Getting the Warhol We Deserve

Author(s): Douglas Crimp

Source: Social Text, No. 59 (Summer, 1999), pp. 49-66
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466696 .
Accessed: 18/01/2014 10:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Getting the Warhol We Deserve

Two years afterthe unexpected death of Andy Warhol in February 1987, Douglas Crimp
the Museum of Modern Art moved to consolidate his reputation as one of
the greatest artists of the second half of the twentiethcentury. The huge
retrospectiveexhibitionof Warhol's paintings seemed dedicated, as if once
and for all, to the idea of "Warhol as Art History," as the titleof one of the
catalog essays forthrightlyput it.1 This constrictingof Warhol's cultural
complexity was already evident a year earlier, when the Dia Art Founda-
tion devoted one of its series of discussions in contemporary culture to
"The Work of Andy Warhol." The five papers and discussion that fol-
lowed sought, in varying ways, to situate Warhol art historically; the
purely disciplinary picture of Warhol presented by the symposium is cap-
tured in Gary Garrels's synopsis introducing the published proceedings:

Charles Stuckeyhas drawnon traditionalapproachesof arthistoryto exam-

ine Warhol'swork--theimportanceof originalsettingsand environments to
understandintentand meaningwhichare lostsubsequentto theremovaland
dispersal of the works;the role of patronageand sponsorshipto the final
formthatthe workstake; formalprecedentsand worksby peers thatinflu-
enced the artist'swork,and relativeto this,issues of datingand biography.
Nan Rosenthalalso has used thetools of arthistoryto examinetheissues of
educationand trainingon the artist'swork,particularly duringwhatcould be
called his "apprenticeship" period as a commercial designer, and like
Stuckey,the relationshipto immediateformalantecedentsand the influence
of peers. . . . TrevorFairbrotherhas establishedin his analysisof a single
series, the "Skulls" produced in 1976, the extraordinarycomplexityand
accomplishmentof Warhol'slaterwork.Fairbrotherexaminesthisseriesfor
its formalsophisticationand thesignificanceof subject,groundingthissingle
series in a broader range of Warhol'slaterwork,particularlythe self-por-
traits.Both Rainer Crone and Benjamin Buchloh analyze Warhol's work
fromculturaland ideologicalperspectiveswithattentionto issues of tech-
nique and production,notingthe importanceof drawingforunderstanding
Warhol'swork.Crone setsup a detaileddevelopmental typologyforWarhol's
work... , arguingforconsistencyand continuity ofhis developmentand for
a considerationof Warhol'swork in a long traditionof twentieth-century
theoryand practice.BenjaminBuchlohanalyzesWarhol'sworkin relationto
modernismand mass culture,whilenot disengagingthisabstract,analytical
inquiryfromthe objectsthemselves.2

Social Text59, Vol. 17, No. 2, Summer 1999. CopyrightC 1999 by Duke UniversityPress.

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 When we turnto the discussionfollowingthe papers, a singlequestion,
posed by Buchloh,determinesalmostall of whatfollows:What,Buchloh
wantsto know,does Fairbrother's"traditionaliconographicreading"of
the skullstellus about the "supposedlymeaninglessicons thatare consti-
tutedas random,arbitrary, willful,as destructionsoftraditionalreferential
iconography"?3 Apparentlyundecidable, the discussiondevelopsintoan
argumentabout the degree of Warhol's criticality, about whether,for
example,Warholintendedto criticizeImelda Marcos whenhe put heron
the cover of Interviewor whetherhe just thoughtshe was "glamourous,
wonderful."Fairbrothermakes the most enticinglycrypticpoint at this
momentin the debate,when he remarks,simply,"Shoes and Marcos."
But even thisdiscussionof the glamourpoliticsof Interview magazinein
the 1980s consistently returnsto the question,How do we interpret the
meaning of Warhol's paintings?
In thepublishedversionof The WorkofAndyWarholthereis an addi-
tionalpaper, "The WarholEffect"by Simon Watney,whichstandsalone
in thecollectionnot onlyforbeingan after-the-fact addition,but also for
its assertion,againstthetideof thesymposium,that"Warholsimplycan-
not be reconciledto thetypeoftheheroicoriginating Fine Artistrequired
as the price of admission to the Fine Art tradition."4Watneyquotes
Michel Foucaultfrom"On theGenealogyof Ethics"on therelationof art
to "thekindofrelationone has to oneself,"as "a
to life,of creativeactivity
much more helpfuland productiveway of approachingWarhol than
restrictive attemptsto measurehim againstthe criteriaof predetermined
models of artisticvalue whichhis own workquietlyinvalidates."5 Watney
compares media coverage of the Liberace and Warhol estate auctions as
an ingeniousconceitforforegrounding Warhol'sconfoundingpersona-
itselfan effectof systemsof culturalrepresentation-andthe ways in
which thatpersona demands rethinking the meaningsof consumption,
collecting,publicity,visibility,celebrity,stardom, sexuality,identity,and
selfhood.
In the years followingpublication of Watney'sshort essay, what
Watney calls the "ongoing criticalintelligenceand sensibilityof the
Warholeffect"has continuedto exertits pressureon us to move away
fromthe narrowerprerogativesof art historyand towardthe broader
inquiryof culturalstudies.And in so doing, perhaps a lastingWarhol
effecthas been to make possible expansiveapproachesto contemporary
art more generally,or at least to those contemporary art practicesthat
insiston theirarticulationwithbroadersocial practices.Part of mypur-
pose here will be to suggestwhat a trulyculturalstudiesprojectabout
Warholmightlook like and whywe mightwantto pursue it. But firstit
will be necessary to take up the resistanceto cultural studies as an
approachto contemporary art.

