Misc.

[David Morris]

I understand the low vs high art as reference.  So did P.  But P reveres
high art too. He aspires to high art.  And he seems in V. to have very
conservative sympathies.  For example:  anti p-abortion message,
anti-string, anti-all things artificial.  He then still had some very
religious baggage.



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 breakthrou
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20121104/597107f2/attachment.html>