Pop Art’s Relationship with Successful Branding and Co-optation
Despite his name being synonymous with the very concept of it, Andy Warhol did not invent pop artistry — so why is he the first pop artist that comes to mind? Simply put by esteemed author and CEO Cheryl Burgess, “a brand is a reason to choose,” and Warhol understood this idea well. By the 1960’s he had produced several iconic works of art, from the Campbell’s soup cans to the wonderful imagery of Marilyn Monroe, each exhibiting how successful marketing can be when coupled with the decision of co-optation.
By taking existing imagery and recontextualizing it (or co-opting,) Warhol’s popularity as an edgy, subversive artist grew quickly in American pop-culture. He had built this image, or consensus as someone who’s work meant to expose the cynical nature of capitalism. However, by associating himself with these brands, he had become an external stakeholder; someone who does not directly work with a company, but still affects their business. Even though he lacked direct ties to brands like Brillo Box, in an ironic twist, the very products he hoped to expose had only gained more popularity thanks to his success — and that right there is the very essence of co-optation of meaning. Coca-Cola saw no harm in Warhol’s depiction of their logo, it was free advertising that anyone could interpret differently.
Leo Burnett, creator of advertising icons like Tony the Tiger and the Pillsbury Doug Boy, considered branding to be anything that leaves a mental picture of your desired identity. Although the meaning behind Warhol’s art may have been reclaimed by brands over time, there’s no denying that he is the face of Pop Art. He understood how to combine the concepts of marketing, imagery and co-optation, and built an empire out of it — and that’s how anyone should define successful branding moving forward.