50 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 "Cultural Studies doesn't have much philosophicallyto offer,"Hal
Fosterremarkedin a July1996 issue of The Chronicle ofHigherEducation.
in
"It sneaks a loose, anthropologicalnotionof culture,and a loose, psy-
choanalyticnotionof theimage."It is, furthermore, "fauxpopulism,"6an
accusationseconded by MartinJay,who complainsof a "pseudopopulist
levelingof all culturalvalues." Thomas Crow speaks of a "misguidedly
populist impulse" and echoes Foster's sense that culturalstudies plays
loose withits models of analysis."To surrendera historyof art to a his-
toryof images,"Crow writes,referring to Norman Bryson,Michael Ann
Holly, and Keith Moxey's introductionto their1994 volume Visual Cul-
ture, "will . . . mean a de-skilling of interpretation,an inevitable mis-
recognitionand misrepresentation of one realm of profound human
endeavor."Jay'sand Crow's statementscome fromresponsesto a ques-
tionnaireon visual culturethatwas the centerpieceof October'sspecial
issue devotedto the subject.7
RosalindKrauss,likeFosteran editorof October, is blunterabout the
loss of disciplinaryskillsentailedin visual studies.In an ArtNewsarticle
whose title asks, "What Are They Doing to Art History?" Krauss is
quoted as saying,"Studentsin arthistorygraduateprogramsdon'tknow
how to read a workof art.They'regettingvisual studiesinstead-a lot of
paranoid scenariosabout whathappens underpatriarchy or underimpe-
rialism."8AlthoughKrauss's statementis difficultto distinguishfrom
attacks by right-wingcritics of the academy for a multitudeof sins
committedin thename of identity politics,politicalcorrectness,and mul-
ticulturalism,I will not be interestedin those criticshere. As faras I'm
concerned,thelikesofHiltonKramer,WilliamBennett,Dinesh D'Souza,
and Lynn Cheney are absolutelycorrectin theirdiagnosis of cultural
studiesas politicallymotivated.Even ifthesecriticsmisconstrue,distort,
and caricatureculturalstudies'positions,theypay themthe compliment
of takingseriouslya fullyintentionalthreatto the business-as-usualof
privilege,exclusion,and injustice.What interestsme here,instead,is the
attackon culturalstudiesby criticswho claimaffiliation withtheLeft.
Beforegoingfurther, I wantto tryto makesome sense out of a mud-
dle of terms.Culturalstudies,visual culture,and visual studiesare often
used interchangeably in the currentdebates,althoughsometimesdistinc-
tions are made, as when Krauss writesthefollowing,in "Welcometo the
CulturalRevolution,"heressayforthe October specialissue: "Visual Stud-
ies has very littleto do to map itselfonto the model of its (Cultural
Studies) model"9 (the primarymodel in thiscase beingpsychoanalysis).
Thus, visual studiesis seen as secondaryin relationto culturalstudies.In
his Octoberessay,"The ArchivewithoutMuseums,"Fosteralso notesthis
secondaryrelation,butvis-i-visa different model:"The immediatesource
of the ethnographicmodel in visual cultureremainsculturalstudies."'10

Gettingthe WarholWe Deserve 51

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Foster prefers visual cultureto visual studies,since he wants to analyze the
transformationof art history into visual culture-to trace, as he puts it,
"the shiftfrom art to visual and historyto culture" (AWM, 104).
For purposes of clarification,we might say that visual culture is the
object of study in visual studies, which is a narrowerarea of cultural stud-
ies. For reasons that will become clear, I do not wish to define these terms
any further.I will only say here that I see nothing to be gained in narrow-
ing cultural studies by specifying its objects as visual; although there is
currentlya growing interestin visual studies withinthe field of art history,
this limiting of the purview of cultural studies to a single category of
objects, in advance, runs the risk of closing down the inquiry.But this nar-
rowing is useful, indeed necessary, for the arguments that some critics of
visual studies want to make-for example, the argument that visual stud-
ies returnsus to a modernist fetishizationof vision. Thus, Thomas Crow
writes in answer to the Octoberquestionnaire:

As a postmodernblueprintfor the emancipationof art history,the new

rubricof visual culturecontainsa largeand unexaminedparadox: it accepts
withoutquestiontheviewthatartis to be definedby itsworkingexclusively
throughthe opticalfaculties.This was of coursethemostcherishedassump-
tionof highmodernismin the 1950s and 1960s, whichconstructeditscanon
aroundthe notionof opticality.11

The necessity of the word visual attached to this area of study for
Foster and Krauss is not, however, its conservative association with the
prerogatives of high modernism but its radical association with the most
advanced stage of consumer capitalism. In the Octoberspecial issue, this
association is firstposed as one of the four questions submittedto respon-
dents:

It has been suggestedthatthe preconditionforvisual studiesas an interdis-

ciplinaryrubricis a newlywroughtconceptionof the visual as disembodied
image,re-createdin the virtualspaces of sign-exchangeand phantasmatic
projection.Further,ifthisnew paradigmof the image originallydeveloped
in the intersection
betweenpsychoanalytic and media discourses,it has now
assumed a role independentof specificmedia. As a corollarythe suggestion
is thatvisualstudiesis helping,in itsown modest,academicway,to produce
subjectsforthe nextstageof globalizedcapital.12

