lynn. “Documenta: Art for Art’s Sake.” Flash Art, vol. 109 (November 1982): 39–40. Zerbo, Julie. “Graffiti Artists Fight Copying by Fashion Brands.” Business of Fashion (February 26, 2016). Zukin, Sharon. Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.

Index

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate a figure on the corresponding page. 3 Mercer Store 50, 79n65, 82n112 ABC News (TV) 39, 109, 132 ABC No Rio 28, 51, 54 Abloh, Virgil 196 Absolut Vodka 109, 186, 203 ABSOLUT HARING ad (Haring) 109 academia 49, 77n34, 154, 198; canonized 1980s criticism 9–11, 52; cultural populism in 96, 97–98, 157n14, 177, 205; Haring’s reception 15n42, 155–156n2; see also Birmingham School; celebrity activism; Frankfurt School accessibility see populism activism 3–4, 10, 99, 114, 124–125; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 154, 192; anti-apartheid 1, 124–125, 132; Black Lives Matter 154, 192; civil rights 125–126; Crack is Wack mural (Haring) 125; famine 126, 192; Feeding America 192; Live Aid 126, 157n19; Occupy Wall Street 192; The Other Eighties (Martin) 126; Rain Dance exhibition (Haring) 68, 126; UNICEF 1, 125; Vietnam War protests 125–126; Women’s March 154, 192–193, 193; see also ACT UP; AIDS; celebrity activism; gay rights; Fairey, Shepard; nuclear issues; Objets Vend’art by Vendona ACT UP 124–125, 147–154, 157n135, 158n162; Haring involvement in 150–154, 151–152, 161n139; SILENCE = DEATH slogan 147–148, 150, 151; see also Gran Fury ADAPT 154 Adidas 109, 169 Adorno, Theodore 11, 98 advertising 2–3, 6, 36, 96–97, 116n35, 191; activism, in 131; academia, in 177; art, in 128, 198, 207; influence on Haring 31–32, 41n17; integrated marketing communications 90, 97, 115n20; see also ACT UP; AIDS; AIDS, Haring; art merchandise; celebrity, Haring; Colab; Downtown Scene; Fairey, Shepard; Gran

Fury; Haring, Keith; Holzer, Jenny; Japan; KAWS; Keith Haring Foundation; Lindquist, Ona; nuclear issues; Pop Shop, New York; Pop Shop, Tokyo; Saatchi, Charles; Scharf, Kenny Advocate, The, Haring in 137 Ahearn, Charlie 53, 79n65 Ahearn, John 54–55, 65, 68, 79n57 AIDS: activism nationally 147; advertising 141–142, 149–150, 153; amfAR (American Foundation for AIDS Research) 124, 150; art 147–150; art history, in 149, 153–154; art merchandise 148–149; beginnings 139–140; education 140–142, 148, 150, 159n102; political response to 137, 140–141; safe sex 159n111; stigma 138–141, 149, 153, 160–161n136; see also ACT UP; AIDS, Haring; General Idea; Gran Fury; Reagan, Ronald; Sontag, Susan “AIDS Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism” (Crimp) 153 AIDS Demo Graphics (Crimp) 153 AIDS, Haring; advertisements 142, 143; The Advocate, Keith Haring interview 137; AIDS diagnosis 137, 141; AIDS iconography 142–146, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 160n123; AIDS: Trading Fear for Facts 144; art merchandise 141–142, 150, 152, 160n131; Auction for Action 150; blimp 142; billboard 150; The Body Positive 150; Consumer Reports Books 142, 144; “Day without Art” mural 160n127; Debbie Dick 115n15, 142, 160n124; Don’t Believe the Hype mural (Haring) 146; fundraising 150–152; Heritage of Pride logo 142; Ignorance = Fear, Silence = Death 150, 151; Montreal AIDS conference 141; New York Gay Pride Parade 142; “Night of 100 Trees” 141–142; Once Upon a Time mural 146–147, 147; Public Agenda Foundation 142; Rolling Stone interview 141, 150; safe sex 1, 142–147; Safe Sex 91, 95, 142,

236

Index

146; “Sex on Campus” (CNN/Haring) 142; Scholastic 142, 160n121; Silence = Death 150, 152; Stop AIDS 145; Talk to Us the AIDS Hotline 142, 143; teen safe sex guides 142, 144; Together We Can Stop AIDS mural 144–145, 147; Totem (Haring) 150; Wellness Network 142; The Yale Vernacular 142, 159n120; see also ACT UP AIDS and Its Metaphors (Sontag) 140 AIDS Timeline (Group Material) 152, 161n153 AIDS: Trading Fear for Facts (Haring) 144 Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum 193, 197–198 All Color News (Colab) 54 alternative spaces 19, 48, 68, 73, 169, 213; 1970s, in the 50 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 154, 192 American Supermarket (Warhol) 5 amfAR (American Foundation for AIDS Research) 124, 150 A. More Store (Colab) 48–49, 54, 58–65, 67–68, 71, 73–74, 74nn4–8, 80nn76–83; advertisements 58, 60, 62, 63; Barbara Gladstone (gallery) 60; Broome Street 58, 60, 68; Jack Tilton Gallery 60, 80n86; Landslides exhibition 64, 80n84, 81n100; Moore College of Art 60; Printed Matter 60, 74n4, 81n100, 84n151; White Columns 59, 60, 76n15 Amplifier Foundation 214 Andaloro Associates Inc. 164 Andaloro, Michael 164 Andre the Giant has a Posse (Fairey) 192 Andy Warhol Foundation 167, 170, 178n3, 180n47 Andy Warhol’s Fashion TV show (Warhol) 24 Andy Warhol’s Fifteen Minutes TV show (Warhol) 24 Andy Warhol’s TV (Warhol) 24 Annual More Store see A. More Store Appelbroog, Ida 128 Arena, Adolfo 90, 94 Art Against AIDS: On the Road exhibition 150, 156n2, 160n135 Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation (Wallis) 10, 52 ART BOY SIN (Haring) 138 Art and Celebrity (Walker) 39 art celebrity see celebrity art collecting 99, 101 Art Direct Mail Order Catalog (Colab) 64, 81n100, 81n102, 81n104 Artforum 47n136, 55, 64–65, 176n63, 180n63, 198

art history 4, 12n2, 54–55, 125, 149, 205, 213; common commercialism in 96, 98; Haring 4, 9–11, 14n41, 111–112, 114, 152; Japan, in 106, 201–202; see also AIDS; Pop Shop, New York Art in Transit (Haring) 8, 39 artist foundations 162–163, 175n29; licensing 163, 166–171, 177, 178n3, 178n14, 181n72, 200; see also Andy Warhol Foundation; Jean-Michel Basquiat Foundation; Keith Haring Foundation; licensing Haring’s work artist-run shop 4, 48–49, 58, 175, 184–185; see also A. More Store; Fairey, Shepard; Fashion Moda Store; Fluxus; Hirst, Damien; KAWS; Lindquist, Ona; Murakami, Takashi; Oldenburg, Claes; Pop Shop, New York; Pop Shop, Tokyo; Scharf, Kenny; Times Square Show shop Artists Space 50, 60 Artestar 167–169, 179–180n41 art market 2–9, 12, 12–13n11, 17n83, 70, 96–97, 112; 1990s and 2000s, in the 9–10, 167, 175–177, 198, 201, 203, 206; Japan, in 119n80; see also art market, Haring; art market, 1980s; art multiples; auctions (art) art market, 1980s 8, 39–40, 49–51, 73, 96–97, 101; artists bypassing 53–54, 65, 70 art market, Haring 7–8, 12, 33, 36–38, 113, 163, 168; Haring’s feelings towards 19, 33, 36, 122n156; Pop Shop relationship 85, 96, 100, 175 art merchandise 96, 175–177, 178n3, 185, 207, 208n6; see also ACT UP; AIDS, Haring; art merchandise, Haring; auctions (art); Basquiat, Jean-Michel; consumer culture; Fairey, Shepard; General Idea; Hirst, Damien; Jesus Freaks; KAWS; Murakami, Takashi; Pop Shop, New York; Pop Shop, Tokyo; Scharf, Kenny art merchandise, Haring 1, 4–7, 86–91, 87, 93–96, 100, 111, 124; advertising of 91, 90–92, 93, 94, 95; beginnings 21, 37–38, 41n30, 48, 108, 114n3, 164, 171–175, 181n72; fakes 107–108, 112, 120n108, 121n112; feelings towards 107–108, 112–114, 115n23, 118n67, 170; impact 40, 93–95, 108–110, 115n24, 121n130, 152–155; manufacturing 46n126, 115n16, 115–116n24, 119n77; multiples vs. 5, 7, 13n21, 60, 64, 73–74, 164, 175; populist strategy, as 28, 38, 40, 86, 90, 95, 100–101; posthumous products 164–169, 177, 179–180n41, 181n67; posthumous products illustrated 165, 168, 169, 174; promotional strategy, as 47n145, 90–93, 109, 121n127; sales 115–116n24, 122n159; see also auctions (art), Haring;

