Jenna and Sarah will lead discussion this coming week. Here are just a few opening questions to begin the discussion.
1. How does Dyer conceptualize Warhol’s view of himself? his audience?
2. As we have seen in a number of previous articles, Dyer frames her article by the “via negativa,” that is to say, here are the existing interpretations of Warhol’s works and this is why they do not work.
3. In contrasting the rival readings of the content of Warhol’s work, the commodity culture vs. the commentary on the tragic state of culture, what is Dyer trying to establish?
4. What is the significance of the mundane?
5. How does making things the same also make them different?
6. Did this article make you dizzy?
7. How does Andy Warhol’s style affect the meaning/content of his serial images?
8. How does the preeminence of surface in Warhol’s works reinforce the author’s thesis—or do you disagree with this aspect of the article?
Okay….can I just say how smart Amelia Jones is? I just think her work is so stimulating!
1. Clothing is the means for negotiating identities between the wearer and observer. Discuss.
2. What were the male artists’ sartorial options in the 19th century?
3. Have you ever thought of clothing in the performative sense? Why do certain clothes cast a feminizing light on male artists?
4. In siding with the working class or the dandy, who was the artist rejecting?
5. What do you think of Buci-Glucksmann’s Baudelairean flaneur theory? That to dress as a dandy was a way to defuse one’s anxieties in relation to the emasculating gender and class instabilities of modern urban life?
6. What is the “Great Masculine Renunciation”? Can we talk about the disavowal of the “aphanisis of male specularity”? Don’t you love language?
7. Why are Duchamp and Warhol so radical? What stance does Jackson Pollock adopt?
8. In what sense does Klein ironize the idea of the artist as a creative genius? Why isn’t Klein’s suit a bourgeois sellout?
9. Identity for Morris and Burden (for example) is “contingent on an exchange of visual information rather than phallic inevitability;” how does that change the landscape of the art world?
10. Clothes, it would seem, are yet another weapon in the hegemonic arsenal!