Barthes, Samaras, & Warhol

 When does an artist’s persona and individual history become unwarranted within others interpretations of his or her own artwork? Gathering from this week’s readings of Roland Barthes, Lucas Samaras, and Andy Warhol, an artist’s vision and connection to his art can be exaggerated, twisted, and/or lost in translation.

             Roland Barthes’ Death of the Author explicates the literary ideas of a “special voice” and an author’s relationship to his work. From this text, one might realize the similarities between writer and artist and thus construct parallels between the two creative disciplines. Death of the Author addresses topics such as the identity and generalization of a work and the creative mind behind its conception.   In relation to our current class discussions, an artist may relate to the identity Barthes’ writes of that a writer must loose. Barthes’ examples of character becoming a component in generalizing an artist’s work such as “Van Gogh’s madness” can be said of many other noteworthy people in literature and art. For example, Artemisia Gentileschi, a member of the Caravaggisti, not only embraced the grittiness of Caravaggio, but also had the ability to transform the conventions of seventeenth-century painting and give new content to the imagery of the female figure. Gentileschi’s work depicting either innocent and victimized (Susanna and the Elders) or strong vindictive females (Judith Decapitating Holofernes) is often coupled to her personal experiences of being raped. This association can be seen as an additional layer to the psychological underpinnings of Gentileschi’s work, or as detraction from the craftsmanship, content, and skill put into her art as a whole.

            Barthes’ postmodern perspective of a successful form of literature requires an author’s identity to be completely erased from his work leaving only language itself behind. Is this belief applicable to an artist and his/her work? Lucas Samara’s “auto interview” and Andy Warhol’s quotable quotes are snippets inside an artist’s mind, or at least that’s what they want you to think. Gathering from these excerpts, one can see how easily an artist’s thoughts and words can be interpreted different ways all depending on the language in which it’s described. In Samara’s auto interview he asks himself, “Why are you conducting this interview?” over seven times, and for each question, he responds with a different answer. Andy Warhol’s commentary on the press quoting him: “ I’ve been quoted a lot as saying, “ I like boring things.” Well, I said it and I meant it”, is accompanied with an elaboration: “…But that doesn’t mean I’m not bored by them.” A work of art can gain meaning by an artist explaining it, but an explanation has the possibility of also devaluing or failing to provide substantial backing to a piece of art. Should a work of art stand separate from its creator? If so, how does internal sourcing relate to this perspective? In the words of Barthe:

            “The author is supposed to feed the book. He pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it, he  maintains with his work the same relation of antecedence a father maintains with is child.  Quite the contrary the modern writer is born simultaneously with is text; he is in not way  supplied with a being which precedes or transcends his writing, he is in no way the  subject of which his book is the predicate…”

A work of art or literature cannot exist without a creator (be it concept, or manual work). I believe the voice or identity of an author or artist has the ability to live on within the work he or she produces. Creative vision and character can be linked together, but according to Barthe, a writer or artist should be capable to step back and disconnect his personal-self. Through this, an artist concurrently reinvents himself/herself alongside his/her work.  This work becomes no longer defined by a character or persona, but purely by the words and/or images that exist before the viewer.

A witty title about DEATH, by Lauren

The theme of this week’s readings revolved around the question of, “Who am I and what is my purpose in creating?” This is a good question to ask oneself, certainly. Purposeless people are terribly dull. But I don’t know if everyone else needs to also know the answer to that question.

In the two interviews we read, I found some statements by Warhol and Samaras to be profound. Other statements were absolutely inane. And in the end, I did not know either of them any better than I had previously. Knowing oneself is a valuable thing, but thinking everyone else wants to, or should, know you, or that you can get to know a person through something like an interview or clever quotations, is mistake.

On the subject of the death of the author/artist, no matter what a writer or artist’s intentions are it is impossible to shut out the filter of personal experiences and philosophies when creating. The self will always be an influence and always come across in the work somehow. But I do not find it essential to know about the person behind a work to have an opinion about the content and quality of that work. Art needs to work on two levels: there is a relationship between the artist and the work, and the relationship between the work and its audience. Those two relationships do not need to be parallel. The relationship of the artist to their work doesn’t need to be laid bare to an audience or taken into consideration by critics when judging the meaning or value of a work. I’d go so far as to say what makes an artist good is to transcend the need for explanation and background. The work should always speak for itself. Besides, literary and artistic criticism is by its nature absurd, no?

