Women and Warhol from left to right: a scene from Bike Boy, Bikie and a naked Viva; Ultra Violet, Andy Warhol, and Viva; Brigid Berlin, Andy Warhol; Valerie Solanas, Andy Warhol, Edie Sedgwick; International VelvetThe readings for this week were an interesting bunch because the focus was on the women of Warhol. The essays allowed for us to investigate these women on a deeper level than just being the Factory girls/groupies. I would first like to discuss Breanne Fahs' essay The Radical Possibilities of Valerie Solanas.
Fahs introduces the essay with a quote from Solanas stating, " Read my manifesto and it will tell you who I am." However, we are quickly informed that this is not the case. Fahs analyzes that Solanas was a women filled with contradictions. The SCUM Manifesto was a venue to express her frustrations with patriarchy, yet Solanas did not live by the Manifesto. She advocated for women to be independant of men but often found herself prostituting for money. She was also an outcast among outcasts as Fahs states. Solanas did not identify with feminists, queer society, or even the crowd of Greenwich Village. This makes placing her Manifesto, which pushed for the elimination of men, a very tricky job. Fahs also explains that the Manifesto has been ignored or the importance has been downplayed because of the actions of Solanas. Most people believe that the shooting of Andy Warhol was a direct result of the Manifesto, yet as Fahs claims it was because Solanas was angry that Warhol lost her copy of Up Your Ass. The only copy. After all, I suppose that makes sense in the most nonsensical way because in the Manifesto Solanas claims that homosexual men were not in need of elimination due to their sexual nature making them relatively inoffensive to a SCUM woman.
So my questions for this essay are these: In the way that Griselda Pollock attempted to eradicate the wrongs incurred upon Lee Krasner, is there a way to correct the negative stigma placed upon Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto? Is there even a way to separate her writings from her actions? If we could do this, is the Manifesto worth the trouble? What academic merit or learning experience can we draw upon from the Manifesto? In my opinion this is exactly what Fahs has tried to attempt in essay, has she achieved her goal?
This leads into my discussion of I Must be Boring Someone by Jennifer Doyle. Doyle in this article focuses on the roles women played in the Warhol films, specifically Bike Boy and I, a Man. Here feminist theory is being applied to the films of Warhol. Doyle explains the strange dynamic of a woman in a gay man's world. In that the two seem to be at opposite ends of each other, even at times opponents. What is most interesting is that Doyle goes into depth about the roles played by Valerie Solanas and Ingrid Superstar in the movies I, a Man and Bike Boy respectively. She also plays the films against a poem by Whitman regarding the 29th Bather, in that the voyeur of a woman among the bathers is almost equivalent to the woman watching these films, i.e. not being the general target.
So, keeping this summary a little shorter, my questions are these: What do you interpret of the role in which women played in the Warhol films; we understand that the films were about two men but Doyle believes that the women take the stage, do you agree? How does the comparison to the Whitman poem add to or detract from the article? Does it make Doyle's point that the women in the Warhol environment were not natural, if that was her point? Also, Doyle ends the article with the analysis of Ingrid Superstar's soliloquy as an empowering realisation of boredom, do you agree with her assesment or does the monologue state something else than what Doyle believes?
Finally, we have the article by Leanne Gilbertson, Andy Warhol's Beauty #2: Demystifying and Reabstracting the Feminine Mystique, Obliquely. Which by the way was the most mystifying of titles in my opinion. But to cut to the chase, Gilbertson is analyzing the film Beauty #2 and the dynamics that are presented within the film. We have Gino Piserchio as the actual Beauty #2, but Edie Sedgwick is also Beauty #2 in that she replaced Baby Jane. Out of the film picture we have Chuck Wein who was replaced by Gino Piserchio. The action of the film goes as this: Edie and Gino are half-naked on the bed talking and fondling while Chuck is offscreen engaging Edie with some bitter comments. What Gilbertson attempts to do is to weed out the personality of Edie in this situation as she is being tugged three different directions. She is juggling the sexual wants of Gino, she is fielding the negative comments of Chuck, and is also trying to perform for Andy. It is a tough situation, so what do we get from it? Is it an innocent slumber party as Andy describes of it? Is this a twisted situation that Warhol manipulated Sedgwick into performing for? Is there any way that we can actually weed out a personality of Sedgwick, after all as Gilbertson states, this was all a performance?
