The Unsecret Life: A Warhol Advertisement
1991; The MIT Press; Volume: 56; Linguagem: Inglês
10.2307/778722
ISSN1536-013X
Autores Tópico(s)Art History and Market Analysis
ResumoAs a film historian, not an art historian, I'm stepping a little outside my turf here, particularly since formulation of binary division of cultural production I would employ is somewhat different from that (high/low) subtending MOMA exhibition. My excuse is that my attempt to think through relation between fine and commercial art, an issue with whose crisis Warhol is preeminently associated, follows from a critical problem presented by his films, namely relation between early films-Sleep, Kiss, Eat, and so on--and late ones like Trash, Flesh, or Frankenstein. On one hand, early films are still obdurate in their difficulty and resistance to popular pleasure and, at least in this, more amenable to high than to low pole in schematizations of culture of kind associated with Theodor Adorno or Clement Greenberg. Quite remarkably, in addition to being dada films that perform function of historical avant-garde in resisting values of museum art, they foreshadow what subsequently emerged as three exemplary genres of anti-industrial filmmaking: they're virtually structural film, punk film, and diary film, all before these were otherwise invented. As I've argued before,' biographical events, including Valerie Solanas's attempt on Warhol's life in 1968 and Paul Morrissey's assumption of control over Flesh during his subsequent incapacitation, punctuate division between these and later films, which are clearly designed for public consumption and which did achieve a measure of both public success and financial return (though none as great as that of The Chelsea Girls).2 Warhol's own distinction between the period
Referência(s)