Andy Warhol: Screen Test 315, 61, 194

Andy Warhol’s pieces at the Whitney really surprised me. I found myself getting sucked in each time a film was playing. There was something so odd and entertaining about them. I wrote originally about Andy Warhol eating a burger which was very captivating. I can’t explain why but there was just something about It. However, while I was at the Whitney more of Andy’s work pulled me in. Some, in particular, was his screen tests. The Screen Tests are a series of short, silent, black-and-white film portraits, made between 1964 and 1966, generally showing the subjects from the neck up against plain backdrops.

What I found interesting about the films was how simple they were but also how complex. First off the lighting is set up to be harsh on the subject. It creates huge shadows and bright highlights. Secondly, the subject stands really still either looking directly in the camera or off to the side for a total of 3 mins. I did not learn that the projected movie was shown in slow motion as well which added to this uneasy feeling I got from watching the films.

I also felt like I was watching one of his paintings. The famous Marilyn Monroe painting, for example, was in my head when watching these films. I think it’s because the subject sits center in the frame from the neck up just like the paintings. I’m not sure if Andy was going with that but I wouldn’t doubt It. As I watched the screen tests I also was reminded of mug shots. The movie looked like moving mug shots to me and later when I did my research on the films I learned that Andy based this work off of the New York City Police Department booklet entitled The Thirteen Most Wanted. I found that interesting because I really felt like these could be mug shots. Another thing these films reminded me of was a horror movie. I felt like something scary was going to happen almost like a jump scare. They felt like old school horror movies because of the lighting and emphasis on shadows and highlights.

Andy shot these films on 16mm film, black and white. These films were silent and about 3-5 mins long at 18fps. I think he did a great job with them because even though they were only single shots of peoples portraits I found It very interesting and captivating. Watching It in a dark small theater helped too because I felt like I was watching something special outside of the exhibit. The environment added to the experience. The only thing I would have changed was the couple making out in front of me but I guess that can be part of a movie-going experience. All in all, I had a wonderful time at the Whitney and watching Andy’s films was eye-opening and a great experience.

Mark Leckey Made in ‘Eaven

Mark Leckey is a British contemporary artist, working with collage art, music and video. His found object art and video pieces, which incorporate themes of nostalgia and anxiety, and draw on elements of pop culture, span several videos. This week I visited the MOMA with the class and experienced his work.

Projected onto the wall was his piece Made in ‘Eaven. The piece revolves around an image of a stainless-steel bunny by artist Jeff Koons, which is apparently, one of the most coveted objects on the art market. The bunny sits on a pedestal in the center of an empty room which I didn’t know but is Leckey’s studio at 7 Windmill Street, London. As the piece plays we are brought in and out from the bunny with a series of pans and zooms. However, what I started to realize was that there was no camera present in the reflection. The video also seemed very smooth and unnatural almost like the movement was fake. That’s when I found out that the video is half fake.

Mark Leckey uses technology to his advantage in this piece. The bunny is not actually in his studio. I believe that he combines real footage and digital tools to create this piece. He essentially makes It feel like the bunny is actually present in his studio. The image is a digital fabrication transferred to 16mm film. The reason we do not see the camera in the reflection is because the bunny is digital. He reflects the areas of his room onto the bunny which makes It seem very realistic. He makes the viewers believe that all of the film is real and none of It is digital. It almost feels like magic.

I think that what he did for this film is great. The new world is all about technology and how it’s ever expanding. Combining real imagery with digital imagery is experimental in so many ways. He brought this art piece that a lot of people are familiar with into his home without actually bringing It into his home. He did It so well that It’s super convincing, so convincing in fact that he probably tried to convince himself that It was really there. Incorporating real imagery and digital imagery is the way of the future. A lot of people do It, especially in movies. I think he really nailed this piece by choosing to combine the digital world with the real world. If the camera was present in the reflection all of the magic present in this film would be gone for me. If It was possible for him to get the bunny in his studio, he could have filmed It and got rid of the camera digitally. However, I know that wasn’t possible so this takes It to the next level. I found this piece very interesting and encaptivating regardless of It being a single shot film of a bunny in someone’s studio. It’s the magic that is present in the film that really drew me in. As I read more about the piece I began to love It even more.

John Romano

Andy Warhol Whitney Exhibit

Andy Warhol has created several films in his time. At the Whitney Museum this weekend I got to experience several of his experimental short films. I want to talk about one in particular because It was short but deep. I believe most of Andy’s films are about challenging the idea of what is art.

“Andy Warhol eating a hamburger” is a film that was shot in the 1980s by Jørgen Leth. Warhol decided to be a part of the film for several reasons. One of the reasons was that It was shot in his style. The film is a single shot film on a single camera much like a lot of  Warhol’s films. At one point Warhol struggles to pour the ketchup but the camera keeps rolling because that is the beauty in this particular film and art form. The idea that everything is art.

I saw this short film at the Whitney Museum in one of the main floors. The film is a little over four minutes long and shows Warhol eating a hamburger for the entire film. When you watch the film for the first time you may think its funny or you may feel uncomfortable. It’s fairly silent until the end when Warhol says his name and what he just did. It’s strange that we feel uncomfortable because he is performing an everyday action of eating something. However, silence is what makes It uncomfortable. He sometimes looks at the camera and other times looks shy and almost vulnerable while eating the burger.

The main point of the film in my opinion, however, is the idea of what is art? Pop art was formed because of the idea that every day things can be art. Art does not have to be unique so eating a hamburger could be art. The normal activities of everyday life can now be turned into art. Who is to question what is and isn’t art? Some people can see art in things that others can’t.

Warhol eating a burger from Burger King also shows that Americans are created equal. Warhol is an American born citizen who I believe took pride in being American. He wanted to show that celebrities eat the same food that regular American citizens eat. The film is digging deep into the American consumer culture. I think this is shown through the film because you expect something to happen during the film but the film just ends up being about a man eating a burger. The reason people watch this film even though it’s just a man eating a hamburger is because of Andy Warhol’s presence. People expect something greater because of a celebrity appearance. If It was shot with a man on the street people would walk away. However, people place celebrities on a pedestal and look up to celebrities even when they do everyday mundane things. The way Warhol moves in the film also shows his character and personality as an artist. He knows how to move an audience in a very simple way.