The Wrecked Read. Chap 1 simple summary

[Mark Kohut]

per Morris' remarks below, I keep thinking of 'the art scene' as it might have 
been 

in Gaddis time of writing and whether he, in a non-literal sense 'predicted' the 

coming of an artist like Warhol? 

The Warhol whose exactly reproduced (but enlarged) revolutionary brillo box 
said only this heightened reproduction is genuine art now. (@1964?--you can look 
it up)

The ironies ripple. 



----- Original Message ----
From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
To: Richard Ryan <himself at richardryan.com>
Cc: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>; Erik T. Burns <eburns at gmail.com>; 
pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 3:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: The Wrecked Read. Chap 1 simple summary

Of course there's no "compelling reason" for the reader to accept any
notion/argument whatsoever, unless the author makes it compelling.
Hogwash can be compelling.

The artist-hero goes back at least to Renaissance Italy.
"Design-stars" (artistic geniuses) were highly sought after by
merchant princes and popes.

And we all know that Andy Warhol (love him or hate him) was a truly
pivotal figure in this, pointing out many aspects of 20th C (and
beyond) that are at odds with originality and genius.  Warhol never
really abandoned individuality and genius entirely.  He straddled the
line, but in his wake we have been left with some truly crappy art
movements.  But Warhol didn't achieve fame until the early 60's, so
Gaddis was probably unaware of him while writing TR.

David Morris

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Richard Ryan <himself at richardryan.com> wrote:
> As is well known, notions of originality and authenticity are relatively recent 
>(largely romantic) creations, connected to a larger conception of the "Artist as 
>a Hero".  There isn't any immediately obvious reason why these notions should 
>survive "the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" - especially now that art has lost 
>what Benjamin called its aura.  It follows that there's also no compelling need 
>for the author or readers of TR to embrace the Good Imitation (craftsmanship of 
>the highest order) vs Bad Imitation (fraud, trickery) distinction - even if its 
>clear the characters are still caught up in this opposition.  Where the book 
>falls on these issues remains to be seen, at least as far as I'm concerned.....