1. Saatchi Tour 2014
Post-Pop: East Meets West
Anna Gammans
Theme: OWNERSHIP – ‘Who Owns my Body?’
Artists
Alexander Kosolapov
Komar and Melamid
Sui Jianguo
INTRODUCTION
Hello and a warm welcome to the Saatchi Gallery, my name is Anna Gammans and I
will be introducing you to a few works from our new exhibition: Post-Pop: East
Meets West.
According to Tsukanov (the patron of this exhibition) it is about exploring the
universal ‘language of art’ that began in the 1950’s in America as pop art. As you
will see today, the beauty of this work is not in the invention of new forms, but in
the borrowing and subsequent distortion of images of mass communication. The
exhibition visually unified the factions of pop art such as Sots Art from the USSR,
New realism in western Europe, and the ‘political pop’ movement in china and in
doing so, provides a habitat in which nations that once may have seemed
ideologically incompatible, can express themselves harmoniously. The term ‘Pop
Art’ reflects the desire to separate the old masters (e.g Warhol and David Hockey)
with a new wave of 20th century artists.
The exhibition is divided into 6 sections with subheadings (Habitat, ideology and
religion, mass media etc) but my aim is to explore a cross section of these themes,
using the more universal theme of OWNERSHIP. This idea has helped me structure
my own response to this work. The challenge here is to think about what these
artists are trying to suggest about the ownership over singular people, entire
cultures and even countries as well as art itself. Do the media own ideas? Do the
people that buy my products own them, or the image of a particular person or
idea? Does the State own my body? Who owns my body or art after I die? Does it
belong to the East, the West, neither, or both? I ask that you keep this question in
your mind during this tour as Pop art is, itself, about the question of ownership dis-
ownership and re-ownership.

2. KOMAR AND MELAMID
The First artists I would like to introduce you to are Vitality Komar and Alexander
Melamid.
• Posters Advertising ‘We Buy and Sell Souls’ 1978 (1,2,3)
• Andy Warhol Selling his Soul for free
Vitaly Komar born in 1943 and Alexander Melamid born 1945 both lived and worked
in Moscow before emigrating to New York away from the Soviet Union in 1976. I
have chosen these artist to look at first as they are most well known as creating
the Sots Arts movement (Soviet Pop and conceptual art that combines the
principles of Dadaism and Socialist Realism) that many artists including Kosolopov
have taken influence from. Their refusal to comply with the strict censorship of
the arts during the Soviet Regime had them arrested, and caused much of their
work to be destroyed. The denial of their emigration rights even caused them to
create their own country called ‘Trans-State’ in 1976.
These posters entitled ‘We Buy and Sell Souls’ are part of “Post-Art” collection
which prefigured the vast variety of postmodern styles that were also part of a
souls catalogue.
This is one of the ‘performances’ they launched as an advertising campaign under
the company Komar & Melamid, Inc., that had as its purpose “the buying and
selling of human souls.” They bought several hundred souls including Andy Warhol’s
(who sold it to them for free but was later re-sold for 30 roubles.) An example of
this contract is also tiled here on the wall.

3. The works were made as a satirical piece on soulless American capitalism. They
suggest that people have sold their morals, their identities and beliefs for a world
of materialism and commodity in the new age. Yet ironically, it was this capitalism
that had allowed them to leave the USSR and had enriched them as people and
publicised them as artists. The point of the piece was to point out the irony that
the freedom of art, comes at the price of one’s soul.
This first poster is my favourite for the clever subversion of traditional American
iconography. The Juicy red apply of America’s commercial capital has become
corrupted; the suggestion here is that a similar corruption has occurred in the
minds and hearts of Americans. The World Trade Centres are clearly prominent in
their piece, suggesting that instead of selling market products, it is the sale of
souls that dominated the American Market. The importance of the Galaxy as an
image is also suggestive of the infinite expanse of consumerism as well as the
‘black-whole’ connotations that serve to remind us of dark and unfulfilling new
consumerist pursuits. It also suggests that no place has been left free or pure,
even the very depths of space have experienced ownership from both Russian and
American space craft during the ‘space race.’
The colour red has a profound impact too. It is the colour of communism; the
colour of captivity and lack of choice as well as of America’s New York City. Here
the adverts impose themselves on us just as communism is an inescapable vice of
modern life. The use of tiling is also very effective in this display. It makes the
suggestion that souls are commodities that can be replicated and manufactured in
number. It also makes a suggestion towards the ideas of consumerism and
advertisements multiplying themselves uncontrollably; each reproducing the same
corrupting ideas and messages. It allows us to understand the point of Komar and
Melamid’s argument, that mass produced items, can result in the sad eventuality
of a mass-produced population.
Its position in the gallery also lends itself to the idea of mass consumerism. The
busy effect created by multiple posters is reflected in both these galleries in order
to align itself with the main principles of American consumerism. The space is
crammed with old ideas that have been converted to new; each piece suffocates in