Index buttons; consumer culture; Crack is Wack; Pop Shop, New York; Pop Shop, Tokyo; Radiant Baby (Haring) art multiples 4, 13n21, 14n27, 58, 175, 196, 198; art market, in the 5–6, 175, 181–182n81; definition 4, 13nn15–17; 1980s, in the 49–50, 53, 58, 60–61, 64–65, 67–73, 154; 1980s illustrated, in the 57, 59, 61, 66–67, 72; 1960s, in the 4–6, 164, 171, 175; see also A. More Store; Fashion Moda; Lindquist, Ona; Scharf Schak; Smith, Kiki; Times Square Show shop Art Spirit, The (Henri) 20–21, 41n23, 41nn26–27 art star see celebrity art world 2–8, 16n53, 40, 50, 86, 97, 163; 1990s and 2000s, in the 184–186, 191, 193, 197–198, 201–204, 207; commercialism, acceptance 1, 9, 175–177, 207; commercialism, criticism 3–12, 17n79, 17n81, 21, 49, 98, 110–112, 114n6; definition 100–101 art world, Haring 18–19, 48, 90–91, 95, 213; feelings towards 1, 18, 37, 40, 45–46n120; impact on 16n53, 29, 95–96; reception 3–4, 7–12, 14n41, 16n53, 28, 38, 86, 110–112, 171, 201; see also Haring, Keith; Pop Shop, New York Ashford, Dan 60 Astor, Patti 51, 77n33, 120n99 auctions (art) 6, 8, 10, 40, 116n26, 175–176, 211n94; art multiples, of 14n34, 171, 181–182n81; 1990s and 2000s, in the 184 – 185 , 198 , 202 – 203 , 206 – 207 , 209 – 210n21, 211n94, 214; see also auctions (art), Haring auctions (art), Haring 96, 109, 126, 150; art merchandise 175, 182n82 baby see Radiant Baby Barcelona (Spain) 144, 147, 160n127 Barking Dog 34, 35, 37, 90, 91, 94, 169 Barthes, Roland 3; Death of the Author 3 Basquiat, Jean-Michel 40, 53, 65, 74n3, 76n17, 154; foundation 170, 178n3; graffiti 8–9, 29; posthumous art merchandising 185 Bathing Ape, A 185, 196 Beaux-Arts de Mons in Belgium 174 Becker, Howard 100 Benglis, Lynda 24, 42n42 Bergmann, Eugene 71 Beyond Words exhibition 51 Big Nur Zürich 109 Birmingham School 96, 157n14, 205 Black Lives Matter 154, 192 BLK/MRKT 189

237

Bobby G (Robert Goldman) 55, 60–61, 79n60 Body Positive, The 150 Boesendahl, Dallas 141 Bono 125 Bourdieu, Pierre 9, 100, 117n44 Boutique (General Idea) 50, 13n14 Brand New: Art and Commodity in the 1980s exhibition (Hirschhorn) 4, 13n14, 74n4, 75n8 Brathwaite, Fred see Fab 5 Freddy Breslau, Bobby 88, 154 Bronx 54, 60, 81n93, 93 Broome Street 58, 60, 66 van Bruggen, Coosje 65 Brutus (magazine) 106, 120n100 Buchhart, Dieter 111 Buchloh, Benjamin 9, 14n41, 16n56, 65 Burroughs, William S. 26, 28–31, 44nn85–86, 44n89, 44n91, 160n123; The Electronic Revolution 29, 44n86; The Ticket That Exploded 26 Bush, George H.W. 131, 141, 160n123 Bush, George W. 192 Bush Hell (Fairey) 192 business monopolies see monopolies in business buttons (Haring) 46n126, 88, 103, 115n16, 116n24, 125, 153, 160n124; early 1, 36–37, 37, 46n121, 46n122; posthumous 172, 178n8, 181n67 cable television see television Cage, John 166 Cameron, Dan 49, 15n50 Carousel of Progress (Scharf) 136 Castelli, Leo 111, 114n6 Castolone, Joey 71; The Music Box 71, 72 Catholic Church see religion CBS 39, 45n112, 73, 107 Celant, Germano 196 celebrity activism 124–126, 150–151, 154, 156n7, 156n11, 157n14; Haring and 114, 124–126, 133, 142, 152–154 celebrity (artist) 7–10, 39–40, 60, 124, 175–176, 184; 1990s and 2000s, in (general) 185, 191–192, 198, 202; Warhol, Andy 7–8, 24, 39; see also celebrity activism; celebrity, Haring; Downtown scene; Fairey, Shepard; Hirst, Damien; Koons, Jeff; Murakami, Takashi; Schnabel, Julien celebrity, Haring 2–4, 8, 33, 38–40, 48, 85–86, 93, 108–109, 114, 198; formation 22–24, 32–33; see also celebrity activism Change (Lipski) 71 Chardón Jeans (Haring) 29, 44n80 Christ and the Cloud (Spero) 136 Christianity see religion

238

Index

Christie’s 14n34, 175–176, 181–182n81 CIA 130–131 CityKids 124 Civilian Warfare 50 civil rights movement 125–126 Clocktower Gallery 50 clothing see art merchandise Club 57 (nightclub) 26, 51, 68, 77n30, 88, 136, 138 clubs see nightclubs CNN 73, 142 Cohen, Steven 176 Colab 28, 48–50, 53–65, 70, 72–74, 128, 154; All Color News 54; Art Direct Mail Order Catalog (Colab) 64–65, 81n100, 81n102, 81n104; Artists Space 60, 81n93; cable television 25, 54; East Village Eye 60–61, 64, 68, 80n83; Events exhibition (New Museum) 68, 82n121; Haring 48, 50, 53–55, 58, 60, 64–65, 67, 78n55, 82n125; Potato Wolf 54, 80n72; Real Estate Show 29, 82n125; recognition, general 74–75nn4–5, 75n8, 76n11, 80–81n87; Red Curtain 54; X Motion Picture Magazine 54; see also A. More Store; art multiples; Fashion Moda; Times Square Show; Times Square Show shop Cold War 130, 137 Collaborative Projects Inc. see Colab collage 30, 44n91, 71; see also collage, Haring collage, Haring 18, 23, 28–30, 30, 44n89, 55, 79n60; New York Post collages 29–31, 31, 127, 127, 138; Pop Shop 86 commercialism (common) and art 3–4, 7–12, 25, 36, 38, 97, 109, 112–114, 175–177; 1990s and 2000s 184–186, 188–189, 194–195, 199–203; contradictions of 12, 114; posthumous, Haring 163, 168–169, 172, 174; Pop Shop 3, 12, 85–86, 100, 109–112; see also art history; art market; art world; commercialism (common), Haring’s feelings towards; consumer culture; Downtown scene; money; populism commercialism (common), Haring’s feelings towards 13n12, 18–21, 116n27, 123n161, 170–171; direct quotes 15n44, 42n31, 96, 107, 122n145, 122n156 Companion (KAWS) 196–197, 197 ComplexCon (Murakami) 199–200 computers see technology consumer culture 2–7, 9, 40, 96–101, 117n53, 163, 188; 1990s and 2000s, in 175–177, 184–186, 191–192, 198–200, 205–206, 213; academia and criticism 10–11, 16n56, 98, 114, 117n46; celebrity

