Misc.

[Markekohut]

Yes, it was...thnx.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2012, at 4:25 PM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:

> Wasn't it a cheese danish?
> 
> LK
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Markekohut 
> Sent: Nov 4, 2012 4:21 PM 
> To: David Morris 
> Cc: Keith Davis , P-list 
> Subject: Re: Misc. 
> 
> 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/20121104/71a113a2/attachment.html>