4. the very space, struggling for the views attention in the seconds that it takes them
to walk past.
The idea of ownership is central in this piece. Komar and Melamid have, in no
uncertain terms, commodified humanity and implied that humans can be bought
and sold to people and corporations. They have also implied that once intangible
things (such as souls, ideas and creativity) can now, in the current climate, be
valued, bought and sold as commodities. This piece acts as a sad critique of the
new post-war consumerist attitude.
ALEXANDER KOSOLAPOV
The first artist I have selected is Alexander Kosolapov. Born in Moscow in 1943 he
later emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1975 and now works and lives in New
York. This isn’t his first time exhibiting at Saatchi, he also had an exhibition not
long ago in 2013. First and foremost, Kosolapov is a political artist. His work can be
traced back to the ideas of Komar and Melamid who ‘invented’ Sots Art (social
realism with Dadaism.)
The Moscow Times article ‘A clash of Cultures’ July 2013 states that Kosolopov:
‘draws ironic parallels between Soviet communism and American
materialistic culture, combining the imagery from both in his work.’
• Lenin and Coca Cola – 1982, Acrylic on Canvas
•(This is My
body/Blood –
2014
(reference
only)
This is
another
example of
the sort of
work he
produces:
This image is
representative of the Catholic process of Holy Communion.

5. Lenin and Coca Cola
But perhaps the most controversial of Kosolapov’s works is the one we see here.
This piece, entitled ‘Lenin and Coca Cola’ is from the 1982 billboard display in
Times Square, NY which depicts Communist Leader Lenin as a coke advert. This is
one of Kosolapov’s most famous works, what do people think of this work initially?
To me the work feels simultaneously visually comical and politically
uncomfortable. The intense juxtaposition of recognisable iconography; the bright
red of America’s leading capitalist produce, and the recognisable face of Russians
most controversial communist dictators seems surreal, and even offensive. This is
not, however, unusual of Kosolapov. He uses famous figures, bodies or icons that
belong to their own strict cultural frameworks (such as America’s coke, and
Russia’s Political icons) and sharply compares them through art.
In an interview Kosolapov comments on the discrepancies in the cultures of East
and West by championing America. He states that: ‘American democracy has
roots in consumer culture — Coca Cola, the poor man, the rich man — they’re
using the same Coca Cola’
But something interesting to note is that the visuals of Communism; the bright red
and the bold depictions of Soviet leaders, and the chosen advertising for
capitalism’s finest creation: coke, are ironically, and very publically, paralleled.
So, who owns what imagery? Whilst this piece could be read as the sharp
comparison between the good of American democratic capitalism and its evil
antithesis; Russian dictatorial communism, it is not fair to make such a simple
reading. Kosolapov reconciles the two entities and the two cultures by suggesting