**Sorry for the rambling and ranting and that the post is late... I have been struggling with trying to get this to post for quite some time now!**
What is interesting about Solanas and Warhol and their relationship with each other is how they were both talented, intelligent people who weren’t very nice to members of the opposite sex (which is putting it lightly). For both, it could be argued, this was because they were members of marginalized group and they both worked passionately to bring awareness to their marginalized status. Griselda Polluck’s article for Lee Krasner offered an opportunity for readers to change our perspective of Krasner’s historic context and her intentions in order to recognize the validity of her paintings. The Doyle article offers (what I think I am beginning to recognize as) a deconstruction of scenes with Solanas and Superstar using feminist and queer theories. The Fahs article on Solanas attempted to do the same but without the deconstruction. Although I appreciated Doyle’s arguments, I think that that these women were not complicit with Warhol in the true discourse that Warhol was pursuing, generally that women in their various performed gender roles are invisible. Reading about the films, watching snippets of scenes and having limited knowledge Andy Warhol (the man, the art), if Doyle was trying to redeem Warhol in any way Gilbertson sunk her battleship when she dissects the film using feminist and queer theory and describes the various “injuries” to Sedgewick during the filming and viewing of Beauty #2. Therefore, Warhol’s films seem like cruel, selfish and misogynist behavior rather than an effort to affect a political agenda which makes me wonder if there are any articles on ethics and art? And, if so is it ever right to “injure,” as Judith Butler defines, another person in the name of art?
ReplyDeleteSolanas’ popularity was reinforced through her actions. Even to the point where some of the publishers banked on it. I agree that Fahs tried to separate the two, however in my opinion it sounded more like Fahs was trying so hard to separate Solanas’ actions and writing that it came across that they were more interconnected than ever.
ReplyDeleteThe Doyle article, shows the tension between feminist and queer theory. And for lack of a better term, the article shows the political correctness of the time. There is the struggle between the individuals should act as society wants them to or whether to act upon their instincts. There is also an aspect of the exclusion of women in a “queer world”. The 29th Bather gives us an example of the strong sexuality of the queer man, but keeps the women at arms length.
Beauty #2 shows an on-screen/ off-screen struggle for Edie. Warhol seems to be trying to illustrate the struggles of the feminine mystique by lessening its appeal. I completely agree with Amy in saying that Warhol’s film is portrayed to only fill “his agenda” rather than a political one.
The problem with separating Valerie Solanas' manifesto from her actions seems to parallel the problem in separating Warhol's movies from the myth built around his persona. I will admit having difficulty coming to any conclusions about Warhol's work because so much speculation has been made about it. It's as though there are too many theories. It doesn't help that the artist, himself, was so flippant when discussing his own oeuvre.
ReplyDeletePersonally I feel that movies such as "I Shot Andy Warhol" and, more recently, "Factory Girl" have so hopelessly mythologized the whole Warhol scene that the "truth" behind the artist's motives are getting harder and harder to decipher. Warhol's attitudes towards women were complicated, but his ideas about his female Superstars seem to be forever entwined with there sexuality.
I remember Warhol owned one of Duchamp's diaries so I imagine that Warhol, like Duchamp, would be chucking to himself as we scratch our heads and try to figure out if he had some serious agenda or was simply goofing on us.
I believe the point of the Doyle article was questioning the space created for women in ‘gay-male cinema.’ Most importantly, the active position Warhol’s ‘women’ were allowed to attain once they had been removed from the passive position of object of desire. So, why is this a big deal? I believe this reading of Warhol’s films serves to undermine the firmly entrenched female-subject-position offered (or denied) by more mainstream films. This shifting of roles creates a sense of transparency and a critical attack position when addressing women’s roles in other films (mainstream or not).
ReplyDeleteI found a few comments about Edie Sedgwick's hair--Most said that she cut and colered her hair with silver spray to look like the wigs that Andy wore...
ReplyDeleteNot Andys wigs for Edie's hair...