fans 118n71; Downtown scene 49–50, 52–53, 55, 70, 74, 78n43; Japan 101, 104–106, 199–200; Pop Shop 88, 90, 95–101, 110–112, 114, 170; semiotics 99; see also art merchandise; art multiples; commercialism (common) and art Cooper, Ellen 60–61, 63 Cortez, Diego 14n41, 49, 53, 68, 78n41; New York/New Wave exhibition 68, 74n3 Crackdown (Haring) 125 Crack Foundation 125 Crack is Wack mural (Haring) 125 Crash (John Matos) 67 Creighton, Millie 106; “Something More: Japanese Department Stores’ Marketing ‘A Meaningful Human Life’” 106 Crimp, Douglas 9, 14n41, 16n56, 153, 161n157; “AIDS Cultural Analysis/ Cultural Activism” 153; AIDS Demo Graphics 153 Crow, Thomas 206 Cullinan, Nicolas 174–175 Da Da (Lindquist) 71 Daichendt, G. James 192 DAMAGED (Fairey) 191 Damned Interfering Video Activist TV (DIVA TV) 147 Danceteria 51 Davidovich, Jaime 25, 50; Wooster Enterprises 50 Davis, Debbie 60 Day-Glo 27, 51, 186 DeAk, Edit 14n41, 49, 51 Death of the Author (Barthe) 3 Debbie Dick (Haring) 115n15, 142, 160n124 Deitch, Jeffrey 14n41, 49, 58, 97, 111, 122n143, 163 Dellinger, Jade 172 Dickson, Jane 32, 53, 67–68, 80n73, 80n76, 80n80, 144; Spectacolor billboard 32, 45n96, 58, 68 Disarming Images: Art for Nuclear Disarmament exhibition 136–137 Disney, Walt 112, 40n2 Dittmar, Helga 99 Documenta 7 48–49, 54, 65–68, 66, 82n112, 82n114, 187 Donnelly, Brian see KAWS Don’t Believe the Hype mural (Haring) 146 “Downhill from Here” (Friend) 110 Downtown Book, The 13n13, 49 Downtown scene 48–53, 73–74, 76–77n18, 77n23, 153–154, 186; advertising 53, 128, 204; beginnings 2, 48, 50–51; Civilian Warfare 50; commercialism 49–50, 53,

Index 76n11, 82n112, 96; critical reception 8–11, 47n135, 49, 76nn11–12, 110, 211nn104–105; do-it-yourself (DIY) approaches 2, 48, 51, 57, 90, 186, 188, 203; The Downtown Book 13n13, 49; East Village Eye 60–61, 64, 68, 80n83; exhibitions 76n12; Events exhibition (New Museum) 68, 82n121; Fun Gallery 32, 50–51, 52; Fun Gallery postcard 52; Gracie Mansion gallery 50, 76n17; hype 3, 8–9, 11, 15n50, 39–40, 48, 97; impact 196, 204; Japan, in 104–106, 119n80; junk aesthetic 52, 57, 71, 186; Nature Morte 50; Neo-Conceptualism 4, 48–49; Neo-Geo 4, 48; Neo-Expressionism 4, 9, 12n11, 48–49, 52, 65; New York/New Wave exhibition (PS1) 68, 74n3; Neo-Pop art 53, 106, 205; New Wave music 51; performance art 28, 48, 55, 65, 77n30, 83n138; photography 70, 77n30, 82n105, 83n131, 136; Pictures Generation 4, 49; sex 51, 55, 60, 64, 71, 137–139, 160n125; street art 27–29, 65, 67; themes and philosophies 2, 50–53, 128; Xerox art 30, 51, 70, 70; see also alternative spaces; artist-run shop; art multiples; Basquiat, Jean-Michel; Colab; consumer culture; Downtown scene, populism; graffiti; Group Material; Fashion Moda; Haring, Keith; Lindquist, Ona; New Museum; nightclubs; nuclear issues; painting; Pop Shop, New York; Scharf, Kenny; SoHo art scene; television; Times Square Show Downtown scene, populism 16n53, 28, 48–55, 65, 68, 70, 73, 74n2, 128; affordability 53, 55, 60, 64–65, 70, 80n82; see also Scharf, Kenny Doyle Auctions 175, 182n82 drawing 8, 71, 81n92; see also drawing, Haring drawing, Haring 1, 26–27, 42n34, 46n122, 109, 135, 157n24; animations 32, 148, 169; “My First Dirty Story” 138; penis drawings 138; Sign on a Truck 129–130, 129; subway drawings 18, 28–29, 33–39, 35, 42n54, 47n142, 86, 88, 127 drugs 2, 19, 27, 120, 124–125, 127, 136, 144, 167 Dubose, Juan 154 Duchamp, Marcel 4, 44n89, 79n65; Boîteen-valise 4 Duran Duran 39, 123n161 East Village Eye 60–61, 64, 68, 80n83 East Village scene see Downtown scene Eddins, Michael 71 Eins, Stefan 54, 64–67, 79n65

239

Electronic Revolution, The (Burroughs) 29–30 Emin, Tracey 175, 178n3 exhibitions, Haring involved in 15n42, 36, 155–156n2, 163; Art Against AIDS 150; Beaux-Arts de Mons in Belgium 174; Beyond Words 51; Brand New: Art and Commodity in the 1980s 4, 13n14; The Comic Art Show 114n3; Disarming Images: Art for Nuclear Disarmament 136–137; Documenta 7 65, 67; Events 68, 82n121; Fun Gallery 32, 51, 52; Future Primeval 171; Keith Haring 1978–1982 15n42, 171; Keith Haring (Tate Liverpool, 2019) 15n42, 167; Keith Haring (Whitney, 1997) 15n42, 171–172, 178n2, 181n67, 181n72; Lower Manhattan Drawing Show 51, 78n55; Musée d’Art Moderne de Paris 174; New York Historical Society 164, 172–173, 173, 181n75; New York/New Wave 68, 74n3; organized by, and 19, 22, 28, 51, 58, 68, 77n30; Political Line 171; Pop Life: Art in a Material World 174, 174, 175, 200, 203; PS122 45n103; Rain Dance 68, 126; San Francisco Museum of Modern Art 172; Tampa Museum of Art 171–172, 180–181n64, 181n72; Television’s Impact on Contemporary Art exhibition 27, 43n69; Tony Shafrazi Gallery 2, 19, 32, 37, 47n136, 86, 107; see also Pop Shop, New York; Pop Shop, Tokyo; Times Square Show; Whitney Museum of American Art Events exhibition (New Museum) 68, 82n121 Fab 5 Freddy (Fred Brathwaite) 44n76, 51, 58, 129 Fairey, Shepard 154, 184–185, 189–193, 209n32, 209n41, 214; American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 192; Andre the Giant has a Posse 192; Bernie Sanders 192, 194; BLK/MRKT 189; Bush Hell 192; DAMAGED 191; GQ magazine 191; Hope 191–192; Keith Haring × OBEY graphic collaboration 193, 195; Obey Awareness Program 192; OBEY Clothing 189, 192–193, 195; Obey Giant 189, 194; OBEY icon 189, 190; Subliminal Projects 189; “We the People” 193, 214; Women’s March 192–193, 193 Falwell, Jerry 140 fame see celebrity Fashion Moda 28, 51, 54, 81n93; Fashion Moda Store (Documenta 7) 48, 65–68, 73, 74nn4–5, 82n112, 82n114; Fashion Moda Store T-Shirt 67, 67 Feel-o-Mat (Lindquist) 69, 71

