▽ FACTORY GIRL

My research into the New York factory scene of the 1960’s, initiated by my reading of POPism, lead me to the recent picture Factory Girl (2006), directed by George Hickenlooper. This picture regards the life of Warhol superstar Edie Sedgwick and pays heed to her involvement within the New York factory scene of the 1960’s, as well as her relationship with Andy Warhol. Having acquired Warhol’s account of the 60’s within POPism, I was enthusiastic to hear it from Sedgwick’s perspective also even though it would be clearly questionable with regards to accuracy, as it is after all, a dramatised cinematic depiction.  Ever since I had become familiar with the 1960’s New York factory scene, Sedgwick has always been a figure of fascination for me. I, just like everyone else, was initially struck by her magnificent physical beauty and unique style, but it was her charisma, magnetic persona and troubled life that intrigued me the most. However, aside from her beauty and charisma the picture also reminds us that she was in fact an artist. This was quite a commendable attribute of the film considering her artistic practice is hardly ever regarded consequential to all the attention and focus that is put onto her beauty, style and troubled life.  Sienna Miller, who imparts an absolutely fantastic performance within this picture, plays Sedgwick. Everything from her voice to her facial expressions and gestures are uncannily identical to Sedgwick’s. Miller’s performance was that outstanding that I dare say there were times when I almost forgot I was not watching the real Sedgwick. Guy Pearce’s portrayal of Warhol was, on the other hand, equally as outstanding and absolutely hysterical – it had me laughing the whole way through. However,  whilst Pearce’s portrayal was very much akin to the stereotypical Warhol that many are familiar with, I do not think it sympathised much with the real Warhol – the shy, down-to-earth man that hid behind the superficial, deadpan persona. I wholeheartedly believe that Warhol was not as frivolous and superficial in reality as many thought he was and therefore I felt quite sad at the fact that this film presents him in a rather negative light. The strange, deadpan character was not the true Warhol, it was simply a character that he played; he ingeniously imitated the kind of art that he was making and the typical attitude that modern, consumer-driven America was governed by. I was quite disappointed that those behind this film obviously had not realised this.

The main problem that I had with this picture was that it somewhat demonised Warhol, portraying him as spiteful and cold towards others. It is even as though it places some degree of blame on him for Sedgwick’s decline, which I believe is extremely inaccurate. From reading POPism Iknow that Warhol did worry about Sedgwick and did want to help her, but there was simply nothing he could do – she would not have listened to him.  I understand that certain things have to be dramatised in films, but as a fan of Warhol, seeing such an unfair portrayal of him upset me a little and tainted my overall opinion of the picture. It is simply a crying shame that Warhol, a figure who was profoundly pivotal to the development of post-modern art, is depicted in such a negative light. I also did not enjoy the far-from-accurate feud between Warhol and Bob Dylan, who fight for Sedgwick’s affections. Dylan is laughably depicted as the knight in shining armour, who attempts to save Sedgwick from the fraudulent factory scene and supposedly malicious intentions of Warhol. To play on the ‘damsel in distress being rescued by a knight in shining armour’ theme seemed a bit of a corny cliché to be quite honest, and made me question the credibility of the film.

However, one thing I would commend the film on is that it does not attempt to romanticise the debauched factory scene or shy away from the true-to-life details such as the overt degree of sex, alcohol and drugs that took place there.  The cinematography was yet another laudable attribute. I particularly liked how real footage from the 1960’s is embedded into the picture. The soundtrack is also worth mentioning seeing as it creates the perfect audio backdrop, effectively helping to capture the exciting, vivacious zeitgeist of the 60’s.  After acquiring a more accurate depiction of the Warhol factory through my reading of POPism, I felt Factory Girl was something of a let down really. It was as though Hickenlooper felt as though he had to dramatise and make up pretend scenarios in order to maintain the viewer’s interests. Through the invention of pretend scenarios like a feud between Warhol and Dylan, the picture loses credibility for people who have a bit of background knowledge and are looking for some denotation of non-fictional accuracy. In my opinion, it was unnecessary to make up situations to further dramatise the story, as Sedgwick’s life had just enough drama to make a number of films already. Making a picture on Sedgwick was certainly an ambitious thing to do considering her life was already like one to begin with, but in all honesty it was solely Miller’s performance that prevented me from being entirely opposed to this picture.  

▽ POPISM

I have recently had the chance to readdress one of my favourite pieces of art literature, which is none other than, POPism by Andy Warhol and Pat Hackett - Warhol’s personal view of the pop phenomenon within 1960’s New York. Warhol’s frankness, entertaining anecdotes and priceless humoUr make a truly engaging read and as it is written in an accessible, conversational tone, it is a book, just as Warhol’s art, which is easy to relate to and enjoy. Commendably, it provides the reader with a more humanistic view of Warhol, as he was known by many to possess a somewhat taciturn, enigmatic public persona. It is certainly a treat to see Warhol open up more, slightly revealing his true character, as well as explaining the motives behind his artistic production and means of working as an artist and filmmaker.

