Misc.

[Markekohut]

David,

I think the joke is in the repetition, I.e. TRP is saying they are ultimately all the same. anyway, I can't find bagel in the V. Look Inside and can't locate the scene on the wiki. I do remember it as a slam against abstract expressionism, perhaps incorrectly, thinking TRP felt that that was just about color and paint and soulless--without a reference to human beings--in that way. 

Mass production, yes...art In the age of mechanical reproduction might be a subtext but
I do not remember thinking Warhol could be implied. If P was implying him or other Pop Artists
then he was as early-aware sensitive as we know he could be. Warhol's ' Soup Can Show was in July 1962 ( and is often said to be the  first Pop Art exhibit). we know the dates of V. And it was about going to press. 

My bias is I cannot easily see TRP against Pop Art since popular culture and what it makes us
Pervades his work. This is why seeing the visual arts of the time as running right alongside V. even came to me. But I may be seeing by my own goggles.  

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2012, at 3:46 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> There is nothing serious (or realistic) about that V painter. Repetition of bagel as subject is mass production, and implies Warhol. I can't think of a realist that repeats any object over and over.  Warhol is still most famous for his multiple portraits of celebrities in various colors. Mass production.
> 
> On Sunday, November 4, 2012, Markekohut wrote:
>> I think I remember that soulless artist, yes, but I do remember thinking whatever he was drawing was a comment on the end of that artistic tradition--realistic bagels ( I cannot remember them but
>> If P's (or Morris's creative misremembering) satiric object, I like it as a joke on still life works, on domestic scenes in art, etc., perhaps 'realism' in general.
>> 
>> True about the comic tradition SO is it stupid of me to try to get somewhere in "refuting" the wooden heads who want well-rounded characters even in early TRP? Are we way beyond that, so to speak? (EXcept for Wood and Kakutani and a few) who still hold out for that in pretty much all fiction? 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Nov 4, 2012, at 2:41 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Actually P was making fun of mindless art, but he featured a soulless artist churning out endless bagel (I think) paintings.
>>> 
>>> Cartoons have always been in literature, usually called comedy, satire, parody...
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2012, Markekohut wrote:
>>>> I thought P made fun of abstract expressionism in V. , no? And in AtD maybe? 
>>>> 
>>>> My question still exists, I think, independent of one's final take on Pop Art, but maybe I am wrong
>>>> And they are progressively knotted. 
>>>> 
>>>> My question is: the Zeitgeist accepted, created, room for cartoon representation in Art, however
>>>> Wrong or degraded that might be. Felt that the human representation from Vermeer, Whistler thru
>>>> Winslow Homer ( (and fill in the blank) had, maybe, said all it could and now was saying we are no longer as human? 
>>>> 
>>>> so, since TRP is an artist of his time and 'for all time' we think, have cultural/literary commentators written of TRP in that Zeitgeist perspective? Anyone, anyone?
>>>> 
>>>> (I will respectfully disagree on PopArt as a generality. I have always been hit and moved with
>>>> some Rauschenberg ( and others). I have said to Many Anti-folks, " but many of our emotions are now cartoonish")
>>>> 
>>>> Much art is Art because of the full embodiment of certain ideas, IMHO. Gombrich's work on THAT  within the history of Art convinced me, at least. 
>>>> 
>>>> Warhol was a massive genius, IMHO. see Danto, others, on. He is Pynchonesque in his embodiment of his Time, in his originality, in his sensibility. but I'm nobody, who are you? 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Agreed. Warhol? Give me a break.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 4, 2012 11:04 AM, "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, I think Pop Art, undeniably still very much influential, has led to a degradation of art.  It celebrates crass, and is based in cynicism. It is also essentially meta-art: the value of the object is conceptual, not the object's own qualities.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I know I sound a retro conservative, but I think I'm looking forward to something better than what now is.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------in 
>>>>>> From: David Morris 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> P makes fun of Pop Art in V.  Pop Art may be a precursor of Post Modernism, but their aesthetics are very dissimilar.
>>>>>> Also, Rauschenberg is not generally thought a Pop figure. He's more a modernist collage master.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2012, Markekohut wrote:
>>>>>>> I caught up with a recent Friday NYT, reading luxuriously all the new movie reviews, all the long art show pieces, etc.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Lotsa good words on the Rauschenberg exhibit and other pop art from the time.Rauschenberg
>>>>>>> Drawing cartoon panels as his breakthrough around 1962ff. Warhol, others.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And I asked myself to ask the plisters why P appearing around then, faulted by many for his cartoon characters isn't ' talked about much as part of the same Zeitgeist.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Those artists gave us ourselves back as cartoons---and we think they were right 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20121104/44c77257/attachment.html>