240

Index

Fekner, John 28, 55, 64, 67–68, 82n123 Fiorucci Store 32 Fitzgibbon, Coleen 53, 58 Flash Art 25, 38–39, 198 Fluxus 4–6, 13n21, 28, 43n74, 74, 84n150, 164; Fluxkits 4, 6, 14n34, 182n81; Fluxus shops 6, 55, 65, 175; see also art multiples For Collectors Only (Lindquist) 71 Foster, Hal 8–10, 14n41, 176–177; Bad New Days: Art, Criticism, Emergency 176–177 Frankfurt School 11, 98, 117n44 Frank, Peter 51 Free South Africa poster (Haring) 125 Friend, Tad 110; “Downhill from Here” 110 Fuchs, Rudi 65 Fun Gallery 32, 50–51, 52 Futura 2000 51, 88, 185, 208n6 Future Primeval exhibition 171 Gagosian (gallery) 200, 207 Galerie Watari (Tokyo) 106 Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) 147 Gay Men’s Health Crisis 159n102, 167 gay rights 124, 137–138, 142 Geller, Matthew 58, 60–61 General Idea 13n14, 50, 160n125; Boutique 13n14, 50 Geneslaw, Ruth 71 Gingeras, Alison 201 Giorno, John 138 Glier, Mike 64, 68, 74n4, 78n53, 81n100, 82n123 Goldman, Robert see Bobby G Goldstein, Richard 54 Golub, Leon 128 GQ magazine 109, 191 Gracie Mansion gallery 50, 76n17 graffiti 28–29, 43n75, 51, 67, 71, 76n17, 186; 1990s and 2000s, in the 185–186, 193–194, 196, 207, 208n6; Downtown scene relationship 8–9; Exit Through the Gift Shop 185; Haring’s relationship to 15n51, 28–29, 34, 40n2, 43n75, 44n79, 51, 58; Japan, in 120n99; see also Basquiat, Jean-Michel; KAWS Gran Fury 28, 147, 149, 153, 160n135, 161n139, 162n163; bus poster 149; Let the Record Show exhibition 149; New York Crimes 149, 160n136 Grateful Dead 18, 21, 37, 40, 127 Graw, Isabelle 9, 176; High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture 9, 176 Greenberg, Clement 11, 16n56, 98, 204 Greenpeace 124, 154 Greer, Jane 71 Gross, Michael 110–111

Group Material 28, 51, 53, 147, 152, 154, 161n153; AIDS Timeline 152, 161n153 Gruen, Julia 118n63, 163, 166, 171, 180n47; Pop Shop 12n10, 165–166, 171, 178n14, 181n72 Guggenheim SoHo 186 Gysin, Brion 29, 44n86 Haring, Keith: Absolut Vodka/ ABSOLUT HARING 109; adolescence 18–21; advertising strategies in art 3, 22, 28–29, 31–32, 36, 41n17, 68, 127; Art in Transit 8, 39; billboards 32, 68, 90, 109, 150; Chardón Jeans 29, 44n80; children, working with 45n100, 124–125, 141, 155, 160n121; death 1, 7, 14–15nn41–42, 21, 42n31, 44n79, 85, 155, 158n59, 163–164, 171; estate 165, 174; Free South Africa poster 125; generosity 16n53, 19, 29, 46n130; hospitals 45n100, 125; influences 7, 18, 20–22, 26, 28–29, 34, 40n2, 41n17, 185; A Personal Mythology, An Essay: For Semiotics Class 22, 23; Playboy 90, 109; playgrounds 125; photography as an artistic medium 22; Polaroids 39, 47n145; semiotics 22, 29, 34, 45n105, 88, 132; Spectacolor billboard 32, 58, 68, 148; style 4–5, 18, 28–29, 32–36, 40, 41n17, 85, 88–90, 103, 108, 127, 133, 152, 170; see also academia; activism; ACT UP; advertising; AIDS, Haring; animations; art history; art market, Haring; art merchandise, Haring; auctions (art); celebrity activism; celebrity, Haring; collage, Haring; commercialism (common) and art; consumer culture; drawing, Haring; exhibitions, Haring involved in; graffiti; journals, Haring; licensing Haring’s work; money, Haring’s views; money symbol in Haring’s art; murals, Haring; New York Post; nightclubs; nuclear issues; painting, Haring; paper, as art medium; performance art, Haring; politics; Pop Shop, New York; Pop Shop, Tokyo; popular culture; populism, Haring; religion; Radiant Baby; sellout; sex and sexuality, Haring; SoHo; street art, Haring; technology; television; Times Square Show; video art, Haring; Warhol, Andy; Xerox art, Haring Harvey, Kyle 131 Hauft, Amy 64 Haze, Eric 88 Hebdige, Dick 116n28, 205 Helms Amendment 140 Helms, Jesse 140 Henri, Robert 18, 20–21, 25, 40, 41n23, 41nn26–27; The Art Spirit 20; see also painting

Index Heritage of Pride 142 Herman, Alan 86, 178n17 He Said I Have a Dream (Haring) 22 High Art Lite (Stallbrass) 205 High Price: Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture (Graw) 9, 176 Hiropon Factory (Murakami) 199 Hiroshima 130, 132, 133, 158n59 Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden 4 Hirst, Damien 175, 184–185, 198, 203–207, 207n4, 211n104, 212n119; The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living 176; Other Criteria 203–206, 211n98, 211n102 Holy, Holy Art Cards (Salander) 71 Holzer, Jenny 28–29, 128, 136, 153–154, 161n154, 178n3; Colab 49, 54, 58, 64–65, 82n120; Disarming Images: Art for Nuclear Disarmament 136; Documenta 7 65–68, 82n112, 82n114; Haring collaborations 68; Sign on a Truck 68, 82n123, 128–129, 129; Truisms 54–55, 56, 60, 68, 79n60 homosexuality see sex and sexuality Hope (Fairey) 191–192, 214 Houston Street 32, 145 Hoving, Thomas 111, 122n139 Howland, Becky 55, 60, 61, 81n96, 81n98; Love Canal Potatoes 55, 79n60 Hughes, Robert 8–9, 14n41, 15n44, 16n55, 49, 76n11, 110 Ignorance = Fear, Silence = Death (Haring) 150, 151 Ingelmo, Alejandro 188 International Shadows Project 132 Internet 176–177, 184–185, 191, 193, 207, 213; absence of 22, 171 Interview Magazine 90, 115n19 Invader 185, 208n6 Ivy School of Professional Art 20, 41n17, 112 Jack Tilton Gallery 60, 80n86 Jacobs, Marc 199 James, David 24 Japan 80n86, 150; art and commerce 119n84, 201; consumer culture 104–106; department stores 73, 105–107, 120n93, 120n98, 168, 209n43; economy 104, 119n80; popular culture 201–202; Seibu 105–107, 120n93, 120n99; U.S. occupation 106, 201; see also art history; Hiroshima; Murakami, Takashi; painting; Pop Shop, Tokyo; Tokyo; Uniqlo Jean-Michel Basquiat Foundation 170, 178n3 Jesus Freaks see religion