When we read Krauss's and Foster's essays in the journal, we learn that
this question-statement, really-is an abstract of the argument they put
forward. Their argument runs something like this: The next stage of
global capitalism is characterized by ever greater alienation of experience
wrought by the revolution in cybernetics, in which everythingmust be
dematerialized and digitized in order to be readily consumed. Visual stud-

52 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ies is helping,"in its own modest,academic way,"to preparesubjectsfor
thisrevolutionby accustomingthemto thesedisembodiedimages,thatis,
to imagesleveledto equivalenceas pure information, disconnectedfrom
theirhistories,social contexts,and modes of production-"so many
image-texts,so many info-pixels,"in Foster's phrase (AWM, 114). To
performthistask,visualstudiesturnsto psychoanalytic theory,which,in
thisaccount,amountsto littlemorethanthe means by whicha subjectis
directlyconstructedthroughits identification withculturalimages and
thus preparedto consume them,as is necessitatedby the lateststageof
global capitalism.Krauss statesthisclearly,"This enlargedidea of con-
sumptionis logicallyconsistentwith the structureof identification in
whichthe embraceof a subjectby a powerfully compellingimage-illu-
sory,phantasmatic,oneiric,hallucinatory-foundsthe subjectas a repro-
ductionof the visual constellationhe or she has no choice but to receive
and internalize."13And Fosterconcurs:"Especiallyin visual culturethat
developsout of filmand media studies,theimageis oftentreatedas a pro-
jection-in the psychologicalregisterof the imaginary,the technological
registerof the simulacral,or both-that is, as a doublyimmaterialphan-
tasm" (AWM, 106). And this"rarefying of opticaleffectsand .., fetishiz-
ing of visual signifiersis not foreignto capitalistspectacle" (AWM, 107).
On itsface,thisargumentis, as Tom Conleywrotein responseto the
Octoberquestionnaire,"ludicrous." (It remindsme of objectionsto sex
education on the groundsthatit would induce teenagersto have sex.)
There are so manyproblemswiththeargumentthatit is difficult to know
whereto begina refutation. One problemis thatin Krauss's and Foster's
essays,as in manyresponsesto thequestionnaire, verylittleactualworkin
visual and culturalstudiesis cited. What we have insteadis preciselya
projection,an "illusory,phantasmatic,oneiric,hallucinatory"image of
culturalstudies. And in this strawmanimage, a social and historical
decontextualization of visualculturetakesplace thatis justthe contrary of
whatmuchworkin culturalstudiesstrivesto achieve.
One obvious place to begin is withthe claims about the functionof
psychoanalytictheoryin visual and culturalstudies.In whose analyses
does an accountof identification suggestthatit works,in Krauss's words,
to foundthe subject "as a reproductionof the visual constellationhe or
she has no choice but to receiveor internalize"?AlthoughKrauss main-
tainsthatworkin visual studiesdepends on Lacan's theoryof themirror
stage for such an account, Lacan's theoryexplains thatthis imaginary
identification splitsthe subjectthroughits alienationfromand failureto
live up to the imago thatcomes at it fromthe outside.The most recent
workin culturalstudies on the subject of identification-Diana Fuss's
IdentificationPapers,forexample-suggeststhereverseof Krauss's claim;
in thebook's introduction, Fuss writes,"Identificationsare neverbrought
to fullclosure;identifications are inevitablyfailedidentifications."'14

Gettingthe WarholWe Deserve 53

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 For herevidence,Krauss turnsinsteadtoJaniceRadway'sReadingthe
Romance(1984), hardlya compellingexampleof visualstudies,sinceit is
an ethnographic studyof Midwesternwomen'sreadinggroupsdevotedto
reading romance novels. Hardly compelling, as well, since Radway
employsNancy Chodorow's object-relations, not Lacanian, account of
identificationas "reproduction"-Chodorow'sbook is titledThe Repro-
ductionofMothering. More importantly, Krauss's use of Radway as her
representative figureof culturalstudiesignoresthedebateswithincultural
studies over Radway's work, even the fact that Radway's work itself
responds to Tania Modleski's nonethnographicwork on the romance,
Lovingwitha Vengeance (1984). A cursoryreviewof culturalstudiesbib-
liographieswould show thatboth Radway and Modleskihave been criti-
cized by ConstancePenleyin her contribution to the RoutledgeCultural
Studiesvolume (1992), "Feminism,Psychoanalysis,and the Study of
Popular Culture,"and thatModleski has respondedto Radway and to
ethnographicmethodsmore generallyin her essay "Some Functionsof
FeministCriticism"(an essayinitiallypublishedin October[1989]).
My pointhere is not thatworkin visual and culturalstudieswould
neverresortto anything so antipsychoanalytic as a sociologicalaccountof
identificationas simpleinternalization.It is, rather,thatquestionsof iden-
tificationand subjectivity have not been decided in thisfieldof inquiry.
On the contrary, theyare the subjectof ongoingand productivedebates.
Krauss recognizesas much about the undecidabilityof culturalstudies
when she approvinglycites Meaghan Morris'sclassic essay "Banalityin
CulturalStudies." But she simultaneously denies thatrecognitionwhen
she takestheworkMorriscriticizes-and not Morris'scritiqueitself-to
be representative of culturalstudies.Afterall, Morrisidentifies herprac-
tice withculturalstudies,hercritiqueis immanenttoculturalstudies,and
the ten-year-old"Banality"essay has been widelyinfluential on cultural
studies.
Krauss turnsto Morrisfora discussionof culturalstudies'movefrom
an analysisof productionto one of consumption,whereconsumptionis
seen as "farmorethanjust economicactivity;it is also about dreamsand
consolation,communicationand confrontation, image and identity."15
Krauss's adoptionofthesephrases,whichMorristakesfromMica Nava's
"Consumerismand Its Contradictions,"captureslittleof Morris'scom-
plex response to them. The full passage of Morris's text fromwhich
Krauss quotes is as follows:

Among [Mica Nava's] enablingtheses-and theyhave been enabling-are

these:consumers arenot"cultural usersofmass
dopes,"butactive,critical
culture;consumption cannotbe derivedfromorreducedto a mir-
practices
ror of production;consumerpracticeis "farmorethanjust economic
it is also aboutdreamsand consolation,
actitity: communication and con-

54 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 imageandidentity.
frontation, Likesexuality, itconsistsofa multiplicity
of
fragmented andcontradictory
discourses."
I'm notnow concernedto contestthesetheses.For themoment, I'll
buythewholelot.WhatI'm interestedin is firstly,
thesheerproliferation
of
therestatements, theemergence
and secondly, in someofthemofa restric-
oftheidealknowing
tivedefinition subjectofcultural studies.16

Morrisproceedsto specificcases of this"restrictive definitionof the

ideal knowingsubject" in the work of JohnFiske and Iain Chambers,
whose ethnographic and populistassumptionsshe subjectsto incisivecri-
tique. Her analysisdoes not in any way oppose the aims of this work,
which Morris statesas "to understandand encourage culturaldemoc-
racy";rather,it opposes itsunselfreflexive ethnographic methods-itsfail-
ure to accountforthe"analyst'sown investment-somerecognition ofthe
double playof transference.""17 One resultofthisfailureon thepartofthe
analystofpopularcultureis an identification with"thepeople," such that
"the people" "have no definingcharacteristics," except as "the textually
delegated,allegoricalemblemofthecritic'sown activity. Their ethnosmay
be constructedas other,but it is used as the ethnographer's mask."18
My pointin focusingon Morris'sjustlyfamousessay is not onlyto
recoverit froma reductivemisappropriation, but also to contrastits com-
plex arguments with those made by Hal Foster when he criticizesthe
"anthropologicalmodel" of visual cultureand what he calls the ethno-
graphictendencyin contemporary art.Foster'scriticismoftheanthropo-
logical model is aligned withKrauss's attackon visual studies'psychoan-
alytictheory of the imagethrough attentionof bothto thequestionof
the
alterity,to thewaysin whichartistsand criticsapproachthe"other."Fos-
terstatesthisexplicitly: "Anthropology in
is prizedas a scienceof alterity;
this regardit is, along withpsychoanalysis,the lingua francaof artistic
practiceand criticaldiscoursealike."19Foster'sviews about the cultural
studiesintellectual as faux-populistanthropologist and theartistas ethno-
grapherhave appeared in a numberof essaysbeyondhis contribution to
the October issue on visualculture.Theirmostcomplexand sustainedpre-
sentation appears in his book The Returnof theReal.
Foster'sbook providesperhapsthe best synopticstudythatexiststo
date of significant
recentstrainsof (mostlyAmerican)art.Its ambitionis
to providethis art witha genealogyin the avant-garde,both historical
avant-gardeand postwarneo-avant-garde.Arguingpersuasivelyagainst
PeterBtirger'sview of the avant-gardeas failedand the neo-avant-garde
as recuperativeby positing the importanceof nachtriiglichkeit,Foster
tracesthis"deferredaction" of the historicalavant-gardefromminimal-
ism,pop art,and thetextualturnin conceptualartto "The Returnofthe
Real" and "The Artistas Ethnographer,"the two chaptersof his book
thatdeal mostexplicitlywiththe artof thepresent.I cannotdo justiceto