POPism effectively captures Warhol’s fascination with people. Despite his inherent shyness he was without a doubt, a people person. It is certainly no secret that he was particularly enamored with those in possession of astounding beauty or engaging character; one would usually be required to be blessed with that incomprehensible air of star-quality in order to capture his attention. The way Warhol describes all of his friends and peers in this personal account, makes it is easy to see that he found something of interest and value in them all. I believe Warhol possessed a very laudable degree of appreciation for most things, whether they were commonplace, consumerist objects or his work colleagues and friends. I think this appreciation, particularly that for people, was arguably a consequence of his highly religious upbringing, as it certainly appears a very Catholic notion, to see intrinsic value in everyone. Warhol claims that the 60’s were about people, not about what they did, and this evokes an uncanny similarity to the rise of reality television in recent years, where individuals who often do not do much, but are beautiful, rich or have interesting lives have their every move watched. Also, one must not forget the likes of social networking, were everyday people can brand themselves to some extent and have their everyday actions followed – this notion is also reminiscent of Warhol’s insightful words. It is certainly amazing to think that all of them years ago in the 60’s Warhol was endorsing in the type of culture that we are absolutely consumed by today in which everyday people can become famous or acquire a lot of attention with very little effort through reality television or social media sites. 

POPism also denotes something that presumably most people would already have guessed about Warhol – that he was a great businessman. Of course, pop art is intrinsically liked to commercialism and consumerism so it is no surprise really that the acclaimed ‘father of pop’ possessed great business acumen. However, the book reveals just how business orientated he was, and how it ultimately made him into a household name. I discovered that the content of his paintings would usually depend on the taste and interests of others, as he was often inclined to ask others what his paintings should be of. This of course meant he would always have an audience, even when pop art was not considered ‘good art’. I also ascertained that his flower paintings, which were exhibited in France were only produced because France was not interested in new art at the time - they had gone back to liking the impressionists mostly. Therefore, Warhol realised that the French would endorse in his flower paintings and he proceeded to take them to France. Once again we see he was a crowd pleaser; the content of his work could sometimes appear nothing more than an artful business move.  However, one of the most salient, business-minded claims that Warhol makes within this book is that in order to be successful one must always have their work exhibited in a good gallery. This is because the art that survives is that which the ‘ruling class’ decrees should survive, and if works are exhibited in good galleries the ‘ruling class’ are more liable to taking notice of them.

One of my favorite parts of the book is when Warhol proceeds to discuss the abstract expressionists, who simply begrudged pop art.  The abstract expressionists are described as butch, violent and tough. Their ruggedness is denoted as something of a tradition that went alongside their anguished art. I was both shocked and amused to hear one anecdote where Jackson Pollock apparently called Milton Resnick a ‘De Kooning imitator’, and Resnick subsequently asked him to step outside. I had always known that Pollock had been quite a character, but I had no idea he wound up in situations as extreme as this! Warhol makes a priceless comment with regards to the violent, brawly abstract expressionists – he asks the reader to imagine him walking over to fellow pop artist Lichtenstein and asking him to ‘step outside’ because he had heard he had insulted his soup cans!  Warhol’s character of course did not adhere to that of the typical abstract expressionist and neither did his most celebrated works. Nevertheless, it is rather interesting to note that within his first canvas paintings he did try to conform to the abstract expressionist style. He did two Coca-Cola paintings – one of the them with abstract expressionist hash marks half way up the side and the other just a stark, outlined Cola bottle in black and white.  It is a good job that Warhol soon came to his senses and did not try to adhere stylistically to abstract expressionism; his stark, outlined ‘plastic’ aesthetic is ultimately what provided a magnificent reflection of the commodity consumerist culture that was augmenting in 1960’s America, and subsequently made him a leading figure in the pop art movement.

Commendably, POPism reminds me not to have such romantic notions of the 1960’s New York factory scene as I am sometimes inclined to. I am often disposed to possessing an idyllic idea of the scene, but who could not be with the likes of Warhol, the beautiful Edie Sedgwick and the sensational The Velvet Underground all together at the silver factory constantly partying and creating art.  However, POPism provides a realistic depiction of what really went on within the factory scene, and most of the time it is not too pretty. There was drug addiction and death aplenty; all sorts of psychotic people could simply wander into the factory to steal from or cause harm to others. This of course reached alarming heights when Warhol himself was shot in 1968. The art, the culture and the glamour of the scene may have effectively embodied the zeitgeist of 1960’s New York and be romanticised in minds like my own, but a lot of bad things went on in the scene and a lot of lives were taken or destroyed by drugs and POPism certainly does not disregard this.

As far as I can recall, Warhol was one of the very first artists I ever knew of, for as a child I did not relate as well to a classic masterpiece as I did to an image of Mickey Mouse. I have grown up in the machinations of a consumerist, capitalist culture; therefore, I was of course more inclined, in my younger years, to understand and appreciate Warhol’s work - the work of a pop artist. I have always, as a consequence, felt an inherent connection to him and his work. However, after reading this book I must admit, I became even more fanatical about Warhol, as I was able to view him as a down-to-earth man with great wit, humor and intelligence as opposed to a cold, austere eccentric with a platinum wig and glasses who printed Campbell soup cans.