241

Johns, Jasper 138, 166 Jonas, Joan 24, 42n42 Jones, Grace 39, 43n75, 103, 109 journals, Haring 3, 13n12, 14n41, 41n27, 47n142, 82n125; direct quotes 18, 39, 121n120; influences 26, 44n86, 45n105; nuclear war 130; reception 99, 109 Kahlo, Frida 185; Frida Kahlo Corporate 178n3 Kaikai Kiki Co. (Murakami) 199, 203 Kaufman, Samuel 138 KAWS 184–185, 193–198, 209n44, 209n47, 210n53, 210n57; Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum 193, 197–198; art merchandise 196–198, 207n3; Companion 196–197, 197; early work 193–196; exhibitions of 193, 197–198; Medicom Toy Company 196; Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art 198; New Museum 197; OriginalFake 196; Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts 198 Keith Haring 1978–1982 exhibition 15n42, 171 Keith Haring Drawing in New York City Subway (Tseng) 35 Keith Haring exhibition (Tate Liverpool, 2019) 15n42, 167 Keith Haring exhibition (Whitney, 1997) 15n42, 171–172, 178n2, 181n67, 181n72 Keith Haring Foundation 39, 160n121, 166–171, 184; establishment of 163; grants 167, 179n34; Keith Haring × OBEY graphic collaboration 193, 195; mission 163, 166; posthumous Pop Shop 163–166, 178n14; posthumous Pop Shop exhibitions 171–175; posthumous products 167–169, 178n8, 179–180n41, 168, 169, 174; Project Street Beat Mobile Medical Unit 167; see also licensing Haring’s work Keith Haring × OBEY graphic collaboration 193, 195 Keller, Samuel 177 Kitchen, The 50 Kleinmichel, Philipp 177 Koch, Ed 150 Kohlhöfer, Christof 55, 82n120 Koons, Jeff 9, 47n153, 178n3, 198, 204, 210n53; celebrity 40, 125 K.O.S. 60 Kramer, Hilton 14n41, 16n56, 110 Kruger, Barbara 28–29, 81n89, 82n114, 82n123, 128, 136; Colab 49, 53, 60, 75n8; influence 153–154, 161n154 Kurtz, Bruce 138 Kusama, Yayoi 178n3, 185 Kuspit, Donald 8–9, 14n41

242

Index

Kutztown, Pennsylvania 19, 161n144 Kuzui, Fran 107 Kuzui, Kaz 107, 115n24 LA2 (Angel Ortiz) 29, 44n79, 88 Lafayette Street 1, 85–86, 90, 115n10, 181n67 Landslides exhibition (Colab) 64, 80n84, 81n100 Leo Castelli gallery 8 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center (LGBTCC) 146, 148 Let the Record Show exhibition 149 Letters to Ollie (Weinberg) 71 Levine, Wanda 71 Levi’s 188, 196, 208n6 licensing art 163, 168, 177, 178n3, 184–185, 208n6, 213; see also artist foundations; Fairey Shepard; Hirst, Damien; KAWS; Murakami, Takashi; licensing Haring’s work licensing Haring’s work 120n108, 163–171, 168, 169, 178n14, 181n72; Haring’s feelings towards 107–108, 112, 120n108, 122n145, 123n161, 170–171; see also artist foundations; art merchandise, Haring Lick Fat Boys (Haring) 22 Lindquist, Ona 28, 48, 50, 68–74, 83n127, 83n135; see also Objets Vend’art by Vendona Lipski, Donald 71; Change 71 Live Aid 126, 157n19 Louis Vuitton (company) 188, 199, 203, 208n6 Love Canal Potatoes (Howland) 55, 79n60 Lower East Side (New York) 6, 54 Lower Manhattan Drawing Show 51, 78n55 Lucas, Sarah 175 Luna Luna amusement park 186 machines see technology Maciunas, George 4–6, 182n81 Madonna 39, 126 Malarcher, Patricia 71; A Piece of the City 71, 72 Mapplethorpe, Robert 138, 178n3 Marc Jacobs (company) 196, 208n6 Marcus, Greil 126 Marcuse, Herbert 11 Martin, Bradford 126; The Other Eighties: A Secret History of America in the Age of Reagan 126 Mary Boone Gallery 76n17, 198 mass culture see popular culture mass media, general 12n2, 29–30, 39–40, 53, 132, 152–153, 198; broadcast media, general 22, 24, 42n50, 65, 125, 128, 130,

198; print media, general 29, 81n89, 90, 125, 128, 137, 149; see also advertising Matos, John see Crash Max, Peter 8, 15n44, 16n55, 110 McCarthy, Paul 24, 42n42, 178n3 McCormick, Carlo 14n41, 48–49, 78n43 McCracken, Grant 99 McKenzie, Michael 49 merchandise see art merchandise Mickey Mouse 51, 104, 138 Miller, Daniel 98 Miller, Dick 60 Minimalism 52, 54, 65, 78n54, 206 money, Haring’s views 19, 38, 46–47nn129–132, 96, 112–114, 122n159; see also art market; commercialism (common) and art money symbol in Haring’s art 20, 129, 137–138, 146 monopolies in business 25–26, 31, 128 Moore, Alan 49, 58, 60, 64, 75n5, 79n65, 80n72, 80n82; Smashed TV T-shirt 60 Moore College of Art 60 Moral Majority see religion Moore, Peter 88 Moufarrege, Nicolas 14n41, 49, 53 MTV 24, 42n47, 109, 123n161, 209n44 Mudd Club 51, 68, 78n55, 88; Lower Manhattan Drawing Show 51, 78n55 Mulder, George 174 multiples see art multiples Murakami, Takashi 119n84, 184–185, 196, 198–203, 210n53, 210n73; ComplexCon 199; Gagosian 200; GEISAI 202; Future History exhibition 200; Hiropon Factory 199; Kaikai Kiki Co. 199, 203; otaku 201–203, 211n88; reception in Japan 201–202, 211n88; Superflat Museum 199; Tonari No Zingaro 200 murals, Haring 40, 45n100, 137, 142; blimp, painting of 142; CityKids 124; environments, School of Visual Arts (SVA) 28, 32–33, 86–88; Statue of Liberty Project mural 124; see also activism; AIDS, Haring; Pop Shop, New York; Pop Shop, Tokyo Murdoch, Rupert 31, 128 Musée d’Art Moderne de Paris 174 museum gift shop 5, 14n41, 76n17, 79n69, 97, 99, 178n3, 197; Metropolitan Museum of Art gift shop 99–100, 111, 122n139; see also Lindquist, Ona; souvenirs Museum of Contemporary Art (Barcelona) 147, 160n127 Museum of Modern Art, The 47n136, 81n93, 178n3, 191–192; Haring’s journal entries 14n41, 47n133 museums, artists bypassing 6, 49, 53–55, 128, 153, 213; Haring 1, 28, 101, 109

Index

243

museums, general 40, 50, 73, 96–97, 113, 181; 2000s, in the 11, 176, 181; Keith Haring Foundation grants 167, 179n34; Japan, in 105, 120n93; recognition of Haring 4, 7–8, 15n42, 38, 163, 170–171, 184; see also Colab; exhibitions, Haring; Haring, Keith; Hirst, Damien; Fairey, Shepard; KAWS; Murakami, Takashi; museum gift shop; museums, artists bypassing mushroom cloud, in art 131–132, 134, 136–138 Music Box, The (Castolone) 71, 72 Myers, Sondra 110 “My First Dirty Story” (Haring) 138

NOW (National Organization for Women) 124 nuclear issues 124–125, 128–138, 158n59, 158n73; antinuclear advertisements (Haring) 134–135, 135; antinuclear poster, 1982 march (Haring) 132–133, 134; Atomic Energy Commission 131; Disarming Images: Art for Nuclear Disarmament exhibition 136–137; Hiroshima, poster 132, 133; International Shadows Project 132; SALT treaty 132; START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) 130; Three Mile Island 130, 132, 157n35; United Nations 3rd Session on Disarmament 135; see also Radiant Baby; Sign on a Truck

