Final Blog Post

Before taking this class on the “autobiographical impulse” I suppose I had a rather generic view of autobiography. I never really paused to wonder if you could actually define autobiography. Through the course of the semester it has become evident that perhaps autobiography is something that is so complex, and that it would be too difficult to contain within a neat definition. What about those instances when you do not have the pact between the author, the protagonist, and the narrator? How do we translate this to film and art? Even when literature, film, or art is not fully “autobiography,” there can be traces or imprints found of the author, director, or the artist. This is the reason that I decided to use the word “autobiographical” in my research.

Some of the most significant insights for me were found in our readings of Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Derrida. Foucault gave us a foundation of the history of confession and how this relates to the technology of self. I found his theory on the panopticon rather helpful, as it gave me a visual for understanding the idea of surveillance and how that might be the only time when we are showing our true selves. Barthes’ ideas about autobiography were interesting, as he makes it clear that while we can gain insights about someone’s self, we can never fully know them. This is the idea of the spiral (as opposed to the closed circle), for we can never fully know the truth. His vignettes were examples of what “pricked” him, what was compelling to him. We as his audience are not “pricked” by the same things, so we do not fully understand. I found Derrida’s notions about the ear of the other (having a “keen ear”) and otobiography quite compelling, as I think his theories regarding the signature rather important to my own research on Warhol. It is our job as the reader (of literature or of art) to be responsible readers, and to find the imprint of the author or artist in his or her works. It is also important that the author or artist is responsible in speaking the self in his or her own creations whether it be literature or art.

How have our readings and class discussions affected me in my own speaking of myself and in my own autobiographical practices? I confess that I have never blogged before, and this has been a new venture for me. It is a bit scary to think about how much information is easily accessible online and how much of that information is untrue. I do find myself encountering the autobiographical more often. I find it in my interactions with others, in reading various texts that are not autobiographies, and even in my other classes. I think I encounter the autobiographical more frequently because this class has heightened my awareness of the subject, and my understanding of what “autobiographical” may be has expanded. The autobiographical impulse seems to be innate in everyone. People like to talk about themselves, and even if they do not, imprints of self can be found in what they say and how they say what they say.

What is also interesting is that taking this class and learning theories of autobiography has challenged my view of art as being autobiographical. Yes, art is autobiographical, but where is it located? Where is the signature located? It is not just found in the actual signing of the name by the artist’s hand. It is also not simply found in the subject chosen by the artist. It is also found in the way the artist creates his or her artworks, how he or she cuts up the composition, and what it is about the art that makes it his or her work. This of course brings me back to Derrida’s notions of the signature. Perhaps more than any other theorist, I am taking away Derrida with me. I must confess that I am excited to expand my knowledge of his ideas next semester, and perhaps understand more fully how it relates to my research on Warhol.

These are my reflections upon the autobiographical impulse and the readings we were assigned over the course of the semester. I suppose this assignment is autobiographical in and of itself. These are my own confessions about autobiographical practice. I am leaving my own imprint that one could attempt to locate in the paragraphs of this final blog post. Although at times this class has been challenging, I have enjoyed the challenge and I will take away a new not-so-generic view of autobiography and notions of the autobiographical impulse. Thank you! Amanda Davis

Post-Presentation Post: Lingering Thoughts About Warhol's Imprints of Self (and Artist)

I would like to respond to the question posed about the notion of the imprint of the self versus the imprint of the artist. How are these two different? Where do they converge? How does this change the imprint? I suppose ultimately it would be impossible to completely separate the imprint of the artist from the imprint of the self. Warhol was the artist who was creating the work of art. Can we ever separate Warhol the artist from Warhol the person? Certainly not completely. However, could we locate imprints of Warhol as the artist and imprints of Warhol's self? I think we could try.

I would like to suggest that if we attempt to locate the artist imprint, we could use Derrida's notions of the Signature and Citation. Perhaps the artist's imprint can be located in the cutting of the composition and the addition of pop symbols into the Last Supper image. The way that he arranges the pop symbols may be somewhat more complicated. The pop symbols themselves may belong to the imprint of the artist. However, the way they are arranged (perhaps enhancing the spiritual meaning: dove for the holy spirit, the price tag in reference to Judas taking money to betray Jesus, the GE symbol for light, etc) could be a part of both Warhol's self (his religious beliefs) and Warhol the artist (the aesthetics).

