"There are no differences, but differences of degree, between degrees of difference and no difference."

This week's class reflection upon all of our blogs became a very enlightening discussion as to just how broad of a topic "pop culture" is. Mutli-racial issues, fantasy, pornography, football, hip hop, art, food, and make-up all became intertwined. The fact that each of these topics could somehow be related back to one another is significant of the fact popular opinion, consumerism, subculture, and art all create one continuous circle from which trends and new ideas arise.

As much as we would like to think we are different from one another, when it comes down to the core composition of our prefereces, we are driven by the same reasons as another person for liking what we like.

After we all, for the most part, talked about Dick Hebidge's article on "Subculture", it became a sadly obvious fact that in our own struggles to claim our uniqueness we are further propagating the establishment and popularity of what we have tried to keep as our own.

As of this point in the semester, this class has left me somewhat disenchanted with most things that I felt were unique or relative to myself. Maybe I was just a narssicist to begin with, but I really do not feel very special anymore!

I mean, Symbolic Creativity? Creative Consumption? Lets just face it. If what we make and what we consume becomes representative of our worth as human beings then I think we are seriously heading in the wrong direction as a society. Now even in our last essay on the topic of "Femininity" it has gotten to the point that we produce and sell and buy gender?

I just am left feeling really bitter.

Not so much angry, but kind of lame.

I would blame my feelings on all of this towards my liberal/socialist/anti-capitalistic tendancies...

But then Id just be placing mysel in yet another stereotype that ironically has been marketed, packaged, sold, and bought!

"Shelia Take a Bow"

This week I found the concept of "Drag Kings" to be particularly interesting. The idea of women taking on the appearance of men and putting on an almost satirical performance was something I had never heard of before. I am mostly familiar with "Drag Kings" and male gender-bending.  However, when a woman assumes the identity of a male there are many questions raised as to the motives behind such a transformation.
Is she merely a feminist? Is she a lesbian? Does she really want to be a male?
It seems as though such scenes become spectacles and it is generally less accepted for women to act or dress in this fashion.
When the roles of males and females seem to get blurred and confused, mass consumers can be put off. We, as consumers, are generally more comfortable with what we are familiar to.

Gender-bending is nothing new though. In the 1960's Andy Warhol often mixed the sexes in various movies and looks. He, himself, dyed his hair, wore make-up, and drew on his eyebrows. His avant-garde films are especially known for their gender-bending.
Paul Morrissey was an extremely excentric filmmaker who collaborated with Warhol on almost all of his film endeavors.
"Flesh" is one such example.

While the acting and the overall plot of the film leave little to be desired the general synopsis is such:

 (A heroin junkie (Joe Dallesandro) works as a prostitute to support his habit and fund an abortion needed by the girlfriend of his lesbian wife..)

The basic gender roles and stereotypes are broken and toyed with.

Many of Warhol's "stars" had appearances that did not fit into societies norms. Some were males who dressed female, some were females who dressed more masculine, and there were those who also took on an androgynous appearance.

Whether such "plays" on gender are accepted or not is really not the issue. The fact is that they get attention and whether we agree with them or not, our acknowledgement of them gives them a place in popular culture.

"SAMO as an end to mindwash religion, nowhere politics and bogus philosophy."

In Tricia Rose's essay on the Post-Industrial culture and Hip-Hop she mentions the three central forms that have developed: graffiti, breakdancing, and rap music. With trends moving away from manufacturing and more towards technological fields, many cities were forced to restructure. This resulted in a terrible income decline for the 20 percent of people who already were at the lower end of the pay scale.

The Puerto Ricans and African-Americans of New York, and particularly the South Bronx, were hit the hardest.

Thus, from the rubble was born the hip hop culture, partly motivated politically and fueled by a desire for urban renewal.

Jean Michel Basquiat, fellow artist and friend of Andy Warhol, was a unique poineer in the hip hop culture. He was born in 1960 to a Puerto Rican woman and a Haitian immigrant. He grew up in Brooklyn, New York and had a rough childhood. His mother was bipolar and deemed unfit to care for him and so he stayed with his father who was known to be a violent alcoholic.  He ran away from home at the age of 15 and lived on the streets of New York city surviving by selling drugs, panhandling, and by creating homeade postcards and tee shirts.

He quickly gained recognition for his designs on post cards as well as for his graffiti that covered the streets of lower Manhattan.  He signed his graffiti with the psydeudonym "SAMO"... perhaps meaning "same old shit"

His work on the streets became so popular that the "Village Voice" did an article on him.

Basquiat's art was raw and urban. While he insisted that his work stood for no political purpose, it is apparent by some of the writing in his murals are representative of his dissatisfaction with the state of things.

