The article “Andy Warhol’s Silver Elvises”, by David McCarthy, explains some
major themes and motifs Warhol's pieces incorporate, such as overlapping, placement of paintings side by side, and repetition. McCarthy uses evidence like this to support his analytical claims and other critiques. McCarthy believes that the overlapping of Elvises may hint to male-to-male contact, thereby possibly indicating a homosexual theme, tying into Warhol's personal lifestyle. Other artists view the exhibition (The Ferus exhibition, which displays the numerous screen prints of Elvis) and described it as being a “musical mural” with a “rhythmic beat”, and righteously so, the screens depict of Elvis Presley, after all! While McCarthy does bring up some valid and interesting points, he lacks a sufficient evidence and opinions needed to adequately support his broad claims.
Now I know every woman over the age of sixteen is familiar with the artsy and creative portraits of the one and only Marilyn Monroe! She is one of the biggest pop culture and fashion icons in the world and like Elvis, she also inspired Warhol's artwork. In the article, titled “From Max Ernst’s Oedipus Rex, to Andy Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe”, the author, Donald Kuspit, takes on a slightly more cynical tone about Warhol’s work, to many-a-teen girl's dismay, I'm sure. Kuspit argues that pieces such as Marilyn Monroe hold no emotional value whatsoever and simply portray the superficial lives of celebrities in popular culture. Although both authors agree that Warhol’s work is extremely enticing, Kuspit believes that Warhol’s Marilyn is seductive because of her “social superficiality and complete lack of inner life” as opposed to Warhol's actual talent that he is able to convey. Kuspit goes so far as to state that Marilyn Monroe is not even a person, but rather a synthetic mannequin, molded by society with a "manufactured identity". Warhol was intrigued by pop culture and even stated that he wanted to be a star to meet other stars, so Kuspit argues that his Marilyn piece solidifies the fact that she is simply a “great synthetic product” with perfect skin and a seemingly perfect, famous life. Kuspit continues to assert that Warhol was only interested in the impression his work made, and therefore made Marilyn’s face flawless and attractive, rather than presenting the flaws that every human possesses. Even though her completely flawless face is not reality, it furthers Kuspit’s claim that Marilyn and the piece itself are both purely synthetic objects and that Warhol was fascinated by her (and other celebrities such as Elvis') artificiality. Her flawless, animated mannequin look indicates that she is a puppet on a social string. Kuspit believes that Warhol created art only with the intention to help one look good enough to be socially successful.
Both authors agree that Warhol was captivated by the lives of famous people and pop culture itself, but McCarthy discusses the techniques and themes associated with Warhol’s work, whereas Kuspit is convinced that more importantly than Warhol’s talents was his portrayal of people as synthetic figures, absent of true inner life. The second one appears to be more convincing than McCarthy’s, most seemingly because Kuspit follows his claims with more evidence and powerful opinions than McCarthy does. Although McCarthy does incorporate evidence such as themes of repetition and overlapping, Kuspit spends more time discussing the actual Marilyn piece and analyzing the perfection of her skin (among other things) in relation to Warhol and his lifestyle and interests. The further analysis by Kuspit allows the reader to better understand why Warhol possibly created the unique pieces that he did.
No comments:
Post a Comment