The addition of the feet may also be a combination of imprints of Warhol's self and Warhol as the artist. The feet refer to his foot fetish and they refer to being at the feet of Jesus. Warhol used various images of the Last Supper - not Leonardo's image (it was being restored at the time). These images have feet, so perhaps it was not practical to exclude feet from his Last Supper series. I think both Warhol's imprint of self and his artistic imprint can be found in the Last Supper series. This further complicates the notion of the imprint of self, as it becomes something layered that cannot be completely separated. This is my attempt at explaining what I think the imprint of Warhol's self and his artistic imprint are and where they could possibly be located.

We have discussed the idea that the imprint is a rupture that is fleeting and located at a particular time. While this is mostly true, as Warhol made his imprints at a particular time. However, are we not left with a lasting image of that rupture in the future as we view the art? Does not the discernment of Warhol's imprint (the discovery of the signature) occur also in the future? How might this also change our idea of the imprint? Is the imprint what is brief while the signature is lasting? These are just some questions that I came up with in attempting to answer the previous questions.

Presentation Post: The Autobiographical Impulse, Andy Warhol, and the Last Supper Series

My presentation will be a bit different from other presentations, as I am focusing on Andy Warhol and his Last Supper series. I have come to understand that defining autobiography is a complex and perhaps impossible task. It would be ridiculous to imagine one would be able to fully understand a controversial and complex person such as Andy Warhol. My aims are not to suggest that it is possible for anyone to be able to fully understand Warhol’s self; however, I would like to discuss the autobiographical in relation to Warhol. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that reading through Warhol’s diaries, books, and interviews and through viewing his art we can get a glimpse of Warhol or the imprint of the artist (utilizing Laurel’s idea of the imprint of self).

I will use three different philosophs' ideas about the autobiographical: Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Derrida. The ideas that come from Foucault (the Panopticon), Barthes (his own autobiography), and Derrida (the otobiography) are most relevant to understanding Warhol and attempting to locate the autobiographical in his artwork. I will elaborate on their ideas and how they relate to my understanding of Warhol’s self before taking a look at his art and attempting to find the imprints of Warhol in the Last Supper series. I think Warhol often had a layered self – a public, somewhat superficial side and a spiritual side. There are moments of rupture that reveal glimpses of Warhol’s more spiritual or personal side, and I think these moments are important to understanding the artist.

I would like to leave you with a few questions. Is it possible to ever fully understand another person? Is it possible to piece together imprints of the self in order to get the full picture of someone else? Can we really look at someone else without bringing our own autobiographical to that understanding of someone? Is it possible to locate autobiographical aspects of an artist in his or her art? Can we find imprints of the artist in his or her art? Is it possible to ever do this from an objective standpoint?

Third Warhol Blog Post

The Andy Warhol Diaries mostly presents a public side of Warhol. Is this the way he wanted to be portrayed? He had control over what he wanted recorded in the diary entries and what he wanted to leave out? Do we as readers ever get a full idea about who Warhol is as a person? Or, is it rather that we get impressions, imprints, or glimpses of Warhol? Many times the diary entries involve Warhol's interactions with others, or his opinions on other people. Do we locate the autobiographical within the interactions of Warhol with other people? This is not Warhol's only autobiographical text, and I also have read parts of his book The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (From A to B and Back Again). This book is written differently than his diaries. This book is similar to Barthes' autobiographical text. The difference is that Warhol often refers to himself as "I" unlike Barthes who tends to switch between "I" and "he" and so on. However, Warhol takes on different ideas - love, death, art, time, work, fame, beauty, etc - and elaborates on them. Warhol is good at sometimes revealing his true ideas and sometimes made-up ideas. How do we discern what Warhol really thinks? How do we discern the autobiographical in his texts? Is it possible to piece together the imprints of Warhol to get an idea about his true self? There are some moments when there is a rupture in his text or in an interview that shows a glimpse of Warhol. For instance, sometimes there are moments when his spiritual side shines through the more superficial public side. Is this Warhol? Can we see this in his art? Was his Last Supper Series the culmination of his spiritual side shining through? However, there is more to the autobiographical in this series than just revealing part of Warhol's spiritual side. He creates the series in a way that is unique to Warhol and by doing this, he signs the piece. As a viewer, we must discern where the signature is located in order to understand the imprints of Warhol's self.

