MJJG: intertextual link-o-mania - 115 al fine

Sat Jan 16 21:26:18 UTC 2021

Okay we almost agree on the meaning of polemic. I'll mind the gap and
accept.

But that remark of his you quote has a lot more meanings than possible
cynicism, which again is your moral judgment on what I might call playful
satirization. I mean,  and I'll cause a necessary back-and-forth in
profound disagreement, I'm sure, but couldn't that remark be analogized to
Slothrop's 'disappearance" within GR? (Second, remarks are not artworks by
Andy; maybe by a few great aphorists they are. It is a comment and without
tonality Was he laughing. Ironic? Was he serious, deadly so? (which movie,
the Empire State Building one?.  You've already shifted from art back to
non-art which you want to call polemics)

Movies made without human beings "having to be there"--did that not happen
in movies soon enough and I don't mean literally. I mean movies without a
human vision, mechanical, people playing puppet-like roles, all camerawork
and special effects? Which is one reason, I might argue, that his movie of
Joe Dallesandro sleeping is a minor bit o' art returning us to the human.
Or, of course, Joe's face as he is getting a blow-job. (My first trip to
NYC while in college and I HAD to see that film because it would NEVER show
in Pittsburgh, I was sure. Where the Warhol Museum now is, I never woudda
think it.

Are his electric chair pictures cynica?l---or just images no other artist
did showing us death and the evll of the death penalty in unusual colorings
of fear and trembling. In your face. Most "horror" movies never move me but
I've never been able to get these out of my mind. (but, my sensibility is
not the test, I know) ...The 'love' he surrounds some of his silkscreen
portraits is his knowing how America felt. I get impressed all over again
when I think of how he did tap most of the celebrities of his time who
lasted ( a few not quite. Tab Hunter? but I don't know the gay culture to
judge that and he may still be as famous as Marilyn Monroe is in straight
culture)
Look at his different take on Chairman Mao in a number of silkscreens; from
power to fear, I say...From flowers and cats thru so much more, there is
some kind of shared love never cynicism.
Even his famous Campbell's soup cans are full of, what, some longing, an
image of some basic need fulfilled maybe like trees by the Old Masters--and
new ones, Impressionists? Some reenchantment of the world which, by
definition,  abstract expressionists had abstracted us from? (No, they are
not nostalgic for the soup his mother fed him. They could not afford canned
soup (or did not want to buy since they were as frugal as anyone)   and
she, an incredibly interesting woman, worked a small vegetable garden so
well, she had some to sell to neighbors and all the soup her boys could
eat.).

An artist, a man, as all saw full of innocence, a grounded but sea-changed
innocence until the end of his too-short life you think projected a cynical
world? I do not see cynicism where you do. Now we know where we differ, I
think, and reasonable folk often do.

PS This is not directed at you about Pynchon, say, or Roth but haven't we
all seen readers who say the Pynchon of GR is not just a cynic but almost a
nihilist? "such a dark book". Is the first thing we point to Slothrop
himself and "Fuck the War, they were in Love?" to refute a
cynical/nihilsitic reading?  Or those, some reputable reviewers and
critics---one in the New Yorker even--who were turned off by the later
Roth's "nihilism"?   C'mon, I say to them.

  That same anti-cynicism content exists in Warhol from beginning to end, I
say. Along with much cynicism/dark shit/cutting satire about life in
America in our time.

