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.

Niklas Vollmer, "Reading the Water"

While viewing Vollmer's "Reading the Water," I found there were many instances of layering - Niklas' father's lectures, text (sentences), his son's voice, his own voice, video shots of his father and son, and photographs. I sometimes wonder whether his father was aware of Niklas' intentions for his film. When he watched the finished film, was his father surprised? Sometimes Niklas would direct his father as to where he should go and when to say what he had to say (the behind-the-scenes footage). However, he seemed almost oblivious to Niklas sometimes, caught up in his lectures. Is Niklas providing us insight into his own childhood - his desire for some attention from his father? Is this the adult Niklas wanting the attention? His son seemed rather aware of the sentences that were meant for him and which ones were meant for Niklas for his father. Sometimes Vollmer would provide parallels from himself via photographs from his childhood and then show his son in a similar position on the beach. Vollmer seems to have an awareness to his son and his needs, and is he comparing his own relationship with his father to his relationship to his son? I found that some of the sentences flashed across the scene when his father was lecturing and his son was talking quite compelling. Sentences such as, "are you okay, daddy?" made me think of my own relationship with my father. I am reminded of Annette Kuhn stating that her photographs are photographs of families in general, for they are not individual, although they began from an individual. So, can we relate this to Vollmer's film? Although this is his film, created by Vollmer, is this also a film for children and their fathers? Where does Vollmer see himself in this video? Would he consider this an autobiography or is it autobiographical?

Annette Kuhn's "Family Secrets: Acts of Memory and Imagination"

Kuhn's overall theme is the interaction between past and present, past and future on memory, remembering, and meaning-making. When talking about the bombsite in the movie Mandy, she states that "the mise-en-scene of the bombsite speaks a preoccupation that, unspoken yet insistent, pervades to entire film: the relation between past and future. It suggests that the future is rooted in the past, that the past will leave its marks on the future" (44). The past leaves imprints on the future self. This relates to Kuhn's own examination of the photographs taken of her as a child. How her mother remembers the scene and her daughter is different from how Kuhn remembers. The past influencing the future also relates to Derrida's ideas about the signature. The signature - although may physically happen in the past - is not determined until the future. The past imprints of the signer are discovered in the future. The signature also implies a certain absence. Kuhn states something similarly about photography. She says, "the photograph's seizing of a moment always, even in that very moment, anticipates, assumes, loss. The record looks towards a future time when things will be different, anticipating a need to remember what will soon be past" (49). The text and the photograph imply a future audience with a reading that is different from the past. Discovering the imprints of the self, or discovering the signature is an act that assumes a future audience.

Jacques Derrida's "Otobiographies"

Derrida writes about the idea of the signature of the author in a written work and the importance of the ear. Derrida states that, "I speak myself to myself in a certain manner, and my ear is thus immediately plugged into my discourse and my writing" (50). He goes on to discuss Nietzsche's idea about the keen (small, discerning) ear and the larger ear. The ear is not just an auditory organ, but also a visible organ. The ear becomes important, as Derrida suggests that it is with the ear that the other (readers, listeners, etc) determines the signature of the author. In the act of signing a work is not what establishes the author's signature, and instead it is something that is determined later by the other. It is how the other reader understands the text and how he or she sees "traces" of the author throughout the text.

Can we relate these ideas to artists and their artworks? Is the act of an artist signing his or her work not the actual signature? Is the signature of the artist actually determined by his or her audience? This can occur posthumously as Derrida suggests with literature. In fact, in a way, this relates to Barthes' idea about the death of the author as the birth of the critic. Is the critic/audience finding traces of the author within the work, and it is how the other understands the artist through the traces that determines the signature of the author? We could even relate this to the idea of the imprint. Artists often leave imprints on their work - van Gogh's brush strokes sometimes go straight through to the canvas, Warhol's silkscreen methods actually require imprints to be made on the canvas. Is it the way in which artists leave their imprints that will later be viewed or "heard" by viewers that will determine the artist's authenticity, his or her signature?

Jonathan Caouette's "Tarnation"

"starred" as himself in the film, he directed it, he actually wielded the camera, and he even edited the film. Perhaps this is fulfilling I am still processing Caouette's film "Tarnation" (2003) and I wonder if this film is perhaps more autobiographical than any other we have viewed thus far in the semester. CaouetteLejeune's autobiographical contract. However, how would de Man see the film? As Caouette viewed the world and his life through the camera, they are still representations of him, his childhood, his mother, his grandparents, David, and his life. Yet, I think that we cannot throw out the possibility that this film is autobiographical. There are various imprints of Jonathan in the movie. From some of the footage, it is obvious that Jonathan admires the work of Warhol, and you can see this in the repetitions of images and photos that are intermittently shown in the film. It seemed Caouette wanted to get the truth about his mother and himself (similar to the film "Nobody's Business"). Sometimes his mother refused to talk about some of those experiences or the things she remembered were not truthful - does this mean that her "truths" flirt with fiction? Perhaps her mind and brain are so damaged that she cannot know what her "truth" is anymore. Jonathan seems to be rather steady-minded in comparison to tell his own truth. Yet, I found out from interviews I read that he actually has a son who is 10 years old with a girl he knew from his teenage years. This truth was excluded from the film. This once again demonstrates that the director (or author) is ultimately in control of what truths he or she exposes and excludes from the audience.

Paul de Man's "Autobiography as De-facement"

I will admit that some of the examples de Man used in his article were unfamiliar to me, and perhaps somewhat confusing. What I am struck with from reading this text is that there are several problems with autobiography. Of course, it is not something easily definable - for instance, de Man first says that title pages are autobiographical, so that could mean that all texts with title pages are somewhat autobiographical. Then, at the beginning of the next paragraph (922) he says that perhaps none of the texts are autobiographical. It seems to me that we have a problem with binaries when it comes to autobiography - the idea of the prosopepeia, meaning to give a mask or a face and de-facement. De Man states that, "Prosopepeia is the trope of autobiography, by which one's name, as in the Milton poem, is made as intelligible and memorable as a face. Our topic deals with the giving and taking away of faces, with face and deface, figure, figuration, and disfiguration" (926). The intent of an author or filmmaker in creating something autobiographical is it to reveal something about him or herself? Yet, by attempting to create the autobiographical, it is a representation of the person or thing. De Man suggests that it is a representation - a picture, image, or language - that is itself mute. We return to the cyclical diagram of the autobiographical. Autobiography as a revolving door, caught in a double motion, seemingly to escape problems that it will once again face. Autobiography is perhaps impossible, but what about the autobiographical? What Laurel's idea of the "imprint of self"? How could this be different from the problems that autobiography suffers?