"The work of Patrick Caulfield. Is it Pop or is it not. I've written a number of times on the subject of stereotyping as it has to do with artists and their work. I suppose, to some extent, we all do it, though we often give it euphemistic names such as "classifying" or "categorizing." It's a tendency artists should be aware of in their own minds if for no other reason than the fact that all too often, they are the victims of such thinking on the part of others. Unfortunately, stereotyping extends beyond just artists into the realm of art history having to do with styles, movements, and eras. When we think of Cubism we think only of Picasso. When we think of Abstract Expressionism we picture Pollock and maybe de Kooning, perhaps one or two others. If the subject is Romanticism only Gericault and Delacroix come to mind. And with Impressionism it's Monet, Pissarro, Renoir, and Degas. It seems as if our compartmentalized minds have room for only a few big names in each era. That's stereotyping, though not in the manner in which we're used to thinking. Even though he came of age as an important British painter in the era of Pop Art, Patrick Caulfield fought all his career not to be stereotyped as a Pop artist. It was an uphill battle in that his work bears a strong resemblance to Lichtenstein's black-outlined cartoon glorifications. Caulfield's style at times is similar to that of Rosenquist, Alex Katz, and Peter Max. Moreover, his content is not far removed from that of Warhol, David Hockney, and Britain's own Pop pioneer, Richard Hamilton. Of course, Caulfield was not alone among even some of those mentioned above in wishing not to be categorize or classified in a type of art with a limited shelf-life in the first place, and one in which they had little chance of competing with the big American names in Pop. Like David Hockney with whom he studied, Patrick Caulfieldhas often been linked with..." (http://art-now-and-then.blogspot.nl/2016/11/patrick-caulfield.html) undefined

More on Google