Gettingthe WarholWe Deserve 55

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 all of Foster'sargumentshere,but I wantto raise some questionsabout
certainof his admonitionsabout approachesto the "other."
In "The Return of the Real," aftertracinga genealogyin certain
worksby Warholand superrealism, and an excursuson Cindy Sherman,
Fosteris concernedwithwhathas recentlybeen termedabjectart,where,
accordingto his argument,the Real returnsas trauma. His examples
includeRobertGober,Kiki Smith,Mike Kelley,Paul McCarthy,Nayland
Blake,and Zoe Leonard, amongothers.Fostercautionsagainsttwo dan-
gersin thiswork;bothrepresent whathe callsan "envyof abjection":first,
"to identifywiththeabject,to approachit somehow,"and second,"to rep-
resentthe conditionof abjectionin orderto provokeits operation-to
catch abjectionin the act, to make it reflexive,even repellentin its own
right.Yet thismimesismay also reconfirm a givenabjection"(RR, 157).
These dangersare symmetrical in Foster'sargumentwiththose of
ethnographic art,wherethevery"reflexivity ... neededto protectagainst
an overidentification
withthe other(throughcommitment, self-othering,
and so forth) . . . may compromise this otherness" (RR, 203). Foster's
examples here include Ren6e Green, Mary Kelly,Lothar Baumgarten,
Fred Wilson,JimmieDurham, and Edgar Heap of Birds. In this case,
Fostergrantstheartista moreviableposition:whathe calls a "parallactic"
position,wherethework"attemptsto frametheframeras he or she frames
the other"(RR, 203). But thishas its dangerstoo, since "reflexivity can
lead to a hermeticism, even a narcissism,in whichthe otheris obscured,
the selfpronounced"(RR, 203). The trap'ofartand theorythattakeup
the questionof difference, is that"if theinvokedartistis notper-
finally,
ceived as sociallyand/orculturally other,he or she has but limitedaccess
to transformative and
alterity, thatif he or she is perceivedas other,he or
she has automaticaccess to it" (RR, 173). And thiscauses a "restrictionof
our politicalimaginaryto two camps,theabjectorsand the abjected,and
the assumptionthatin ordernot to be countedamong sexistsand racists
one mustbecome thephobic objectof such subjects"(RR, 166).
Fosterhimselfprovidesthe means by whichthis oppositioncan be
overcome,his notionof parallax,in whichtheframeris framed,in which
the subject of the discourse reckonswithhis or her own positionality,
partiality, interests,and stakes.But perhapsbecause this
identifications,
is
idea hardly his own, because it is in fact centralto workin cultural
studies-think,forexample,of Morris'scall for"some recognitionof the
double play of transference"-Fosterdoes not take this course. His
requirement thatparallaxcontribute to thewaywe rethink thequestionof
"criticaldistance" does not extend to his own discourse,which leaves
him onlywithhis model of deferredaction.Here, Fosteris concernedto
maintaina balance betweenwhathe calls "a disciplinary criterionof qual-
ity,judged in relationto artisticstandardsof the past," as against"an

56 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
avant-gardevalue of interest,provokedthrougha testingof culturallimits Mydefenseof
in thepresent"(RR, xi). This definesthegenealogicalprojectof Foster's
book. cultural
studies
A criticaldistance that attemptsonly to account for the deferred
actionof avant-gardepracticesin thepresentofferslittle,however,in the againstits
wayof thecritiqueof intellectual vanguardism, wherethecriticas univer-
detractors
cannot
sal subjectremainsunspecified,outside,above thefray,imperiouslyadju-
dicating,pointingout all thedangersalongtheway.In theintroduction to
be made by
the Octoberissue on visualculture,theeditorswrite,"Clustersofthepro-
fessoriatnow proclaimthemselvesan avant-garde,one located,however,
makingany
withintheacademy."20 Krauss makesit clearin heressaywho is meantby
these clusters:"Cultural Studies has alwaysproclaimeditselfas revolu- particular
tionary,the avant-gardeoperatingwithinthe academy."21
This seems to me seriouslyto misrepresent claimsmade in the name definitional
state-
of culturalstudies.One of the centraltenetsof culturalstudieshas been
the contestationof the vanguardrole of the intellectualin relationto the mentsabout the
cultureand culturalconstituencieshe or she studies.But my defenseof
culturalstudiesagainstits detractorscannotbe made by makinganypar- field.Rather,
ticulardefinitionalstatementsabout the field.Rather,I wantto say thatif
I want to saythat
culturalstudiesis significantto me, it is because it definesitselfas politi-
byrecognizingthatthepoliticalis thespace of contestation
cal specifically ifcultural
studies
itself.Needless to say,thisthwartsthe adoptionof anyparticularpolitics
in advance. issignificant
to
Perhapsthiscan best be understoodby notingthatculturalstudiesis
obsessed,thatis, withitsgenealogy.In "Cultural
obsessivelyself-reflexive, me, itis because
Studies and Its TheoreticalLegacies," StuartHall, who has publisheda
numberof genealogiesoftheproject,makesthisstatement about cultural itdefinesitself
studies:"It can't be just any old thingwhichchooses to marchunder a
particular banner. . . . There is something at stake in cultural studies."22 as political
We can argue about whatculturalstudiesis and whatis at stakein it, as
Cary Nelson does ratherprescriptively in his "AlwaysAlreadyCultural specifically
by
Studies,"23but thatcannotpreventsomeoneelse frommakinga different that
recognizing
argument.What thismeans is thatculturalstudiesis genealogicalin the
sense thatFoucaultderivesfromNietzsche.Culturalstudiesis thehistory isthe
the political
of its own disputed self-definitions,which remainundecided. Interest-
ingly,StuartHall begins his essay on the theoreticallegacies of cultural space of
studieswiththefollowingstatement: "Autobiography is usuallythoughtof
as seizingthe authorityof authenticity.But in ordernot to be authorita- contestation
itself.
tive,I've got to speak autobiographically.''24
By thisHall means thathis
genealogyof culturalstudieswillnecessarilybe a situated,interested, and
partialone.
If, as Foster claims, "the shiftfromart historyto visual cultureis
markedbya shiftin principlesof coherence-froma historyof style,or an

