Author Archives: Michael Happy

Andy Warhol

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBjqMMN6D5E

The first nine minutes of Warhol’s “Blow Job” (1964).  As I outlined in a post yesterday, this is the first in a series of posts today exploring “obscenity” in the arts.  We’ll be citing Frye extensively in the posts that follow.

Today is Andy Warhol‘s birthday (1928 – 1987).

Here’s Frye in “Foreward to English Studies in Toronto“.  As with the reference to Warhol from Words with Power cited in an earlier post (“Andy Warhol Eats a Hamburger”), what is interesting about it is that Frye invokes Warhol to illustrate a bigger point.  In this case, it is the contextualizing experience of art and the role of scholarship in understanding it:

At every step in the liberalizing of the curriculum, some academics will say: “Why should we set up courses and examinations in that?  Shouldn’t students be reading that on their own?  We’ve got a library, haven’t we?”  In one generation Edmund Blunden’s colleague would have applied this to the whole of English literature; in the next it would have applied to contemporary literature; in the next to the study of films, television and pop culture.  In my experience such objectors do not read that sort of thing on their own, but apart from that, there are two very important facts left out of their assumptions.  One is the immense psychological difference between cultivating a leisure-time activity and studying the same material within the context of a university course.  It is a little like, though considerably subtler than, the difference between looking at a row of soup cans and looking at them in Andy Warhol.  The other is the schizophrenia set up in the teacher’s mind.  Two of my teachers at Victoria were Pelham Edgar and John Robins, both interested in the modern novel and Canadian literature.  But all reference to such subjects in lectures devoted to Shakespeare and The Rape of the Lock, had to be bootlegged, so to speak, and lectures got very digressive as a result.  It was very important to our education as students to be told about the short stories of Hemingway and the poetry of Duncan Campbell Scott — it was difficult for us to read these authors “on our own” when we did not yet know they existed.  Edgar, Pratt and Robins at Victoria, and Woodhouse and Brown at least at University College, did very important work in Canadian studies many decades before they got into the curriculum.  (CW 7, 597-8)

After the jump, a superior PBS American Masters documentary about Warhol.  Must-see, if only for the wonderful contemporary footage and extended excerpts from his movies.  (Please note, however, that the entire documentary is comprised of two 90 minute episodes, and only the first part of the first episode is offered here, so Warhol’s early years and early successes aren’t included.  However, the second episode dealing with Warhol at the peak of his success until his death is posted in its entirety.  This really is worth the investment of your time, and I hope you’ll watch it.)

Continue reading

Video of the Day: “I Give Up”

s-STEWART-GIVE-UP-large

Jon Stewart is never off, but sometimes he is so on target that it is awe-inspiring, as in his new feature introduced on the Daily Show last night: “I Give Up”.  Jon’s always been a superb sad clown, but his angry clown routine is the one he holds back for special occasions.  This is one of those occasions.  Please watch.  Please.

In Canada, watch it here.  In the rest of the known universe, watch it here.

Mature Content

notsafeforwork

Tomorrow is Andy Warhol’s birthday, and last week I started putting together a post to commemorate it.  People tend to forget that Warhol for five whole years made nothing but movies, which, even today are exhilerating in their wonder and freshness and the challenge they offer.  One critic has noted that, for the first time, thanks to Warhol’s films, we, the viewers of art, are allowed to see as a painter sees, in real time.

Their subject matter, of course, is often iconoclastic.  The clip I opted to post is from the starkly titled Blow Job, which does not really capture the actual experience of the film, even if it accurately describes what is being very cleverly depicted without actually showing it.

That got me thinking about Frye and the issue of obscenity and — coincidentally coming across a clip I wanted to post in our regular TGIF comedy slot that is as obscene as it is hilarious — that led to a series of related posts on the subject of the artistic relevance of obscenity with Frye acting as our guide the entire time.

All that tomorrow.

St John’s, Newfoundland

history-harbour2

On this date in 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert established the first English colony in North America in what is now St John’s, Newfoundland.

Frye citing a folk song, which he describes as “a delightful bit that could only have come from one place in the world, southeastern Newfoundland”:

“Oh mother dear, I wants a sack

With beads and buttons down the back. . .

Me boot is broke, me frock is tore,

But Georgie Snooks I do adore. . .

Oh, fish is low and flour is high,

So Georgie Snooks he can’t have I”  (CW 12, 241-2)

What’s Wrong with the New York Times, Ctd [Updated]

maureen-dowd1

Maureen Dowd goes cougar — and draws a paycheque for reproducing an email exchange.  Again.

Evidently there’s nothing else going on in the entire world this week.

Wonkette:

This would maybe make a nice piece for EW or the TV Guide, but what the flying fuck is it doing on the Op-Ed page of the most (rightly or wrongly) respected newspaper in the fucking world?

Update: Going through the readers’ comments on Dowd’s column this morning, I noticed that someone had observed that the whole thing reads like an “inadvertantly hilarious horror movie” conceived and directed by Woody Allen.  When I went back a little later to retrieve the comment in order to post it here, it had been deleted.  The Times has to work very hard to make Dowd appear to be a relevant something-or-other (political pundit?? arbiter of taste?? cultural critic?? “humorist”??) and apparently had second thoughts about a comment that was perhaps a little too close to the truth.

Quote of the Day: “Defining Prosperity Down”

taxcuts

Paul Krugman picks up on what is becoming obvious: the creation of a permanent underclass so that the very very very very very very rich don’t have to pay higher taxes.

Yes, growth is slowing, and the odds are that unemployment will rise, not fall, in the months ahead. That’s bad. But what’s worse is the growing evidence that our governing elite just doesn’t care — that a once-unthinkable level of economic distress is in the process of becoming the new normal.

And I worry that those in power, rather than taking responsibility for job creation, will soon declare that high unemployment is “structural,” a permanent part of the economic landscape — and that by condemning large numbers of Americans to long-term joblessness, they’ll turn that excuse into dismal reality.

French Revolution

tenniscourtoath

Sketch by Jacques-Louis David of the Tennis Court Oath.

On this date in 1789 members of the revolutionary National Constituent Assembly took an oath to ban feudalism and abandon their privileges.

Frye in “The Question of ‘Success'”:

One of the prominent figures in the French Revolution was asked what he did, what he achieved in the French Revolution, and he said: “J’ai servécu” — I survived. (CW 7, 300)