Alot of his art also can be traced back to his heritage. One painting, titled "History of the Black People" is said to reclaim Egyptian's African descent. He makes a mockery out of how historians have conviently forgotten or ignored the fact that, technically, Egyptians are just as Black as any other African.

Jean Michel Basquiat's work was ironic, non-sensical, and urban. It was something that the street kids could relate to. He represented his culture, as well as his socio-economic struggles through his work and was a central figure in early hip hop development.



"Mind is shapely; Art is shapely"

Aesthetic or Obscene?

While this blog has thus far been mostly about Andy Warhol and his world, I felt the need after Tuesday's conversation about Aestheticism to dig a little deeper into this idea and discuss High Art versus Obscenity.

The first thing that came to my mind was another famous man in Warhol's time, Allen Gisberg, and in particular the "Howl" Obscenity Trial of 1957.

Allen Ginsberg was part of what was known as the "Beat Generation".  As a homosexual, Jewish, man who was against the War in Vietnam, the capitalistic nature of American greed, "Howl" was an anthem of sorts for all the disenfranchised of America.
The poem, which is rather long, flat out shocked people. Upon it's publishing, the Editor of the publishing company City Lights Press, was arrested and charged with printing obscene material.
I suppose this is where the arguement over aestheticism and obscenity comes into play.


      " I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by
              madness, starving hysterical naked,
       dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
              looking for an angry fix,
       angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly
              connection to the starry dynamo in the machin-
              ery of night.. "

That was an extremely tiny exerpt from the first part of "Howl". The entire poem can be read here.

No one can dispute that the poem does not contain profanity, sexuality, or anti-american/government undertones. However, in this great free country of America, we have a little thing called "Freedom of Speech".
The idea that a piece of literature can even be put on trial, let alone persecuted for it's content, is ridiculous and outright illegal.
Looking even further past the legal issues of it all, when do we acknowledge the artistic value of a piece of work and when do we consider it utter crap?
Maybe I have a biased opinion, because I have anti-governmental/anti-capitalistic beliefs as well, but to me the artistic and political value of Allen Ginsberg's work is incredibly valuable.

As I had mentioned earlier, "Howl" became an anthem for all the under appreciated, disenfranchised, and ostrasized of America. It contained a strong message that challenged the way that America was functioning. Ginsberg discussed a lot of the corruption that was going on that most people kept silent about. Following along the lines of Aestheticism, "Howl" was not meant to be understood by the masses. It was written for that specific group, who would read it and understand and not judge it for its abbrasive wording. It has stood the test of time, and over 50 years later it is still being discussed as an intergral part of American literature. Obviously it did not fit in with Popular Taste, but I feel to those that have an open mind and who can see the bigger picture, "Howl" is a truly aesthetic work of art.

"You used to be alright, what happened?"

Upon watching Tuesday's video "The Merchants of Cool", I was stuck in particular by the trend of the "midriff" and the over-sexualization of girls.

My mind quickly went to thinking of Edie Sedgwick. Using her as an example of this may be a bit of a stretch because she was 22 at the time in which she came under the influence of Andy Warhol. However, her exploitation and ultimately tragic ending seem to echo a warning of caution to todays girls/women who become caught up in "mid-riff" ideal.

Edie Sedgwick came to New York with her family inheritance at the age of 22 with the goal of becoming a star. She heard of Andy Warhol and was brought to his studio to do a screen test. Warhol immediately was drawn to her. From that moment on she became so intwined with the twisted world and thoughts of Andy Warhol that she was certainly doomed for tragedy.

Edies beauty was a strange and childish one. She had a young, androgenous look to her that was exploited commercially and sexually.

I find it interesting that during Edie's time in the 60's she was encouraged to continue to look like a young girl, almost like a little girl playing dress up. However, today the opposite is encourage. Girls today are urged to do everything they possibly can to make themselves appear as adult and alluring as possible.

Andy Warhol controlled Edie's every movement. He introduced her to drugs, mostly speed and barbituates, on which she became heavily addicted. Warhol had her star in obscene and degrading "movies" and he introduced her to various men who would go on to cause her great heartache. Her tumultuous realtionship with singer Bob Dylan was one such example.

The whirlwind of Andy Warhol, combined with the drugs, alcohol, men, and lack of confidence that she developed from having her worth based on her looks all contributed to her downfall.

Though it is recognized that she was a bit mentally unstable even as a child, the world she came to live in only worsened her mental state.

At the age of 28, just 6 years after meeting Andy Warhol, Edie Sedgwick died of a barbituate overdose and ethanol intoxication. She had been considered the "It Girl" of the 60's.

While we obviously cannot hold Andy Warhol directly responsible for her death, he played a large part in her downfall. He knew how unstable she was. He encouraged her drug used and her wild life style. But he saw that what she was had become something thatAmerica wanted. He preyed upon her childish despiration to be "cool" and used his own mass culture to sell her right back to the masses.

