POPism, The Warhol ‘60s,
Andy Warhol and Pat Hackett, 1980, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York.
The first entry I ever made on this blog, many moons ago, in
2011 was on Warhol’s Motion Pictures
show at MoMA. Since then I have
written a few other entries on him and he is probably the person that is
mentioned or reflected upon the most on this little blog. This is not so much that I think he is
the best artist ever but more that he is possibly the most influential figure
(along with Duchamp) in contemporary art.
I have previously read his, From A to B and Back Again,
The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, 1975, and I
absolutely loved it. Really, it had
me up all night and wanting to take over the world. I just recently read POPism and it is a different sort of book with a different
sort of tone. It is a chronology
of the 60’s, his 60’s, and the characters, events, and general vibes of this
specific decade.
The book is not about precision or relaying facts and
timelines, it is more a series of musings and recalling things that were
happening on a day, in a month, on a trip, on an evening. The focus is on the characters in the
art world, music world and the many misfits that Warhol was attracted to and
those that were attracted to him.
These people are famous to us now such as: Henry Geldzahler, Robert
Rauschenberg, Roy Lichtenstein, Lou Reed, Edie Sedgwick, Mick Jagger, Jimi
Hendrix, Nico, Candy Darling, Truman Capote etcetera, and they are all strung
in there to be markers of this time and his entwinement in it and to them.
This book gives a voyeur’s peek into this world he lived in
and the possible feeling of those times but it is all retrospect. Even in the tone and way Warhol/Hackett
wrote this book it feels like a time gone by, already done, not nostalgia but
just over. This is something that
surprised me in a way. The known
finality of this time. It also
makes one think about how this era and how Warhol and the Factory have been
such a fetish for the art world.
That somehow it was more magical or strange or cool then any time
since. This brings to fore our own
current time and the times right before and those to come. This feeling that we can create or be a
part of an elite subculture that defines the taste and the mood of a
decade. Each decade has a group
with hindsight, now it just gets shorter and smaller. Instead of a ten-year confluence it’s four years, the amount
of time for the new crop of collage kids to graduate art school.
What was also very revealing to read was how art making
seemed so secondary to Warhol. His
focus throughout the 60’s were his films, which are most certainly art, and
something that he even says in the book out loud, but it is interesting how in
the time that gave Warhol this aura of mega art visionaire was when he “quit
painting” more or less. It
reflects less about his art and more about just about his living, which is what
makes Warhol ‘Warhol’ isn’t it?
This ‘living as art’ is the thing that Warhol truly changed, the thing
that has the most influence today.
The act of living and the directing of characters, scenes and attitude
that is one’s life is the final end game of art.
Read this book if you want to rocket back into a time that
seems so far yet so near in many ways.
It makes you wish you were there but also glad to have not been. It’s hard to not imagine what Andy
would have thought about art and the art world today. To think about how he would feel about his Foundation and
all the baloney involved with that and the art world at large. It’s hard to say. I can only imagine he would have been a
star now as he was then. There is
no manual to being an artist. You
either are or you aren’t.
The Act of Killing, Director Joshua Oppenheimer, 2013, Drafthouse
Films
This is a documentary by Joshua Oppenheimer that focuses on
Anwar Congo and some of his friends who were participants of the mass murders
that took place in Indonesia when the military overthrew the government in
1965. Anwar is a grandfather now
and is lanky with contained and distant expressions and movement. His most featured friend is Herman Koto
who is big and comical and is younger then him. Both men were well known and feared killers of
“communists.”
The formula for the documentary is different then others
because it is a capture of a project.
The project was for Anwar to recreate, in any way he and his friends
chose, to reenact their acts of killing during this time. It is surreal to watch this process. There is a bizarre pride and
remove from the way Anwar and his friends retell their actions. Being a viewer, a non-participant of
this time, these tales are horrific and abhorrent, yet to them they are just
good-old-time reflections.
Things get even more absurd when the filming of their
retelling starts to begin. The
aesthetic choice of the depictions is filled with all the terrible troupes of
daytime TV and B movies. There is
drag, staring the rotund Herman, girls in synchronized dance and outfits and
Anwar and his other friends in mutilated makeup for some reason or another
interviewing ‘communists.’ The
brutality of their actions is glazed by their infatuation and mimicry of
“gangster” lifestyle as depicted by Brando and Pacino in Hollywood films of
that time. More then anything
Anwar and his friends want to be celebrities, they bask in recognition and
respect.
This documentary’s formula lends to the absurdity that is
repulsive yet gripping. There are
no voiceovers, no archive shots, no numbers and facts inserted about what
happened then. It is not trying to
pivot the story for or against Anwar and his friends.
Through the film, the distance and lack of repentance that
Anwar has about his actions slowly shifts the further along they get in
recreating the scenes. Somehow,
him seeing his actions and crimes recreated punctures empathy in him. The final scene, where Anwar goes up to
the place where he killed so many people, it is said to be 1,000 or more, with
a technique he picked up from mobster movies by using a wire so there was less
blood, is one of the most literally gut wrenching things I have ever seen. He had done a shot of this at the
beginning of the film. Then he merrily
recreated how he would kill people with the wire. In this re-shoot, at the end of the movie, he shuffles and
looks worn out and barely talks.
He heaves as if his soul is trying to get out of him. There is no clean finish to this movie,
no redemption; it is complex and challenging to watch. It is hard to wrap ones head around
it. It leaves you drained and
empty but also sticks with you deeply.