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:09 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> We almost agree.  Warhol very consciously espoused a polemic via his art,
> not via words, but also by his wigged, whispered and shaded mumbles.  I
> love the Velvet Underground video that T-Eck posted.  They understood
> Warhol to a T.  The line, "Let's make a movie [...] I won't have to be
> there" is superb for its cynicism.  The cynicism is an amalgamation of
> media and money, celebrity and commerce, consumers and advertising.  It is
> a very dark vision IMHO.  I can't deny it's truth, but I resist it.  The
> art will endure, maybe as a warning, if we survive.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 5:33 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll agree, I think. The art, the real art, survives. And he polemicized
>> outside of his art hardly at all.
>> He did his art. His art was the revolution. It is overall what I
>> summarized it as, I still think.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:37 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Every revolution requires a polemic.  A part of Pop Art's revolution was
>> valuing ideas over products, thus birthing Conceptual Art and Performance
>> Art, where products fade away.  The only thing ever proved wrong are the
>> polemics.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 4:23 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It wasn't a polemic. It was the revolution he brought to art. Almost all
>>> art movements, literary to the visual thru music do it. No movements that
>>> come later "prove him/them wrong".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:18 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> His polemic was that painting and drawing were dead arts, just like the
>>> abstractionists declared figurative art dead.  Subsequent artists have
>>> proven them wrong.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 4:09 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He kept drawing but yes he knew that was an historically dead
>>>> achievement.
>>>> I disagree that it was drenched in cynicism. A deep satirical
>>>> perspective on his culture often.
>>>> Playful celebration of life and aspects of it too. Deep insight into
>>>> how we are America and it is us overall.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 15, 2021, at 4:49 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Warhol’s hand-drawing skills really have next to nothing to do with his
>>>> subsequent Pop Art.  Yes, he had an eye, but he might as well have had no
>>>> hands to make his admittedly breakthrough later art.  His megastar next
>>>> generation Pop Art master, Jeff Koons, never touched the work that made him
>>>> very rich.  Their real value was social commentary, and as such was
>>>> drenched in cynicism.  I much prefer the ultra hands-on work of the
>>>> abstract impressionists that preceded them.
>>>>
>>>> David Morris
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:30 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes Warhol was, thanks David, I can't take any more crazy.  NOT TURDS,
>>>>> however we argue.....
>>>>>
>>>>> But No, I do not think Pynchon targeted Warhol with that artist in V.:
>>>>> he targeted
>>>>> any of the artists such as in* The Recognitions *who, as Gaddis
>>>>> shows, have hardly had an original brush stroke in their whole career. Who
>>>>> cannot see the origin of what they think is new.
>>>>>
>>>>> Warhol was not nationally famous until 1964. His NYC and beyond fame
>>>>> earlier was for utter originality and genius. The commercial Tiffany's
>>>>> Christmas window
>>>>> of one silver shoe suspended against an all-black window box; the
>>>>> variety of his pure drawings---he could draw perfect circles at will and
>>>>> any other shapes. Look up his
>>>>> incredible pure pen, pencil or charcoal (I think) drawings of the
>>>>> fifties.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Pynchon would know this as in the air and, further, would not
>>>>> see a new pop artist as he presents this nobodaddy epigone in V.
>>>>> Pynchon would have liked pop art, I suggest, loved it even, as he does
>>>>> meaningful cartoons and comics....
>>>>>
>>>>> From wikipedia on Warhol:
>>>>>
>>>>> He began exhibiting his work during the 1950s. He held exhibitions at
>>>>> the Hugo Gallery <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Gallery>[31]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#cite_note-31> and the Bodley
>>>>> Gallery <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodley_Gallery>[32]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#cite_note-32> in New York
>>>>> City; in California, his first West Coast gallery exhibition[33]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#cite_note-An38-33>[34]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#cite_note-L32-34> was on
>>>>> July 9, 1962, in the Ferus Gallery
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferus_Gallery> of Los Angeles with Campbell's
>>>>> Soup Cans <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans>. The
>>>>> exhibition marked his West Coast
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_of_the_United_States> debut
>>>>> of pop art.[35]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#cite_note-L158-35> Andy
>>>>> Warhol's first New York solo pop art
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_art> exhibition was hosted at
>>>>> Eleanor Ward's Stable Gallery
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_Gallery> November 6–24, 1962.
>>>>> The exhibit included the works *Marilyn Diptych
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Diptych>*, *100 Soup Cans*, *100
>>>>> Coke Bottles*, and *100 Dollar Bills*. At the Stable Gallery
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_Gallery> exhibit, t
>>>>>
>>>>> It was during the 1960s that Warhol began to make paintings of iconic
>>>>> American objects such as dollar bills, mushroom clouds
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud>, electric chairs
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair>, Campbell's Soup Cans
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans>, Coca-Cola
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola> bottles, celebrities such
>>>>> as Marilyn Monroe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe>, Elvis
>>>>> Presley <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley>, Marlon Brando
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlon_Brando>, Troy Donahue
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Donahue>, Muhammad Ali
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali>, and Elizabeth Taylor
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Taylor>, as well as
>>>>> newspaper headlines or photographs of police dogs attacking
>>>>> African-American protesters during the Birmingham campaign
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign> in the civil
>>>>> rights movement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement>.
>>>>> During these years, he founded his studio, "The Factory
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Factory>" and gathered about him a
>>>>> wide range of artists, writers, musicians, and underground
>>>>>
>>>>> A pivotal event was the 1964 exhibit *The American Supermarket*, a
>>>>> show held in Paul Bianchini's Upper East Side gallery. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read Danto on warhol; read the great new bio of him by Gopnick.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:10 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly Warhol was the target.  I think Pynchon also targets Warhol
>>>>>> in V with the painter in the Whole Sick Crew who painted endless varieties
>>>>>> of knishes (or was it bagels, I forget).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:05 AM Thomas Eckhardt <
>>>>>> thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not mean to insult Andy Warhol, if that is what you are
>>>>>>> referring
>>>>>>> to. Also, one would of course have to take into account who is
>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>> to whom here, and to what purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 15.01.2021 um 16:15 schrieb Mark Kohut:
>>>>>>> > HELL NO, IN THUNDER as Melville writes.....
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > C'mon, man....
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:05 AM Thomas Eckhardt
>>>>>>> > <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de <mailto:thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     pg. 112 in the Penguin Modern Classics edition:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     "1 of these days 1 of our sons, perhaps the son of a Polish
>>>>>>> immigrant,
>>>>>>> >     will emerge from some steel town in Pennsylvania and mount a
>>>>>>> turd on
>>>>>>> >     the
>>>>>>> >     wall of a museum and make it stick. . .and when you ask him
>>>>>>> what it is
>>>>>>> >     he will put on his dark glasses and snub you the way you did
>>>>>>> us."
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     This is, more or less, Andy Warhol, no?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >       > 8) pg 135 - _Moby-Dick_
>>>>>>> >       > (Musclewhite horrified that a black person dared to
>>>>>>> interpret it)
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >     pg. 114: An anachronistic reference to C.L.R. James' "Mariners,
>>>>>>> >     Renegades and Castaways" (1953), perhaps? Or are there other
>>>>>>> candidates?
>>>>>>> >     --
>>>>>>> >     Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>>>> >     <https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>