Misc.

[Markekohut]

V. Seems to make the least use of popular culture of all the works, yes? Cars, yes, but movies No? maybe that starts w Lot 49 ....all the detritus in Mucho's used car being a sort of synecdoche and we get a Hollywood movie and bad hotels, and more. 

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Markekohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I see the same and ne'er expressed it. Nice.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Nov 4, 2012, at 5:49 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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/20121104/11a91e3f/attachment.html>