Nagasaki 130, 136 Nakamura, Kazuo 107 Nakamura Keith Haring Collection of Tokyo 172 Nature Morte 50 Nauman, Bruce 24, 42n42 NBC 39, 96, 113, 189 Neo-Conceptualism 4, 48–49 Neo-Expressionism 4, 9, 12n11, 48–49, 52, 65 Neo-Geo 4, 48 Neo-Pop art 53, 106, 205 Neo-York (Plous) 76n12, 136 Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art 198 New Museum 67, 149, 153, 179n34, 192, 197; Events exhibition 68, 82n121; Let the Record Show exhibition 149 newspaper, as artistic medium 30–31, 30–31, 127, 136 New York Art Now exhibition 204, 211nn104–105 New York Crimes (Gran Fury) 149, 160–161n136 New York Historical Society 164, 172–173, 173, 181n75 New York Magazine 31, 73, 128 New York/New Wave exhibition 68, 74n3 New York Post 10, 44n92, 88–90, 109, 115n17, 128 New York Post collages (Haring) 29–31, 31, 127, 127 New York Times, The 10, 73, 109–110; AIDS 139, 149, 160–161n136 nightclubs 1, 16n53, 46n129, 48, 51, 139, 191; Club 57 (nightclub) 26, 51, 68, 77n30, 88, 136, 138; Danceteria 51; Mudd Club 51, 68, 78n55, 88; Palladium 51, 151; Paradise Garage 51; Pop Shop ambience 88, 164; Pyramid 51; Sound Factory 151; see also Lindquist, Ona “Night of 100 Trees” 141 Nixon, Richard 21, 41n30, 127

Obama, Barack 191–192, 214 Obey Awareness Program (Fairey) 192 OBEY Clothing (Fairey) 189, 192–193, 195 Obey Giant (Fairey) 189, 194 OBEY icon (Fairey) 189, 190 Objets Vend’art by Vendona 68–73, 69, 83nn129–131, 83nn141–142, 83n144; activism 71, 83n145; art multiples 70–73, 72, 75n6; Da Da 71; Feel-o-Mat 69, 71; For Collectors Only 71; Japanese reception 83n148; Quad Cinema 68, 69, 70; sales 83n127; Toiten Bankas 69, 71 October 16n56, 76n11, 153 Olander, Bill 153 Oldenburg, Claes 5–7, 67, 128, 136, 196, 210n53; see also The Store Once Upon a Time mural (Haring) 146–148, 148 OriginalFake (KAWS) 196 otaku 201–203, 211n88 Other Criteria (Hirst) 203–206, 211n98, 211n102 Other Criteria (Steinberg) 204, 207 Other Eighties: A Secret History of America in the Age of Reagan, The (Martin) 126 Otterness, Tom 53–55, 58, 67, 79n60, 79n65, 79n69, 178n3; A. More Store advertisement 62, 81n100; Zodiac Love 60, 64, 81n93, 81n100 Owens, Craig 8–9, 14n41, 16n56, 49, 77n34 painting 13n17, 43n74, 65, 85, 98, 101; Downtown scene 49, 52, 55, 71, 77n30, 136; Fairey, Shepard 191; Henri, Robert 20, 41n26; KAWS 194–197; Japan, in 101, 119n74, 119n80; Murakami, Takashi 199; Scharf, Kenny 27, 136, 186; spray paint 55, 61, 111, 194; see also NeoExpressionism painting, Haring 22, 26, 93, 126, 138, 142, 156n2; bodies 43n75; gallery paintings 38,

244

Index

46n122, 96, 113, 122n156, 171; jumpsuits 88, 89; Painting Myself Into a Corner 22, 32, 33; performance, as 40; reception 107; spray paint 34; see also murals, Haring Palladium 51, 151 paper, as art medium 22, 26, 71, 72, 103, 130; see also collage; drawing; murals, Haring; newspaper, as artistic medium Paradise Garage 51 Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts 198 People with AIDS Coalition (PWAC) 147 performance art 24, 28, 43n74, 79n65, 97, 136; see also performance art, Haring; Downtown scene performance art, Haring 26, 32–33, 36, 38–40, 47n142, 138 Perlman, Cara 55, 58, 61 Personal Mythology, An Essay: For Semiotics Class, A (Haring) 22, 23 Phillips (auction house) 175, 182n82 Phillips, Natalie 41n11, 131 photography as an artistic medium 4, 16n56, 22, 65, 70, 77n30, 82n105, 205; see also Downtown scene; Tseng Kwong Chi; Pop Shop, New York Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, The (Hirst) 176 Pictures Generation 4, 49 Piersol, Brian 64; Tunnel Tool Set 64 Piper, Adrian 43n74, 136; Portrait 136 Planned Parenthood 167 Playboy 90, 109, 115n18 Plous, Phyllis 136; Neo-York 136 Pocket Dreambook (Swanson) 71 poetry 26, 29, 48, 50, 77n30 Polaroids 39, 47n145 Political Line exhibition 171 politics 17n83, 25–26, 30, 98–99, 116n29, 176, 213–214; artist engagement with 20, 28, 54–55, 58–60, 71, 83n145, 198; Haring engagement with 1, 3–4, 10, 34, 114, 167; see also activism; AIDS; Fairey, Shepard; populism Pop art 27, 53, 65, 131, 174, 198, 205–206; art multiples 5–6, 175; reception 17n81 Pope see religion Pope Killed for Freed Hostage (Haring) 29, 127 Pop Life: Art in a Material World exhibition 174, 174–175, 200, 203 Pop Shop merchandise, foldout poster (Tseng) 94 Pop Shop, New York: advertising 64, 74, 90–93, 91–95, 109; bag 13n14, 93, 152; beginnings 86; Brand New: Art and Commodity in the 1980s exhibition (Hirschhorn) 4, 13n14, 74n4, 75n8;

Brooklyn Museum 177n68; closing 165–166, 178n14; financial information 3, 12n10, 85, 93, 108, 113, 114n5, 115n24, 122n145, 122n159, 164, 166, 204; franchising 122n145; illustrated cover, 87, 165; interior design 1, 32, 86–88, 119n76, 164, 172; Haring’s feelings towards 112–114, 120–121n110, 212n114; jumpsuit uniforms 88–89; logistics 86–95, 115n12, 178n17; New York Historical Society 164, 172, 173, 181n75; Pop Life: Art in a Material World exhibition (Tate Modern) 174, 174–175, 200, 203; populist strategy, as 85–88, 93–101, 112, 121n130, 124, 175; posthumous existence 163–166, 171–176, 178n7, 181n72; reception 110–114, 164–166, 171–176; Rain Dance exhibition 68, 126; Tampa Museum of Art 171–172, 180–181n64, 181n72; Whitney Museum of American Art 171– 172, 181n67; see also art merchandise, Haring; consumer culture; commercialism (common) and art; nightclubs; Pop Shop, Tokyo; Warhol, Andy Pop Shop, New York (Tseng) 87 Pop Shop, Tokyo 12n3, 73, 83n148, 85, 101–108, 114n4, 168; advertising and promotion 103, 103, 105, 108–109, 119n76, 121n124; art merchandise 83n148, 101–108, 104, 105, 121n124, 182n82; Beaux-Arts de Mons in Belgium 174; exhibitions of 174–175; financial information 115n24; franchising 122n145; logistics 119n77, 120n108; Musée d’Art Moderne de Paris 174; painting interior/ exterior design 103, 102–103, 109, 119n76; see also Haring, Keith; Japan; Pop Shop, New York Pop Shop, Tokyo (Tseng) 102 popular culture, general 53, 106–107, 125, 176–177, 205–207; Fairey, Shepard 189, 191; Haring and 12, 74, 214; Murakami, Takashi 199; Pop art (1960s) 5–7, 53, 198; Scharf, Kenny 186; see also consumer culture; Japan populism 9, 11–12, 17n83, 96, 116nn29–30, 176–177; 1990s and 2000s art, in 177, 184–186, 189, 192–193, 196, 198, 204–207; right-wing populism 124, 126, 128, 213–214; see also academia; art merchandise; art multiple; Downtown scene, populism; populism, Haring populism, Haring 1–7, 11–12, 28, 38–40, 47n153, 196–198, 200, 213; ambivalence towards 108, 112–114; art affordability, in 1, 7, 53, 86, 88, 98, 100–101; art concepts, in 2, 18, 32, 86, 95, 100–101, 129, 142; art