Lab 3: Gordon Bell and Jim Gemmell's "A Digital Life"

As I read through this article, I admit I was a bit disturbed at the idea of recording absolutely everything, or practically everything that happens in a person's day. The authors seemed to assume that people would want to record everything they read, all the conversations they have, the food they eat, how many calories they burn, and so on. I understand how there might be some positive outcomes from recording memories for people with memory loss, and some of the medical measurements for people with health issues. However, I certainly would not want to record everything that I say, read, or do. When I take a picture or receive a text message, I can decide if I want to keep it or delete the image or text. Would not this idea of recording practically everything take away that decision? Would I become less of an enterprising individual as outside forces (technology) would govern me? I think in becoming an individual, you have to make choices, you have to learn how to manage your own time, you need to learn how to govern yourself. If technology takes over in every realm, how is that promoting the individual?

Second Warhol Blog Post

I found an entry in Warhol's diaries that reveals several different aspects about him:

Thursday, April 25, 1985:
Dr. Bernsohn says he doesn't want to be associated just with crystals because he could lose his license - he said that in Massachusetts people have lost their licenses. But I mean, if you really believe in something, it seems kind of funny if you won't take the consequences.
I'm trying to find another store that sells the sculpture of the Last Supper that's about one-and-a-half feet - they're selling it in one of those import stores on Fifth near Lord & Taylor but it's so expensive there, about $2,500. So I'm trying to find it cheaper in Times Square. I'm doing the Last Supper for Iolas. For Lucio Amelio I'm doing the Volcanoes. So I guess I'm a commercial artist. I guess that's the score. (Warhol and Pat Hackett, The Andy Warhol Diaries, 645).

When reading this entry, it is important to go beyond just the surface details, but to do this in a responsible and respectful way. I suppose each of us might read this entry differently based upon what knowledge we bring to the reading (knowledge about Warhol and knowledge about ourselves). I think what is interesting is that he first talks about Dr. Bernsohn and criticizes him for not being willing to take the consequences for what he believes in. Is he relating this to himself and his own beliefs? The second part, which seems rather unrelated to the first part when you first read it. This is the first time Warhol mentions the Last Supper series in his diary. He complains about the cost of the sculpture of the Last Supper scene he is looking for before even mentioning that he needs it for the Last Supper series he has been commissioned for by Iolas. Warhol may have had a lot of money; however, he remained thrifty throughout his lifetime, often concerned about the cost of various items. At the end of the entry, Warhol claims his identity as a commercial artist. This entry has several different layers that reveal different aspects of Warhol's self. It is still important to ask myself if I am reading this entry the way I want to read it? Can I relate this idea to Warhol's art? Do I see autobiographical aspects in Warhol's art that I want to see? Am I bringing my own self into my reading of Warhol's self?

Nikolas Rose's "Governing Enterprising Individuals"

Rose mentions the three dimensions of Foucault's "technologies of the self" - the political, the institutional, and the ethical - as a starting point to discuss the idea of enterprising the self. Rose seems to suggest that therapy is used as a way to gain greater autonomy of the self. He states "Become whole, become what you want, become yourself: the individual is to become, as it were, an entrepreneur of itself, seeking to maximize its own powers, its own happiness, its own quality of life, though enhancing its autonomy and then instrumentalizing its autonomous choices in the service of its life-style" (158). People use therapy to find themselves, to find happiness in their lives, and to feel they are gaining control over their lives. The healthy self becomes free to choose. Then Rose writes about how people often find their identities bound in their work. Work is an important aspect of people's paths to self-realization, "and the strivings of the autonomous self have become essential allies in the path to economic success" (161). I understand that people must work in order to sustain a certain life-style; however, I think perhaps Rose is taking this idea a bit far. Does a person's identity, especially in relation to work necessarily have an economic goal in mind? Perhaps I am not quite reading this right. Rose later states that consumers attempt to enhance their quality of life through acts of choice in a world of goods. He seems to be generalizing quite a bit and it feels corporate.