Gettingthe WarholWe Deserve 57

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 analysis of form,to a genealogyof thesubject" (AWM, 103), the real signif-
icance of this move is that this subject-the subject constructed in repre-
sentation, the viewing subject, the popular audience, the fan, indeed the
other-cannot be theorized from a position outside that genealogy. The
subject of the discourse, like its object, cannot be exempt from the ques-
tions of historicityand relationality(of self and other) that are raised by
the theory of subjectivity itself. This does not-in fact cannot-entail
assuming a coherent subject position in advance. Rather it means recog-
nizing the contingency,the instabilityof one's own position, the necessar-
ily situated place fromwhich one speaks, the fragmentationand partiality
of one's vision. And more, it means recognizing how one's position is
constituted, through what exclusions it is secured. For genealogical criti-
cism indeed entails the parallax Foster requires of "ethnographic art,"
interrogatingthe subject as it interrogatesthe object.
In the opening section of the title essay of The Return of the Real,
Foster attempts to reconcile two apparently opposed readings of Andy
Warhol's work,which he designates the "simulacral" and the "referential."
His "third way" he calls "traumatic realism," which is effectedby Warhol
throughrepetition,a "multiplicity[that]makes forthe paradox not only of
images that are both affectiveand affectless,but also of viewers that are
neitherintegrated . . . nor dissolved" (RR, 136).
I find Foster's analysis interesting and generally persuasive, but in
reading it I was struckby a particular statementFoster makes in his char-
acterization of the referentialview of Warhol:

The referentialview of Warholianpop is advanced by criticsand historians

who tie the workto different themes:the worldsof fashion,celebrity,gay
culture,the Warhol Factory,and so on. Its most intelligent
versionis pre-
sentedby Thomas Crow,who ... disputesthe simulacralaccountofWarhol
thatthe images are indiscriminate and the artistimpassive.Underneaththe
glamorous surface of commodity fetishesand media starsCrow finds"the
of and
reality suffering death"; the tragediesof Marilyn,Liz, and Jackiein
particularare said to prompt"straightforward expressionsof feeling."Here
Crow findsnot onlya referential objectforWarhol but an empatheticsubject
in Warhol,and herehe locatesthe criticality ofWarhol. (RR, 129-30)

Citing Crow's version of the referentialargument about Warhol makes

possible what follows in Foster's discussion of traumatic realism, since
Foster focuses on the same group of Warhol paintings as does Crow: the
"Death in America" pictures. Is it this shared focus, then, that makes
Crow's the "most intelligent" version of the referentialWarhol? If not,
what does make Crow's version the "most intelligent"?Foster doesn't say.
What he does say is that Crow has an agenda, and that he-Foster-does
not share it:

58 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CrowpushesWarholbeyondhumanist sentiment to politicalengagement.
"He wasattractedto theopensoresinAmerican life,"Crowwrites
political
ina readingoftheelectric
chairimagesas agitpropagainstthedeathpenalty
andoftherace-riotimagesas a testimonial
forcivilrights.
"Farfroma pure
playofthesignifier fromreference,"
liberated Warholbelongstothepopular
American of"truth
tradition telling."

"This readingofWarholas empathetic, evenengage,"Fosterasserts,"is a

projection"(RR, 130).25
Now, if this "most intelligent version"of the referential Warholis a
"projection"-the very epithetFoster applies to visual culture-what
would Fostersay of the others,thosethatare interested, forexample,in
tying Warhol's work to gay culture?Such a version of Warhol-a version
thatmakesno effort to conceal thedesirethatpropelsall interpretation-
appears in a varietyof readingsin thebook Pop Out: QueerWarhol.26
Perhapsmoreinstructive in thiscontextis an articlethatprecededthe
publication of Pop Out, Richard Meyer's "Warhol's Clones"-more
instructivebecause Meyer'sessay,likeFoster's,attemptsto reconcilethe
simulacralwiththereferential viewsofWarholby examiningtheeffectsof
Warhol'suse of repetition, thoughto verydifferent ends. WhereFosteris
interestedin the functionof repetitionto screenthe real,understoodas
traumatic,Meyerargues thatthe functionof repetitionis to conjurethe
sex appeal of the same, or whatLeo Bersaniin anothercontextcalls the
homonessofhomosexuality. Nevertheless,bothFoster'sand Meyer'sargu-
mentshingeon theintrusionof difference withinrepetition. Fosterrefers,
for example,to what he calls "pops, such as a slippingof registeror a
washingof color" (RR, 134), whileMeyerwritesof a "model of duplica-
tion that can accommodate difference,whether generated through
idiosyncraciesof silkscreenregistration,variegationsof color, or the
unpredictability of compositionalformat."27Referringto the ways in
whichWarhol's"pops" produceboth distanceand nearnessin the disas-
terpictures,Fosternotesparenthetically, "Sometimesthe coloringof the
imageshas thisstrangedouble effectas well" (RR, 136). Withregardto a
differentseriesof works,Meyer writes,"Warholapplies garishcolors to
[Elvis] Presley's otherwisemanly outfitsuch that his cowboy shirt
becomes a scarletblouse, his jeans lavenderhot pants,his lips lusciously
paintedpink,his face pancakewhite.The publicitystill'sintendedidenti-
ficationof Elvis as a gunslingerhas been shiftedintothe royalregisterof
the drag queen."28
When I pose the question,What makes Crow's versionof the refer-
entialWarholthe most intelligent forFoster?I am less interestedin an
answerthanin suggestingthat,in so summarilyelidingany otherversion
of the"referential" Warhol,Fosterprotectshimselffrommakingthesame
claimabout theseversionsas he does about Crow's-that theyare projec-