Death of Cody and Warhol

arhol writes in a way that is very relatable, yet eludes to a sense of chosen words used to further an image of an enigma. Though I don’t find him credible on “factual” aspects of is life, the opinions about art and business are blatant. What is intriguing about Warhol is that he doesn’t need to fluff his writings with pretentious language to sound serious. He says what he feels and leaves it at that, highlighting the obvious and straight-to-the-point thoughts on art and humanity.
“And the more you decide, the more wrong it gets. Some people, they paint abstract, so they sit there thinking about it because thinking about it makes them feel like they are doing something.” – Andy Warhol Ibid, 149.
I feel I can relate with Warhol in an innate sense. I seem to personally struggle with this idea, that thinking can easily obstruct the creative process that is driven by intuition. Though, it is quite important to understand your piece and own it, not to have it leaving you blubbering about the ‘content’. I’m torn between letting myself instinctively work, but at the same time making sure everything has a purpose and will further the piece. Its difficult because the more I think, the more ideas come and take the place of what has been working, causing a discord and ending in frustration.

What I took out of “Death of the Author” was that the writer feels that he is apparently dismissed because I am now deciphering his message. According to Roland Barthes, the author of this article, the moment an idea is spoken by a third party to a fourth party, neither being the creator, the idea changes and becomes ultimately less powerful. This is seen in many instances. “The book was good, some people went on a road trip and found a magic book and killed people.” This is an example of what we here everyday; a quick synopsis of someone’s idea that is translated to fit our rushed lifestyles. The only way a reader, or second party, could fathom the entirety of the creators idea is to experience it themselves. Even then their mind lends its own experiences and opinions into the forming of interpretation.
Though this does make sense, it is crucial for an artist to debutante their ideas to the world. Art is not only therapeutic but can also hold strong messages. It’s a vehicle for the creator to be heard and contribute to a wider societal demographic. An artist thrives off of public criticism and opinion, using them to mature his ideas. Though I believe Barthes is accurate to an extent, this is an inevitable repercussion of a creator’s nature.

Museum Chachki

As I read this week's reading, which included of a litany of isolated statements attributed to Andy Warhol, one struck me in particular: 

"When you think about it, department stores are kind of like 

museums."

Though Warhol meant to glorify department stores with this observation,  perhaps the inverse is more true.  Museums are just like department stores, where art is merely a commodity to be procured, reproduced infinitely as prints, magnets, bags, postcards, mugs, calendars, and various other useful incarnations, and purchased infinitely.  I find this process of imposing meaningless function on the work a little unsettling.

One of the most overwhelming places I've ever been was the gallery store at the end of the Frida Kahlo exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.  Strangely, replicas of her jewelry, clothing, pottery, 

even toy versions of her pets were just as plentiful as the reproductions of her paintings.  I found it fascinating how artists' personas could be auctioned off just as easily as their work is.  In many ways, Andy Warhol did just that--but to himself and his own work.  The mass-production of his work sickens most of us, yet what was the alternative?  Dying in obscurity,  only to have a museum pimp out both your work and identity after your death?

mural

Our mural is going to be entirely composed of text, which will be about how great I am.

***Edit***

Dear Michelle,

Stop hacking into my posts.  It's not ladylike behavior.

Love,

Kate

Death of the Artist? I think not!

As a whole the writings of Samaras, Warhol, and Barthes speak greatly toward one topic that stands strongly in conjunction with each author’s own points and discussions. This topic is that of the artist, whether that of visual arts or literary arts, and how this artist is defined in their decisions and process. They all speak loudly on the area of justification of actions, as well as that of extreme critique and observation. Both the artist and the author regularly place themselves into positions of critique quite openly through the creation of artwork, even if they do not intend to do so. They create bodies of work that are viewed by public masses that then interpret the piece and impose these new ideas and inferences upon the artists. It becomes a sort of struggle between the artist and viewer, one in which the artist’s intention may be very different than the messages that the viewers place between the artist’s lips. It is this area which the three particular authors and/or artists address.

Very much like the position seen widely throughout today’s media between celebrities and the paparazzi, the artist also places themselves into a vulnerable position of which is always being observed and discussed. A piece of art can often place an artist lying belly up with the audience creating its own explanations and then assigning these ideas to the artists themselves. This idea is one that Andy Warhol speaks on in his writing of “Warhol in his own Words”. Warhol shows the audience that much of his work is created for a very different reason than most give it credit for. Going even to the length suggesting that his work is created because of his draw to the boring Warhol shows his lack of conceptual genius behind his work and then tries to define this statement for the viewer. Andy Warhol takes a very drastic approach to showing the reader that he is not the genius some make him out to be, but rather creates a very ordinary and monotone aura around his life and work. With these ideas Warhol as an artist tries to defend his own standing with his art and clarify these feelings with the general public and readers. He attempts to break the mold that society has created for him and tries to shed light on the character of his true personality.