6. that Coca Cola represents the democratic body in the same way that Lenin
represents Russian Communism. Both are symbolic, both owned by their old
contexts, both potentially morality corrupt, but both finding a new collective
relevance in this piece.
He continues by saying that as nations ‘We are like brothers.’ He shows ‘how
the different cultures corrupted each other’. Visually there is a dialogue. Lenin
corrupts America’s democratic utopia, whist coca cola threatens a socialist purity.
Its caption: ‘it’s the real thing’ has a twofold effect. They are both, in a way,
advertisements for a way of living and represent what is, in their eyes, a ‘real’ or
truthful lifestyle. By placing both together, Kosolopov identifies the less obvious
similarities as well as differences of regimes through the particular icons that
belong to them.
The use of this image as a poster is also interesting. Just like Komar and Melamid,
the suggestion here is about the mass production of ideas and ideologies. In this
sense it could arguably belong is the ‘Mass Media’ section of the gallery, as well as
in the ‘Advertising and Consumerism’ area. Moreover, as Lenin has now become a
cultural commodity, and consumerism has been elevated, this piece could also
makes a fairly important statement about the evolution of modern iconography
and cultural propaganda. In general, this piece does a lot to suggest the general
fluidity of the themes explored in this exhibition as well as their obvious
universality. Its position in the crowded corner of the gallery to me represents the
general idea of pop-art and the consumerist values that it endorses. It allows
things, images, and ideas to be thrust upon us in order to aid the quick and chaotic
communication of what are, in actual fact, profound ideas.
The idea of ownership is interesting here. Not only because of the seamless fusion
of two pre-owned ideas belonging to completely clashing contexts, but because of
its multi-layered understandings of the body as an individual and as a mass. The
identification of leaders such as Lenin with their own cultural heritage suggests a
sense of ownership of the mass, by the single person. Yet alternately, it also
suggests the ownership of Lenin’s image, to the specific country and culture of his
time. But Kosolapov has taken icons and bodies, (in this case Lenin, and the image
of coke) that are in a way ‘owned’ by a culture, a regime or a country and
subverted their traditional meanings. The body of Lenin no longer belongs to
Communism but to consumerism. Kosolopov has merged ideologically opposing
sentiments to willingly confuse the ideas of both ‘belonging’ and ‘context’ as well
as ‘bodies’ and the symbols of those bodies that now inhabit a commercial space
that belongs to the masses. They are now owned by art, by conceptualism, and by
a new form of politics. Just like true commodities, Kosolapov determines that
things, icons and art can be taken from their original contexts and thrust into a
different time and place only to be owned by a new set of ideological regulations
and contextual constructions.
SUI JIANGUO
The next artist I wish to show you is Sui Jianguo. He was born in Qingdao, China, in
1956, and still works in his home country in Beijing.

7. • Clothes Vein Studies: Dying Slave [with Mao Jacket] -1998, fibreglass
• Clothes Vein Studies: Discobolus [with Mao jacket]- 1998, fibreglass
The sculptures we will be looking at are some of Sui’s earlier works from the
collection entitled ‘Clothes Vein Studies.’
The two we have here are of five made in total and are direct explorations of his
immediate social context and time in China. In this particular series, the reign of
Chairman Mao Zedong, governor of Communist China and chairman of its
Communist party from 1949 – 1976 takes central focus. His Marxist-
Leninist theories, military strategies and political policies are known as Marxism-
Leninism-Maoism collectively. Mao, and his communist regime is generally regarded
with distain in this country. His policies caused the death of millions of Chinese
both directly through his party politics and indirectly through the famines he
created nationwide. In china however, his policies are sometimes regarded as
progressive due to the improvements they made to towards uniting china,
education and the status of women.
These particular works fuse the historically separate identities of the ancient West
with the modern culture of the East in order to offer a commentary on human
morality. They also act as a rebellion against Mao’s attempt to destroy the ancient
traditions and artistic culture of china by using a borrowed past of the antiquities
to highlight China’s controversial present.
The tittles of Jianguo’s creations are important also. The term [with Mao Jacket]
seems an almost humorous by undercutting the serious legacy of these classical
works. Using brackets he has kept the original tittles from the original classic work
still recognisable but with an Eastern twist.
The sculptures
t h e m s e l v e s
evolved from an
original project
entitled ‘Study
on the Folding
of Clothes’ in
w h i c h h e p u t
clothes on the
plaster models
used as training
tools in the study
o f r e a l i s m i n
C A F A . I t s
influences also
include his 1997
project Legacy
where he created
a hollow tunic
s u i t o r “ M a o
suit” into a hard