Index distribution, in 1, 5, 31–32, 36, 142, 175, 198–199; art market interaction 36–37; early encounters 18–21, 40, 50, 127; Keith Haring Foundation continuation of 164, 166, 168, 170–171, 175; style 2, 4, 34–35, 127, 133, 154; see also art merchandise, Haring; Pop Shop, New York; popular culture, Haring Prince, Richard 29, 115n18, 128, 178n3 Printed Matter 49–50, 60, 74n4, 81n100, 84n151 promotion see advertising PS1 (museum) 68, 74n3 Public Agenda Foundation 142 public art 60, 68, 86, 128, 153; see also drawing; graffiti; Haring, Keith; murals, Haring; performance, Haring; street art; street art, Haring Public Art Fund 32, 45n96 Public Enemy 146 public image see celebrity Pyramid 51 Quad Cinema 68, 69, 70 Queens Museum 27, 42n69, 179n34, 208n16; Television’s Impact on Contemporary Art exhibition 27, 42n69 Radiant Baby (Haring) 8, 34, 37, 37, 41n11, 89, 92; art merchandise, on 37, 37, 65, 87, 94, 95, 105; Christ child interpretation 138; inflatable baby 91, 94, 95, 115n16, 115n19, 121n127, 181n67, 182n82; logo as 37, 46n125; nuclear interpretation 132–133, 134, 135–137 Rain Dance exhibition (Haring) 68, 126 Rat Ornament (Rupp) 60, 61 Rauschenberg, Robert 136, 138 Reagan: Ready to Kill (Haring) 29, 31 Reagan, Ronald 124–126, 128–129, 137; AIDS response 140–141; art, in 81n96, 128–130, 129; defense spending 131; foreign policy 130–132; Great Communicator 128; Haring’s art, in 29–31, 31, 127, 129–130, 129; Reaganomics 2, 125; see also nuclear issues Real Estate Show (Colab) 29, 82n125 Red Curtain (Colab) 54 religion (Christianity) 19, 71, 130, 136, 138, 149; Catholic Church 19, 138–139, 148; Christmas 60–61, 64, 141; Jesus Freaks 18–19, 26, 36, 40, 138; Medieval pilgrimage 99, 118n58; Moral Majority 26, 31, 125, 127, 130, 140–141; Pope 29, 31, 123, 127, 138; televangelism 26, 43n65, 139; see also Radiant Baby; religion, in Haring’s art; religion, Haring’s feelings towards

245

religion, in Haring’s art 19, 20, 41n11, 127, 127, 129, 131, 137–138 religion, Haring’s feeling towards 26–27, 138, 160n123 Republican Party 26, 129, 129, 141, 213–214 Rhode Island School of Design 189 Ricard, Rene 14n41, 49, 51 Richey, Paul 70 Rifka, Judy 58, 67–68 Rist, Darrel Yates 126 Ritch, Alison 71; Sins 71 Robinson, Walter 14n41, 49, 60, 76n11, 77n34, 82n112 Rolling Stone interview (Haring) 15n44, 39, 141, 150 Rollins, Tim 60 Rosenberg, Harold 204 Rosenquist, James 131 Rothko, Mark 166 Rothkopf, Scott 10, 198, 200 Run-DMC 39, 109 Rupp, Christy 53–55, 60, 64, 67–68, 80–81n87; Rat Ornament 60, 61; rat (plaster) 54–55, 56, 78n49, 79n60 Saatchi, Charles 204 Salander, Dan 71; Holy, Holy Art Cards 71 sale of art see art market SAMO see Basquiat, Jean-Michel Sanders, Bernie 192, 194 Sandler, Irving 9, 13n13, 16n56, 52, 78n56; Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960s to the Early 1990s 9 San Francisco Museum of Modern Art 172, 179n34 Scharf, Kenny 22, 27–28, 136–137, 157n24, 184–189; Absolut Vodka 186; art merchandise 76n17, 185–188, 189, 208n21; Carousel of Progress 136; Documenta 7 65, 67, 187; Luna Luna amusement park 186; Pop Shop 88, 115n19, 186; pop surrealism 27, 136; Scharf Schak 186–187, 188, 208n17; Television Customized by Van Chrome 27, 187; Times Square Show 55, 58, 79n60; Van Chrome 76n17, 186–188, 208n13, 208n16 Scharf Schak (Scharf) 186 – 187 , 188, 208 n17 Schatz, Jackie 71 Scheer, Robert 131; With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War 131 Schnabel, Julian 9, 40, 125 Schneider, Kenny 71 Scholastic 142, 160n121 Schoolman, Carlota Fay 25; Television Delivers People 25

246

Index

School of Visual Arts (SVA) 22–24, 32, 34, 88, 193–194 Scott, Jeremy 168, 188, 189 sculpture 13n17, 22, 65, 125, 150, 174; see also art multiples; art merchandise; Hirst, Damien; Murakami, Takashi; Otterness, Tom; Scharf, Kenny Seibu 105–107, 120n93, 120n99 self-promotion see celebrity sellout: Haring, Keith 3, 8, 16n55, 21, 38, 85, 114, 121n130; Hirst, Damien 205; Fairey, Shepard 191, 209n32; Murakami, Takashi 201 Serra, Richard 25; Television Delivers People 25 Seuss, Dr. 112 Sex, John 29, 39, 44n81 sex and sexuality, Haring 4, 22, 34, 42n50, 127, 137–139, 169; The Sex Guide to Married Life 29, 44n81; see also AIDS; AIDS, Haring; Downtown scene; gay rights Sex Guide to Married Life, The 29, 44n81 “Sex on Campus” (CNN/Haring) 142 Shafrazi, Tony 2, 37, 45–46n120, 107, 111 Sherman, Cindy 115n18, 128, 178n3 Sign on a Truck 68, 82n123, 128–130, 129 Silence = Death (Haring) 152 SILENCE = DEATH slogan (ACT UP) 147–148, 150 Simmons, Laurie 136–137, 158n73; Tourism: The Bikini Atoll 137 Sins (Ritch) 71 Smashed TV T-shirt (Moore) 60 Smith, Kiki 53, 55, 58, 64, 80n76, 178n3; art multiples 60–61, 65, 79n60, 80n80, 81n92, 82n120; Untitled (Cigarette Pack) 55, 57 social issues see activism, and celebrity activism SoHo (New York) 6, 166, 186, 203; see also SoHo art scene SoHo art scene (New York) 50, 77n23, 86, 115n10; 3 Mercer Store 50, 79n65, 82n112; Artists Space 50, 60; Clocktower Gallery 50; The Kitchen 50; Printed Matter 49–50, 60, 74n4, 81n100, 84n151; see also Downtown scene; The SoHo Weekly News SoHo Weekly News, The 51, 186 “Something More: Japanese Department Stores’ Marketing ‘A Meaningful Human Life’” (Creighton) 106 Sonnier, Keith 22 Sontag, Susan 140–141; AIDS and Its Metaphors 140 Sotheby’s 6, 116n26, 175, 211n94 Sound Factory 151

