10.12.2008

Samaras/Warhol/Barthes writeup-anna

Reading the interviews of Samaras and Warhol made me think of manipulation. Interviews are always done seemingly to reveal the truth, yet they can be manipulated by either party to reveal/conceal whatever they want it to.

Samaras' interview at times asks the same question and each time answers it a different way. Each time the answers reaveal/conceal something different. Some of it is humorous because there's a ring of truth to it. When he states, "I was interested in this curious mind that coul spoil under misuse" or that he was making art "for the adults in my past, for anyone who will look and wonder and let me live, and for the unnameables who will come in the future", you get a glimpse of wha tinforms him, a sense of connection and acceptance.

I enjoyed his humor. When asked why he doesn't drive, he responds, "I don't trust my killer instinct", or asked "Are you nice to people?" he replies, "No, I'm accurate about my feelings." By answering some of the same or similar questions in different ways, it made me think about creativity, digging deeper to reveal something. I thought about our visiting artist, Mauro (spelling?) and his trip through rural PA that was the beginning seed of inspiration for him. From there, he would limit his palette, explore architectural themes, larger scale paintings, words and phrases. Inspiration can come from the unexpected. What are the questions we ask ourselves, as we go through the creative process?

When reading Warhol's interview and various quotes, there are flashes of perception and humor, like when he talks about Coke and how "no amount of money can buy you a better Coke." I do give him credit for his perception into consumerism, the irony and the idiocy of it, and how he used that as a springboard for his own expression. he certainly understood the art of business, or rather the business of art. He also did it at a time where many people were questioning consumerism, the establishment, authority, etc. It does require a certain amount of creativity to market art. It also is a necessity, though sometimes it goes against the grain of being an artist.

One of his most telling quotes,"It's happening here all by itself without being under a strict government. So if it's working here without trying, why can't it work without being Communist? Everybody looks and ats alike, and we're getting more and more that way." With Warhol, I get the sense there is a certain passive manipulation going on. he comes off as ambiguous, but there's almost a reluctance to be vulnerable. I think that is what annoys me about him. Mostly though, it's when I see that own reluctance in myself. Lately, i've been thinking about issues of security. Feeling that freedom too, is a form of security, or that at least it allows you to oep up to new ideas of what security means. It's important to try to be open to what comes, and go from there. Life is always a bit like that, embracing, only to let go, and embrace something new again. Inspiration can come from places we wouldn't normally consider, but it may be worth the detour.

Death of An Author by Roland Barthes was difficult to follow what he was trying to say without the help of Wikipedia.

I don't agree with Barthes that an author's identiy (history, views) should not be associated with their text. I don't really feel this is necessary to understand that a writer's backgroung does not necessarily define the intention of a story.

Whan I read something, I don't tend to think about the author. It's my own reaction to the piece itself. There are many different ways to tell a story. Sometimes it is purposefully ambiguous.

I would think this is the same with any art form. The artist, musician, writer can have a specific idea when they create. The reader (listener/viewer) will have his own interaction to the work. They bring their own perceptions with them. It's just natural curiosity or human nature to want to 'know' ie: who is the author, why did her write this, what is his/her background, etc. A person can come from a certain background, have certain views, but it still does not guarantee absolute certainty of the author's intention. It is still not revealing anything with regard to their interior feelings or motives.

1 comment:

Anita Allyn said...

Anna,

Your comments about Barthes and how the viewer is the reader (viewer = author)is exactly what Barthes examines. There is no absolute "text"
rather - there is only interpretation.
It's significant in terms of thinking about creativity ( historically through time)-- it's almost akin to Nietzsche's statement "God is dead" (1882) in terms of its implication and a split or division of history.