Gettingthe WarholWe Deserve 59

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 tions. What would it mean to say, forexample, that Richard Meyer's inter-
est in the sex appeal of the same, the homoness of repetition,the relation-
ship of Warhol's technique to the "cloning" of gay men-what would it
mean to say that this interestis a projection? Foster mightwell protestthat
he says that both views of Warhol-the simulacral and the referential-are
projections and that neither is precisely wrong. "Both camps make the
Warhol they need, or get the Warhol they deserve; no doubt we all do," he
writes (RR, 130).
Indeed. But if this is the case, then surelyit would be useful to explain
why we think we need or deserve the particular Warhol we are making.
This is what it would mean for criticism to be self-reflexive,to recognize
the double play of transference,to interrogatethe subject as it interrogates
the object. Rather than leading to a simple relativismof competing claims,
Foster's insight might lead instead to a recognition that there are signifi-
cant political stakes in interpretation,that dominant forms of interpreta-
tion generallywork to foreclose the possibilityof alternatives.Nearly thirty
years of silence about Warhol's sexuality is "much more than a simple
absence," as the editors of Pop Out write. This silence "has played an
active role in creating the 'commonsense' attitudes toward Warhol."29
When Foster argues that a shiftfrom art historyto visual culture-or
what I insist on calling cultural studies-entails a loss of history,what he
seems really to mean is the loss of art history,the historicityof artistic
forms as they are understood through the deferred action of avant-garde
practices in the present. But far from abandoning history,cultural studies
works to supplant this reified art history with other histories, histories
written,for example, in relation to "the Warhol we need and the Warhol
we deserve." What is at stake is not historyper se, which is a fictionin any
case, but what history,whose history,historyto what purpose.
Richard Meyer begins "Warhol's Clones" with an analysis of the cen-
sorship of Warhol's commission for the 1964 New York World's Fair, the
New York State Pavilion mural ThirteenMost WantedMen. He writes of
these silkscreened mug shots:

Althoughthe subversivestatusof the World'sFair muralhas been noted in

thescholarlyliteratureon Warhol'searlywork,whathas been largelyignored
is the strongestaspect of thatsubversiveness:the circuitryset up between
the image of the outlawand Warhol'soutlaweddesireforthatimage . .. and
forthesemen. To put it anotherway, Thirteen Most WantedMen crosswires
thecodes of criminality,looking,and homoeroticdesire.The gritty appeal of
the mug shotsand the pleasuresof repetitionembeddedwithinthe mural's
composition(the formatof the grid,the deploymentof men inside it, the
exchange of gazes passing among those men) figurethe forceof Warhol's
homoeroticvision.In additionthetitleof themural-initiallyknownas Thir-
teenMost WantedMen, but often referredto, more simply,as the Most

60 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WantedMen-turns on a double entendre:it is not onlythatthese men are
wanted by the FBI, but that the very act of "wantingmen" constitutesa
formof criminalityifthewanteris also male, if,say,the wanteris Warhol.30

Meyer's argument about Warhol's Most WantedMen formspart of a larger

historical project examining key episodes of the censorship of homoerotic
images in the United States.31The political urgency of the project derives
from one such recent episode, which is the decisive event in the ongoing
right-wingattack on federal support for the arts: the censorship of The
PerfectMoment, the retrospective exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe's
photographs. The urgency is twofold: at issue is the slander of sexual
minorityexpression as a virtuallyguaranteed means of building political
consensus against public arts funding in the United States, and, as a
result, the continuing viabilityof all alternative,critical cultural practices
and the institutionsthat support them.
Although the cultural and political stakes of Meyer's Warhol discus-
sion are thus clear, articulated as they are with current concerns (is this
not also a way of thinkingabout nachtriiglichkeit?), there is a wider history,
relevant to other current debates that Meyer's essay does not take up, but
which mighthelp illustratewhat a cultural studies perspective can bring to
the analysis of contemporary art.
If we accept Meyer's argument that the censorship of Warhol's Most
WantedMen was at least in part occasioned by the mural's coded homo-
eroticism, we can place that censorship in the context of a wider crack-
down on queer life in New York in preparation for the World's Fair. As
was the case prior to the World's Fair of 1939, New York authorities
stepped up theirharassment of public gay establishments and activitiesin
the period leading up to the 1964 fair.A New YorkTimesfeaturearticle of
December 1963, "Growth of Overt Homosexuality in City Provokes Wide
Concern," provides officialperiod background and flavor:

The city'smost sensitiveopen secret-the presenceof whatis probablythe

greatesthomosexualpopulationin theworldand the increasingopennessof
its manifestations-hasbecome the subjectof growingconcern....
The overthomosexual-and thosewho are identifiable probablyrepre-
sent no more than halfof the total-has become such an obtrusivepart of
the New York scene thatthe phenomenonneeds public discussion,in the
opinion of a numberof legal and medical experts.
Some experts believe the numbers of homosexuals in the city are
increasingrapidly.Others contend that, as public attitudeshave become
more tolerant,the homosexuals have tended to be more overt,less con-
cernedwithconcealingtheirdeviantconduct.
They have theirfavoredclothingsupplierswho specialize in the right

Gettingthe WarholWe Deserve 61

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 slacks,short-cutcoats and fastidiousfurnishings
favoredby many,but by no
means all, male homosexuals.There is a homosexualjargon,once intelligible
onlyto the initiate,but now partof New Yorkslang...
Invertsare to be foundin everyconceivableline of work,fromtruck
drivingto coupon clipping.But theyare mostconcentrated-ormostnotice-
able-in thefieldsof the creativeand performing artsand industriesserving
women'sbeautyand fashionneeds.32

