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?
6 comments:
I wanted to post a response pertaining to your presentation today. With Warhol's work it seems as though there are a multitude of applicable visuals that directly connect to his personal life. Do you think an artist who works in this manner makes themselves more vulnerable---why do you think he had such an impulse to make these statements? What I found especially profound was the simple drawing of crossed feet over a campbell's soup can. Displaying both his foot fetish and the word 'camp' as a term for homosexuality. Do you think this could have been Warhol's way to confess? To have a self realization ? Rather than pulling from the external i.e. Thomas Kinkades forrest cottages---Warhol choose subject matter that is a reflection of his own existence.
You distinguished between 2 notions of the autobiographical imprint. You spoke of the imprint of the artist & the imprint of the self. Can you discuss this distinction further? & then, in the case of Warhol, at what point is the imprint of the artist at the same time an imprint of the self? (Or is it a matter of the imprint of the self simultaneously the imprint of the artist?) Is the _Last Supper_ series an example of this convergence of the two? How might this change the work of the imprint?
I just wanted to respond to Leslie's comment. I think that Warhol had a desire or an impulse to make himself present on the canvas but he liked to make viewers work to understand. Only those with keen ears will discern this. He most likely did not want his sexual orientation nor his religious beliefs to be obvious to everyone. The pieces such as the Campbell's soup can with feet stacked on top and the Elvis reveal the "gay" aspect of Warhol. The Gold Marilyn reveals an aspect of his religious beliefs - he makes her into an icon with the gold background reminiscent of the Byzantine Catholic icons of his childhood. The Dick Tracy not only reveals his sexual preference (He fantasized about Dick's dick) but also the beautiful men he wanted to be like (Dick) and there is a reference to judgment in the lettering and the almost nonpresence of Crewy Lou up above. I suppose the Last Supper was another way that he could combine his religious beliefs with his sexual orientation (ie foot fetish), as a sort of confession. He did not feel comfortable going to confession (he was gay, this would have been looked down upon by priests), and so perhaps by combining the spiritual and material he makes a last confession and partakes in communion on the canvas. Sorry, I know this is a long response!
I don't understand why you posted this.
Andy Warhol himself said that if you wanted to see him, all you had to do was look at the surface of his work.
I think trying to figure him out just kills the mystery, and what makes him Andy Warhol.
I don't believe that he wanted anyone to figure him out.
And as for the Last Supper series, Warhol attended church regularly, and as people get older, they start looking at religion.
Or if you really want to think into it, it could be that he was tired of pop art, and wanted to do something different.
Something that meant a lot to him.
No one will ever figure out Andy Warhol, and I believe that it's best that way.
Post a Comment