souvenirs 5, 65, 79n69, 99–100, 205; see also museum gift shop Soviet Union (USSR) 130–132, 137 Spectacolor billboard 32, 45n96, 58, 68, 148 Spero, Nancy 136; Christ and the Cloud 136 Spooner, Casey 71 Sprouse, Stephen 88, 168, 186 Stahl, Jolie 58–60, 64, 81n92, 82n123 Staley, Peter 150 Stallabrass, Julian 11, 205–206; High Art Lite 205 Stark, David 167, 171 Statue of Liberty Project mural 124 Stefano 88 Steinberg, Leo 204, 207; Other Criteria 204, 207 Stewart, Michael 36 Store, The (Oldenburg) 4–6, 13n23, 14n27, 175, 181–182n81; influence 55, 65, 79n69; Yellow Girl Dress 6 street art 11, 65–66, 163–164, 185, 208n6; Fairey, Shepard 185, 189, 191; KAWS 185, 194, 196; see also Downtown scene; graffiti; Fairey, Shepard; street art, Haring street art, Haring 11, 28–33, 39–40, 65, 128–130 streetwear 185, 199–200, 208n6; see also Fairey, Shepard Subliminal Projects (Fairey) 189 subway drawing, Haring see drawing, Haring Superflat Museum (Murakami) 199 Superflat style (Murakami) 199, 201 Swanson, Lelan 71; Pocket Dreambook 71 Swatch 115n16, 170, 186 Talk to Us the AIDS Hotline (Haring) 142, 143 Tampa Museum of Art 171–172, 180n64, 181n72 Tate Modern 172, 174, 203–204; Pop Life: Art in a Material World exhibition 174, 174–175, 200, 203 Tate Museum 14n41, 99 Taylor, Elizabeth 150 technology 24–25, 38, 42n53, 176; see also Internet; nuclear issues; television televangelism see religion television 2–3, 5, 22–28, 97, 153, 177; cable television 24, 26, 42n47, 54, 97; exhibitions, in 27, 43n69; Haring on broadcast television 39, 93, 109, 113, 125, 145; Haring’s art, in 19, 24–28, 27, 128–130, 129, 137; Haring’s art merchandise, on 109, 114n3; Haring’s Pop Shop, Tokyo, in 102, 103, 119n76; Scharf, Kenny 27, 136, 186, 187; see also

Index advertising; religion; Times Square Show; Warhol, Andy Television Customized by Van Chrome (Scharf) 186, 187 Television Delivers People (Serra and Schoolman) 25 Television’s Impact on Contemporary Art exhibition 27, 43n69 Tenga 169, 180n41 Thatcher, Margaret 204 Thek, Paul 136 Theory of the Leisure Class, The (Veblen) 100 Thermonuclear-Proof Athletic Supporter (Thompson) 64 Thompson, Maria 64; Thermonuclear-Proof Athletic Supporter 64 Ticket That Exploded, The (Burroughs) 26 Tilton, Jack 49, 80n86 Times Square 148, 209n44; see also A. More Store; Times Square Show; Spectacolor billboard Times Square Show 48–49, 54–58, 60–61, 65, 67–68, 78–79nn56–57, 81n96, 186; advertisements 80nn72–73; Haring 54, 58, 79n66, 88; impact 44n75, 60; see also Times Square Show shop Times Square Show shop 54–58, 56, 60, 65, 73, 75n5, 79nn65–69; art multiples 56–57, 79n60, 81n93; Haring 55, 79n60; influence 80n76, 82n112; precursors 55, 79n65, 79n69 Toiten Bankas (Lindquist) 69, 71 Tokyo 73, 172; Fairey, Shepard 192; Galerie Watari 106; KAWS 193–194, 196, 209n43, 210n57; Lindquist, Ona 73, 83n148; Murakami, Takashi 199–200, 202; Tokyo Pop 106; see also Pop Shop, Tokyo Tokyo Pop 106 Tonari No Zingaro (Murakami) 200 Tony Shafrazi Gallery 2, 19, 32, 37, 47n136, 86, 107; see also exhibitions, Haring involved in Totem (Haring) 150 Tourism: The Bikini Atoll (Simmons) 137 Truisms (Holzer) 54–55, 56, 60, 68, 79n60 Tseng Kwong Chi 39; Keith Haring Drawing in New York City Subway 35; Pop Shop, New York cover 87; Pop Shop merchandise, foldout poster 94; Pop Shop, Tokyo 102 T-shirts 88, 100, 176, 205; see also art merchandise; art merchandise, Haring; art multiples; Fashion Moda Store; Lindquist, Ona; television Tunnel Tool Set (Piersol) 64

247

U2 126 UNICEF 1, 125 Uniqlo 168, 168, 178n3, 184, 197, 207n3 United Nations 134–135, 135 Untitled (Cigarette Pack) (Smith) 57, 57 Upper East Side (New York) 50, 77n23 USSR see Soviet Union Van Chrome (Scharf) 186–188, 187, 208n13 Vans 196, 208n6 Veblen, Thorstein 100; The Theory of the Leisure Class 100 Vend’Art see Objets Vend’art by Vendona video art 24, 42n42, 43n69, 65, 128–130, 136 video art, Haring 18, 22–26, 29, 39, 109; ART BOY SIN 138; He Said I Have a Dream 22; Lick Fat Boys 22; Machine 22, 24–27, 109; Painting Myself Into a Corner 22, 32, 33, 33; Sign on a Truck 128–129, 129 Vietnam War 125–126 Village Voice, The 31, 39, 97, 109, 128 Vogue 10, 109, 150 Vuitton, Louis (individual) 188, 199 Walker, John 39–40; Art and Celebrity 39–40 Wallis, Brian 10, 52; Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation 10, 52 wallpaper 5, 32, 203, 211n98 Warhol, Andy 4–7, 14n38, 25 , 39, 115n18, 131 , 138; 1990s and 2000s influence 198, 210n72–73; American Supermarket 5; Andy Warhol’s Fifteen Minutes TV show 24; Andy Warhol’s Fashion TV show 24; Andy Warhol’s TV 24, 42n47; Brillo boxes 4–5; cable television 24, 26; Downtown scene influence 53, 68, 73, 76n11, 186; films 24; Pop Shop 88, 103 , 113 , 115n19; relationship with Haring 7 , 39, 40n2, 42n47, 111, 154; see also Andy Warhol Foundation; celebrity Washington DC 78n56, 130, 133, 214 Watt, Laura 27 Weinberg, Kenneth 71; Letters to Ollie 71 West, Kanye 200, 208n6 Westwood, Vivienne 168 We the People Are Greater Than Fear (Fairey) 193, 214 White Columns 49, 59, 60, 76n15 Whitney Museum of American Art 114n3, 171–172, 178n2, 179n34, 181n67, 181n72; Store Next Door 171–172, 181n72

248

Index

Wilke, Hannah 24, 42n42 With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush, and Nuclear War (Scheer) 131 Wojnarowicz, David 138, 154, 162n165 Women’s March 154, 192–193, 193 Wooster Enterprises (Davidovich) 50 World War II 2, 104, 106, 131, 201 Xerox art 22, 28–31, 51, 71, 72, 72, 127 X Motion Picture Magazine (Colab) 54

X’s (Haring) 89, 132, 134, 135, 137, 145, 147, 151 Yale Vernacular, The 39, 142, 159n120 Young British Artists (YBAs) 203–206 YouTube 191, 209n30 Zara 188, 180n41 Zelevansky, Lynn 65 Zodiac Love (Otterness) 60, 64, 81n93, 81n100