▽ TRACING THE CENTURY @ TATE

The biennial may be over but the city’s wealth of engaging art exhibitions and shows certainly makes up for the loss. My visit to Tate’s Tracing the Century exhibition yesterday was my first experience of viewing art after the biennial; fortunately, it did not feel like the come down after the biennial celebrations - rather, I felt it maintained the same level of energy and interest. It was certainly a pleasant change to visit an exhibition that did not conform to the theme of Hospitality, as after weeks of biennial events I was getting rather bored with the contextual restrictions of the theme.  Furthermore, after the vast amount of conceptually-driven video art I had seen during the biennial, and had frankly become rather tired of, it was brilliant to see pieces that were focused more on a tangible experience of art and possessed a rather interesting and diverse range of mark making techniques.

Tracing the Century: Drawing as a Catalyst for Change addresses the fact that drawing possesses boundless potentials for utilisation and has the ability to transcend a fixed set of conventions, which is why it can be incessantly re-invented and thus stimulate change in artistic production. As well as addressing drawing as a perennial artistic method the exhibition also regards artworks focused on the human body and the inner self, inspiring a profound discussion and juxtaposition between figuration and abstraction. As these two notions characterised art of the twentieth century, the exhibition meritoriously explores them in relation to each other, as opposed to exploring them as separate entities. My personal favourites within the exhibition tended to be those that reacted to the ‘figuration’ theme, as their focus on physical subjects meant they usually revealed a higher degree of draughtsmanship and mark making; after weeks of seeing conceptually-driven works in the biennial, this was something of a novelty. When I initially entered the exhibition I was quite unaware of its size; however, whilst proceeding further into it I became conscious of its vastness. Nevertheless, with it containing around one hundred works from the Tate collection, the substantiality of the space is clearly justified. I was particularly impressed by the exhibition’s means of curation - it had a real flow to it and there were many occasions throughout when pieces residing next to one another would not only complement each other aesthetically but would also share an interesting contextual parallel. The system of captioning was also effective, as captions were listed on the edge of the wall, and therefore not in the way of the art. Effectively, they inform the audience but do not detract attention away from the art. In my opinion, disturbing the viewing of displayed pieces is an error very easily made within museum or gallery captioning; therefore, I think Tate did a really good job of it throughout this exhibition.

Arguably one of the most thriving aspects of the exhibition is the great wealth of monumental names exhibiting – Picasso, Warhol, Gauguin and Emin, to name a few. I particularly admired how Tate had incorporated a fair share of great female artists, such Tracey Emin and Nancy Spero and had displayed them amongst the works of prodigious male artistic figures. It was a pleasant reminder that the art world has come along way with regards to the politics of gender.

I found Warhol’s boy drawings really special; there was a sense of emotion within them that is somewhat lacking within most of his more celebrated works. Laudably, they remind us of how great of a draughtsman he was, as due to his prolific production of prints and conceptual works, this was albeit forgotten.  Nevertheless, there is still a lingering sense of control and order, quintessential to the rest of his oeuvre that is produced by the controlled lines and abstracted shapes. It is clear, throughout the drawings that Warhol possessed a somewhat voyeuristic interest in the male body; therefore, it can be argued that these works provide an honest allusion to his sexuality, a subject that was at times just as ambiguous, as his curious, idiosyncratic persona. My favorite Warhol drawing was Resting Boy. The delicacy of the lines makes the male figure within the piece seem almost feminised. The piece recalls an innocent kind of desire, which evokes a pleasant wealth of emotion in the viewer. Explicitly voyeuristic, the boy looks as though he is sleeping and being watched. There is not, however, a sense of perversion behind the piece – but rather, a notable degree of innocence. Though there is undoubtedly a degree of sexual desire pervading through the drawing, I personally felt it was overridden by an evocation of naivety and innocence, with the slumbering figure looking rather young and angelic.

I was also captivated by William Orpen’s Anatomical studies, which were obviously an allusion to the exhibition’s theme of figuration within twentieth century art. They reminded me of my recent studies of Jean-Michel Basquiat, as he, just as Orpen, possessed a large focus on anatomy within his work and was inspired by the classic anatomical study - Gray’s Anatomy.  Orpen’s draughtsmanship within these pieces is truly meritorious – the intricate detailing, beautifully executed lines and meticulous psychical accuracy are truly something to behold. These drawings were originally used by Orpen to teach his students at the Metropolitan School of art in Dublin and would have therefore been seen more from a logical, educational perspective. It is great that the pieces can now be appreciated simply as works of art, as they are so beautifully rendered. One could undoubtedly argue that this level of draughtsmanship is somewhat missing from today’s art with the fashionableness of technology and with artists, to some degree, being expected to be social and political activists or to possess deep conceptual meaning within their work.