dagblog - Comments for "This Is For Arta - and the rest of us "

just came to mind that those

artappraiser — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 23:27:42 +0000

In reply to This Is For Arta - and the rest of us

just came to mind that those interested in Warhol and scene and music may also enjoy

Songs for Drella is a 1990 album by Lou Reed and John Cale, both formerly of the Velvet Underground; it is a song cycle about Andy Warhol, their mentor, who ...

The nickname "Drella" that these early friends used kind of helps with my attempts at descriptions above: a contraction of Cinderella and Dracula.

It was mesmerizing. Great

barefooted — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 23:19:27 +0000

In reply to Well, I just thought the

It was mesmerizing. Great word as a descriptor in this case, and I agree. I will admit to a bit of disappointment that you seem to have focused on the Warhol character, which, while interesting, seemed to me a means to an end that was Basquiat. Bowie was great, but Jeffrey Wright as Jean Michel was absolutely brilliant.

Have you seen the movie?

barefooted — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:50:56 +0000

In reply to Warhol cultivated junkies.

Have you seen the movie?

Though to be fair, maybe that

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:39:57 +0000

In reply to He very much came off as low

Though to be fair, maybe that book was just another image, another Wahol creation, another accent, though obviously he must have been observing.

He very much came off as low

artappraiser — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:35:43 +0000

In reply to Do you have the sense he had

He very much came off as low key and humble. Used the work "gee" a lot. Often talked like a teenage girl. Sometimes, rarely, a sarcastic quip but you had to be sharp to catch it.

He did not snub people. He acted equally odd to everyone. He would walk on the streets of Manhattan alone with a bag full of Interview magazines and give them to anyone who came up to him and sign it too if they asked. An image stuck in my brain: driving past the Regency hotel where people famously had "power breakfasts" in the 80's, I saw his white shock of hair on the street in the middle of a flock of construction workers in hardhats, they were getting copies and waiting for him to autograph them.

He did not have the level of fame he does now when he was alive. It was kind of like a fringe fame. So he could walk around without being bothered that much.

But the diaries show he was always thinking very catty thoughts, very similar to a stereotype catty gay guy talking to his best gal pal on the phone. A lot of "So and so and so and so were at the table with us. I wonder why she stays with him, he is such an asshole". He never revealed that catty gay guy thing about himself in public nor to most of the people who thought of themselves as his friends. So the diaries were a surprise, or at the very least a chance to find out what Andy was really thinking when friends thought he wasn't being that transparent.

Do you have the sense he had

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:17:16 +0000

In reply to I don't think describing

Do you have the sense he had any concern that sometimes manipulating other people for his own pleasure might draw unwanted attention or criticism to himself? Perhaps as an openly gay individual fear was sort of the water he swam in and so became used to, so that things that might have created fear in others did not in him.

From what you're saying it sounds as though he was just fine knowing that he had established a mystique around himself that meant he was going to have ample opportunity to pick up stuff about other famous people, without having to disclose very much about himself at all, at least very little he did not want to disclose in the moment.

Funny because in the movie, Bowie's portrayal of him as not being aggressively or overtly "judgmental" in the presence of others, at all, comes across as sort of a low-key, humble authenticity at times. He was portrayed as not saying anything just for the sake of filling air time or silence, or as saying anything cliched. So maybe that meant that when he did talk people were more likely to think he was being "real". I recall when he is with Basquiat and Basquiat said something implying that he, Basquiat, was not a drug addict and Warhol says, in a non-judgmental way, something like "But that's not true, Jean."

The movie portrayed Basquiat as having a public persona of being far too cool to care much what anyone else thought of him, even as in a number of the more private scenes we (are meant to) see he is highly attuned and sensitive to the way he feels, and feels treated by others. Not surprising, just interesting to compare the contrasts between Warhol's, and his, public vs. private selves, as portrayed.

P.S. Comes to mind after

artappraiser — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:10:50 +0000

In reply to I don't think describing

P.S. Comes to mind after writing that: Not so much private as lacking emotion. Almost the opposite of empathy or sympathy: just an eye, one big eye. It is easy to believe he was asexual once you read the diaries. A good scene from the movie is when he and Basquiat are walking somewhere and he says something out of the blue like "why don't you go see my dermatologist, Sean-Paul?" Because Basquiat was all broken out in sores from being a junkie. Everything was about appearances, about the shallow surface. He wasn't interested in emotions or feelings (not in his art either.) It ended up being charming to people precisely because he was so odd. He could easily do teamwork, like working with Basquiat. It was just doing, not feeling or talking. The only words he needed were "I like this" or "I don't like that" or "what about this?"

Ah--I get it. Thanks.

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:01:23 +0000

In reply to I don't think describing

Ah--I get it. Thanks.

I don't think describing

artappraiser — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:57:18 +0000

In reply to Well, I just thought the

I don't think describing Warhol as very private is accurate. He didn't say much is all, used very few words and very simple words, it was his modus operandi, he liked to observe, he was a voyeur. Celebrity obsessed and he liked to appear mysterious. There was at the same time a childlike awe of celebrity and some Machiavellian like manipulation of them, just for his own pleasure. He didn't want things to be about him, he wanted to be at the center of things but be like a fly on the wall watching. So he would draw people to him somehow and then not give anything back, withdraw into being a fly.

The few times I spoke to him, at auction previews when he and a friend were looking at the same thing I was or when he came to an auction exhibition I was working, he would just look at you like you were an alien, like the most interesting bug in the world at that minute, and just say "yes" to what you were saying, or nod. Wouldn't give any input back.

The best way to understand the strange being he was is to read The Andy Warhol Diaries. It is a record of everything he said to his friend/assistant when he called her nearly every day to report on how things went that day. It is all gossip about other people and what they did and do. I.E., what the fly on the wall observed that day.

The diaries were a revelation for everyone when published. Precisely because he didn't act arrogant or gossipy or judgmental at all, more like trying to give off a shy persona. But people sensed he was not really shy like a normal person is shy. And the diaries showed he was judging everything every minute.

Oh I definitely get the

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:53:32 +0000

In reply to Stepping in, 1) ask away,

Oh I definitely get the keeping the worlds separate thing. I observe the same thing on disclosing private details on the internet in chat contexts. Hardly "only" true when it comes to the internet, as sharing sensitive private details with others can always come back to bite one in the ass later on, depending on how the people in that relationship do conflict.

There are no two people on the planet who are going to agree on everything (how boring if there were) and given how many struggle at times to disagree without it getting nasty at one point or another, the anon or known person you are feeling sympatico and comfortable with in interesting online exchanges at one point may at any time turn out to take strong exception to something you write. And then it can spiral downhill pretty easily, pride being one of those seven deadlies and all.

In some ways I find it more challenging to find a way to de-escalate and at the right time to limit the damage online, absent all the body language and other cues you get FTF. But in some ways I find it easier because with only the words (and the history you have with the other person, positive and negative), there are no unhelpful visible gestures that can be observed that may escalate the exchange and/or discourage another's efforts to de-escalate. And there is the potential to delay pressing "send" or "save".

In any case, long ago I made a decision to separate my work life from what I say and do here, in part by using the consistent anon handle like you and aa and others here also do.

I'll start with this question, among those that have popped into my head. (I don't at all assume that aa or others will want to do shop talk or something close to it here, BTW, so I completely understand "no thanks" if that is the case):

Mostly for aa, probably, but in appraising particular works of art, what factors do you look at? How much weight goes to the way the art market or sub-market in that genre is trending, versus assessment of the "intrinsic" value of the work, versus other factors? Do assessed long-term financial recoupment prospects enter in?