In a very similar manner Lucas Samaras creates an interview to show his very distinct views on his creative process. In a self-interview entitled “Another Autointerview”, Samara creates a unique and uncomfortable feeling for the readers, but also one of great openness and vulnerability. The style of interview takes out the question of honesty and delves deeper into what Samaras feels and thinks. Although confusing at times, Lucas Samaras incorporates a sense of sarcastic humor, but also always circles back to the reason for the interview itself. This reason and purpose is that of his intent behind and relationship to art. It seems that this idea of justification is clearly present in both of the first articles, but in “Death of the Author” this idea is challenged and overturned. It is this idea of divergence that became the most potent and powerful when combining the writings found in these three readings.

Even though the artist and the author often stand apart from one and other, these writings bring up questions about their relationship, along with the relationship between each as individuals and the viewers of their creations. In “Death of the Author” Roland Barthes shows how many writings are recently striving to lose the presence of the creator or author and shift the power over to the reader. Well this idea is something that Warhol and Samaras do not seem to agree with, and using their different outreaches to the public, contradict greatly through their actions. This brings up a great point however. The idea of whether there is much that an artist can do once they have created a piece and placed in into the gaze of the masses to solidify their message and intent? Once a piece is turned over to the hands of the viewer, different opinions are created and because these opinions are generated by the artwork, they are often assigned to its creator. This thought stands closely to that of the author’s removal of presence which places a large deal of power into the hands of the viewer. With this transfer of power, the question then becomes about whether this transfer of power is a negative action in anyway? Should an artist or author always maintain the sense of control or is art about the transfer between the artist, the art, and viewer? It is this interaction that creates an idea of personal relationship between the viewer and a work of art, a relationship that seems to be ever present in most successful and longstanding pieces of visual and literary art.

Documentation of Ryan's Work

Ryan's External Inspiration Prompt

"King Ortler and Little Siberia" from Ice Box Gallery in Philly

fall break

Hi All,
Although I'm thankful to not commute tomorrow, I will miss our weekly meeting...
Specifically, I'm concerned with where you are in response to your inner sourcing response.

* If you continue to be stuck or confused I highly recommend you do some writing and consider the following questions: What personal experience has transformed your life? What have you done that you later regretted? * Dare to be brutal, Dare to be honest. Dare to be disturbing or fragile. TAKE RISKS

I have gone over your exhibition reviews and the grades should be posted on SOCS by tonight.
-Anita

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.

Internal sources writeup-anna

What struck me first when reading about the three featured artists, was how each have created external environments for their internal inspirations. My other thought was their absolute dedicatin for constructing these outer worlds.

Julian La Verdiere's mission to inspire his viewers to dream, imagind, and strive is interesting. His use of history and historical objects as metaphors for courage, risk, hope, are clever and creative. La Verdiere say the most significan purchase he made was "buying my soul back while participating in the Tribute in Light Initiative because it had nothing to do with art commerce whatsoever. It has been the most enriching experience of my life." I had the sense it was a defining moment for him, as to why he made art. It's rewardig to be able to inspire others with their own creativity and dreams. You really do get a feeling of hope with his work.

There is also a sense of hopefulness with teh work of Pipilotti Rist. Even though her inspiration comes from emotional turbulence, her work begins with her romantic illusions, interrupted by disappointment, only to begin her illusions again. No matter what heartache come, she won't be deterred. There's a certain hope and innocence that remains.

Jan Harrison creates a world which even includes her own language (called animal tongues) and she has a strong connection to animals. Some of it seemed a bit over the top, but she also brings up some relevant truths about the ego, how it suppresses the life force. Animals have an inclusive engagement with the world. When we do come from an ego-centered place, fear and scarcity rule the day. We forget our own ability to heal, to grow, create and love. It was hopeful reading about how she became a professional artist. I admire her ability to have a career on her own terms.

some of her responses were encouraging, such as "You can do art in many ways, and you can be an artist anywhere". Also, she genuinely didn't seem to worry if her collectors may not like her new work. She had to create what she felt she needed to. It was interesting too, that she chooses to approach her work as a beginner, as a way, she says "of keeping a sense of wonder in the world."