The
Los Angeles Times noted that the exhibition contrasted sharply with the prevailing dominance of Abstract expressionism, observing that artists such as Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, Edward Ruscha, and Joe Goode used "paintings of words and images of various and commercial labels," replacing the "varied personal non-objective imagery associated with Abstract Expressionism." In the
Independent Star-News, art critic Heloise Welch described
New Painting of Common Objects as a delightful contrast to Abstract expressionism. She wrote the "contrasting 'Commonists' … deal with an unusual and unexpected form of protest. This sort of protest has been expressed in literature, but it is daring and humorous to see it in paint. It is daring because some of the myths of our civilization are being ridiculed. Money, a symbol of success, is reproduced in monstrous sizes; the 'things' so highly prized by an overindulged people are dulled rather than chromium-plated; and other surprising judgments await the sympathetic viewer."
Artforum critic
John Coplans argued that the exhibition reflected the visual environment of a society shaped by industrial production and consumer goods. He suggested that the artists drew their imagery from the everyday landscape of modern commerce, emphasizing the "impact of modern industrial production and consumption." Coplans also warned against overstating the philosophical novelty of the movement, writing that "neither philosophical newness nor modernism of metaphysics" necessarily produced significant art. == Legacy ==