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

Mark Kohut mark.kohut at gmail.com
Sat Jan 16 21:30:48 UTC 2021 

Forgot to add this pic just for illustration purposes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans#/media/File:Warhol_Campbell's_Soup_Can_(Tomato)_1962_Pencil_on_paper.jpg

On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:26 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list