As I said earlier, it does concern me what the direction the teenage girs of today will go with all the ridiculous trends and messages that the media and culture are sending them.

"Speed, Madness, Flying Saucers"

This past week we read an essay by Dick Hebidge on "Subcultures". Subcultures tend to deviate or resist the standard and accepted norms of the masses. What I find to be most peculiar about subcultures though, is how often they tend to become blurred or entrangled eventually with mass culture.

Such is the case I feel with the "subculture" that was created by Andy Warhol and his followers.

Andy Warhol's "Factory" became a haven for all the misfits, transvestites, prostitutes, and other fabulously neurotic struggling starlets who were trying to become famous. The "Factory" originally an empty warehouse in Manhattan that was used as a work space for his art. Before long, the interesting people that Warhol came into contact with, many of whom were homeless and/or junkies began to take up residency in it.

The Factory itself, became sort of subculture.

The original Factory was covered in silver tinfoil and paint. It was decorated by Warhol's friend and live-in photographer, Billy Name. The silver themed factory quickly caught on with those that hung out around the factory and eventually there were silver balloons hanging up in the rafters and pieces of broken mirrors lying all around that only furthered the "silver-glam" look that he was trying to achieve.

Drug use was perhaps one of the greatest uniting forces behind the Factory subculture. Amhpetamines, or speed, were the drugs of choice and were often ingested to keep up with the 24 hour a day party lifestyle that existed at the Factory.

The Factory also became a space for Andy Warhols musical developments to play. Lou Reed, The Velvet Underground, and Nico, were amoung Warhols special projects and were regulars at the Factory.

The most "counter cultural" or shocking aspect of the Factory, would possibly be for its use of making some of Warhols underground films. These films were never really made public, but contained extremely grahpic and sometimes sadistic sexual content, same sex relations, transgender figures, and massive orgies.

These films would take place over days in the Factory and random people would often show up to be in them. Drug use was prevaent throughout the filming and were possibly needed by some, just to manage to make it through the gruesome and degrading films.

Although the subculture that developed at Andy Warhol's Factory is a bit extreme, in many ways such activities that went on their became a part of the normal 60's and 70's culture. For example, Studio 54 was one of the hottest clubs in the 70's for all of Hollywoods stars. Drug use and questionabe sexual practices were common occurence at the club.

The lines of what becomes acceptable or common start to blur and eventually what was once shocking is no longer such an appalling idea.

I feel that this is generally the same for most trends and brings me back to previous essays that we've discussed about Avant Garde vs. High Culture.

Where does originality stop becoming original?

When does an act of vulgarity and defiance become routine?

Are we simply becoming desensitized to things or are we all becoming more accepting and understanding of the ways in which others choose to live their lives?

"Like so many Americans, she was trying to construct a life that made sense from things she found in gift shops"

Looking back on Dwight Macdonald's essay on "The Theory of Mass Culture", the topics of Academicism and Avantgardism are two categories that Andy Warhols art can be put into.
The silk screened images of classic objects of Americana that I feel have been clearly made for the masses, but at the same time are marketed as something elite, or for the high cultured crowd.

At first, many people did not accept his art or thought it to be trashy and in poor taste. At the time he was considered something of an Avant Garde artist, because not many people were doing what he was, and those that appreciated his art were not of the mainstream population.

However, just a few decades later... Andy Warhol is everywhere.

It seems that just about every possible image can be replicated into the style of Warhols "Four Marilyns".

Posters of Andy Warhol paintings can be ordered off of Amazon or even bought in Target and Walmart.

Suddenly..it is cool to like Andy Warhol.

I guess the eventual transition of a piece of art from being "Avant Garde" to accepted and loved by the masses causes me to question if there really even is such a thing as being Avant Garde.

When I think of Avant Garde I think of an artist who could care less what critics think or whether his work sells. It is often something that is outside the norm, irreverant, vulgar, or just completely strange and impossible to understand to the majority of the people.

What is a shame to me is that, in time, it becomes cool to be different.

People who have always marched to the beat of their own drummer suddenly become just like everyone else. All the squares have caught on to what a select few has for years come to covet and appreciate.

I personally am frequently irritated by such occurences. When I find a musician or a movie that I really really like and no one else has heard of them or appreciates them, I revel in the fact that it is "my secret art" and it is something I have which no one else really even cares about.

And then next thing I know a video of them makes its way to MTV and pretty soon they are all over the media and EVERYONE likes them.

Its really quite frustrating, though maybe a bit selfish and self righteous.

I am becoming a bit disheartened by the fact that individuality (true individuality) does not seem to exist.