8. shell, giving a sense of restraint. Jianguo himself describes the tunic as ‘acting as
container of ‘concept’, whereby it takes history and reality into it.’ In terms of
the ownership, and in particular the issue of the human body, it is interesting to
see how Jianguo dislocates each from the contexts within which they originally
belonged and re-invents them as his own creation into a new conversation about
culture. He creates a new ownership complex by which clothed, and unclothed
body, is the vehicle for exploring the intricacies of regime.
The Discobolus (in Mao Jacket)
The Discobolus of Myron (meaning ‘Disk Thrower’ in Greek) is a
Greek sculpture that was completed circa 460-450 BC. The original Greek bronze is
lost but there have been numerous Roman copies. The Roman sculpture is said to
be a reflection of example of rhythmos, (harmony and balance of the body) as well
as athletic endurance and strength. It is also meant to show a build up of energy in
the tightly wound muscles, just before release. Jianguo’s original interpretation
was on display previously in the British museum in 2012 to commemorate the
London Olympics where Jianguo stated that his aim was to: ‘show how through
self-reflection I have come to throw off the bonds of the education I received
at the Art Academy and its socialist ideology. Instead of these I have created a
‘way of art’ all my own.’
The piece, made using resin but painted to look like marble, supposedly represents
how Jianguo felt as an individual. The restrictive and coarse clothing serves to
physically represent the mental and physical restriction of the arts that went hand
in hand with the new communist Chinese society. It was the case that art was,
quite literally, owned by the communist cause, and by Mao himself. The suit that
covers the nude form of the athlete is the iconic and simplistic communist outfit of
the military forces that were so central during his regime. It physically restricts
the body, shown through the deep
lines and heavy contours of the
clothing, as well as implied a
m e t a p h o r i c a l i d e o l o g i c a l
constriction of Mao on Chinese
culture and the individuals that
championed it. The physical form
in this piece, however, is given a
new identity beyond that of its
original context. In this way
Jianguo extends the original
precedence of ownership. It
belongs to a new regime and time
but carried with it its ancient
connotations. It is owned neither
by its original context, nor entirely
by its modernity. It seems to
inhabit a cultural space between
ancient and modern, between east

9. and west but, more importantly, it hovers between the ownership of both separate
cultural and political factions.
The Dying Slave (In Mao Jacket)
The Dying slave is a marble sculpture made by Michelangelo to serve with another
figure, the Rebellious Slave, at the tomb of Pope Julius II. Reviews of the original
piece have varied from people suggesting that it is designed to bring focus to the
real issue of slavery in the Italian renaissance, to the suggestion by Richard Fly in
1976 who wrote that it "suggests that moment when life capitulates before the
relentless force of dead matter.” The importance if this review is that it highlights
the moment of pure energy during the transition between life and death. This
energy gives this piece a rather rebellious edge. It seems to be a reaction against
Moa’s disregard for ancient Chinese culture. Through the individual body, the
power of culture is highlighted as being as powerful through its lifetime, as it will
be in death. At the same time, Jianguo seems to be paralleling the process of
western slavery with an eastern slavery under Maoism. The nameless, and now
shapeless body that owns its elements to both the western renaissance and the
eastern communism, now belongs to neither; immortalised as a hero of culture.
The works in this area of the gallery (‘Art History’) can, in simplistic terms, be
seen as a direct replication of original works that have been glorified in their
original time and place. In this sense the theme of ownership spans quite obviously
through this entire section. The works have been removed from the direct hands of
the artist, placed under a new theme, and as a result, morphed into a completely
different piece, with an entirely new message and independent history. Here, the
bodies don’t belong to their contexts in China and Italy, but to pop-art.
Perhaps Jianguo’s main concern, however, was how body is used as a Vehicle for
learning. It can show the East how to understand classical western traditions and
culture, through the means of modern parody and the creation of new identities. It
also gives him a chance to replace the traditional way of teaching realist and
propaganda ‘art’ at the Central Academy with a more modern parody of art for
art’s sake.
END
To summarise, we have looked at the way ownership over intangible things (such as
souls, and ideas) took precedence in the age of American consumerism during the
1960’s. We have seen that the desire to own something, sometimes outweighs what
might be morally right and that in the new climate of advertisement and company
competition, no one can really and truly own anything original and new. Pure
content is destroyed in the continuous replication and re-branding of different
overlapping and competing messages. Furthermore, it is interesting to see that
when people and bodies are removed from their contexts, a new form of
ownership is exerted onto them. They deliver a new message in a new context and
are a reflection of an artist’s desire to own a new artistic concept.

10. I hope you have enjoyed this tour and hopefully learned something about post-pop
and the theme of ownership in art. Lastly, and most importantly, thank you all for
being such great sports! I hope you enjoyed seeing some of the artworks in this
exhibition and hopefully learning a little too!