The article, Rauschenberg’s Development”, talks about the journey and risk Rauschenberg’s takes in developing his own style. Breaking away from the constraints of art world at the time he was able to express himself in a bold, exciting and at times controversial way. He was fascinated with social as well as political life i. e. Newspapers and incorporated these elements as well as those of his own life and many found objects to create a tapestry of life as he saw it. In the late 1950s he came under the influence of Marcel Duchamp, and with his friend Jasper Johns, Rauschenberg became a pivotal figure in the emerging pop art movement.
His enormously inventive paintings, some of which incorporate silkscreen, include everyday images and objects and are executed in a loose, spontaneous style. He has also experimented a lot with assemblage the famous Monogram which incorporates a whole stuffed angora goat encircled by an automobile tire, is characteristic of his three-dimensional collages known as “combines,” which he created between 1954 to 1964. Some of the works that were characterized by Rauschenberg’s combine theory that are mentioned in the article are Ace, Charlene, and the Black and White paintings, as well as others.
Rauschenberg incorporated many elements other than canvas and paint into these pieces. Elements of collage were incorporated, as well as found objects. He called this process “assemblage”. Rauschenberg “broke down barriers between painting and sculpture by incorporating everyday objects such as Coca-Cola bottles, clothing, newspaper clippings, taxidermied animals, and photographs. In addition to breaking down barriers between painting and sculpture, he was also breaking down barriers between the art world and the outside world. By including everyday objects he was making references to popular culture.
This pop culture referencing would later explode into the “pop-art” movement of the 1960s. Rauschenberg was an enigma in the sense that no one really knew whether his combines were purely random or if there was meaning in ever placed object. In the article he says, “A pair of socks is no less suitable to make a painting with than wood, nails, turpentine, oil and fabric? ‘… ” I think that he is saying that there is no difference what you use and that makes him sound indifferent because I would think every artist has a particular medium that they feel represents them the best.
Rauschenberg seems to have no such distinctions or maybe is he being aloof to take away from the fact that his combines are in fact very meaningful to him? “For me art shouldn’t be a fixed idea that I have before I start making it. I want it to include all the fragility and doubt that I go through the day with. Sometimes I’ll take a walk just to forget whatever good idea I had that day because I like to go into the studio not having any ideas. I want the insecurity of not knowing, like performers feel before a performance. Everything I can remember, and everything I know, I have probably already done, or somebody else has. “