"Creative and performingarts and industriesserving women's beauty and

fashion needs"-sounds prettymuch like a description of Warhol's occu-
pations, doesn't it?
Nineteen sixty-fouralso saw other famous incidents of crackdowns on
queer expression. J. Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum write in their
book MidnightMovies:

Meanwhile, New York City was assiduously cleaning up its act for the
upcoming 1964 World's Fair. Village coffeehousesand off-off-Broadway
theaterswere shuttered;Times Square tango palaces and taxi dance halls
wereclosed;LennyBruce was bustedforobscenityat theCaf&A-Go-Go...
On February 17, 1964, both the GramercyArts and the Pocket Theater,
whichhad been showingavant-gardefilmssince December,wereshutdown
by the police. [Jonas]Mekas moved his "Film-Makers'Showcase" down-
townto the BoweryTheater on St. Mark's Place in the East Village.Then,
all hell brokeloose. On Monday, March 3, two detectivesfromthe district
attorney'sofficebrokeup a screeningof [JackSmith's]FlamingCreatures,
S. . impoundingthe film,some [ofJackSmith's]NormalLove rushes,and
Warhol's Normal Love "newsreel,"along with the theater'sprojectorand
screen.Mekas, projectionistKen Jacobs,and two otherswerearrested.Ten
days later,Mekas was arrestedagain, this time for showingJean Genet's
1950 short,Un Chant d'Amour. .. as a benefitforthe FlamingCreatures
defensefund.
The same day in Los Angeles,Mike Getz was foundguiltyof having
"exhibitedan obscene film,"[KennethAnger's]ScorpioRising,March 7 at
the Cinema Theater. ...
During the springof 1964, the undergroundnearlywentunder.33

Richard Meyer was able to make a strongercase for the homoerotic

content of ThirteenMost WantedMen by suggesting the mural's relation-
ship to a filmWarhol made the followingyear, The ThirteenMost Beauti-
ful Boys, and in so doing he invokes an important link between Warhol's
paintings and his more overtly queer cinema that is missing from many
accounts of Warhol's work.34Greater depth and texturecould be added to
Meyer's comparison with attention to the queer milieu in which Warhol
developed his interest in filmmaking. In the summer of 1963, Warhol
accompanied Jack Smith to Connecticut for the making of Smith's Normal

62 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Love. While there, Warhol shot his "documentary" Jack Smith Filming
Normal Love-seized by the police during the bust at the Bowery The-
ater-which is, in Warhol's words, "the second thingI ever shot with a 16-
mm camera,"35 and dates from the same year as the firstWarhol silent
films,Sleep, Kiss, and Haircut.
My own interest in this early 1960s queer filmmakingmilieu is not
merely for the lightit sheds on Warhol's art, however. Rather, my interest
is shaped by a broader cultural studies project. I take my cue for such a
project from an essay by Marc Siegel titled "Documentary that Dare/Not
Speak Its Name: Jack Smith's Flaming Creatures." Commenting on the
public and juridical panics occasioned by Flaming Creatures,which cul-
minated in a screening organized by Senator Strom Thurmond for mem-
bers of Congress as part of a campaign to block Abe Fortas's appointment
as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Fortas had voted to overturn a
lower court obscenity ruling against the film;one senator's response to the
screening was quoted by Time magazine: "That movie was so sick I
couldn't even get aroused"36), Siegel writes,

People perceivedundergroundfilmsnot onlyas dirty,but also as documents

of a perversesubculture.. . . Assertionsabout the documentarynatureof
the filmsirritatedMekas and other criticswho valued undergroundfilm
solelyforits aestheticinnovation,not forits role in documentingparticular
(sexual) subcultures.Yet by legitimatingundergroundfilmssolely on aes-
theticterms,these criticsavoided a considerationof how aestheticinnova-
tion can be integrally
relatedto self-representation.WhileFlamingCreatures
mayhave been "impure,"too investedin cinematicfantasyto be acceptedas
a cinema verite documentary,it also expressed a "new kind of cinema
truth,"one thatsaw in artifice,in performancethe possibilityforcreatinga
morefabulous,morelivablereality.
Indeed, forpresent-dayqueers attempting to reconstructour histories,
the aestheticvalue of a filmlikeFlamingCreaturescannotbe so easilysepa-
rated fromits role as documentation.Yet much gay historiographyhas
tended to ignorethe importanceof queer culturalexpressionsas a kind of
documentation,emphasizinginsteadthe organizationsand institutions that
have been constructedaroundthe articulationof a sexual identity.37

By bridging the divide between a historyof avant-garde aesthetic innova-

tion and a historyof gay identitypolitics, Siegel seeks to alter our view of
both. The importance of Flaming Creatures's orgy of performativepan-
sexuality, he argues, is its "strategic disruption of gender and sexual
norms," its "attempt at expressing the possibilities of an eroticism that is
always beyond the reach of representation." "For [Smith's] quest, like
ours, is not solely to document that we really do and did live like that,but
also to proliferatequeer challenges to the normalization of erotic life."38

Gettingthe WarholWe Deserve 63

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Such challengesdefinea wide rangeof expressionin New Yorkdur-
ing the 1960s, fromthefilmsof Smith,Warhol,and Anger,and thoseof
GregoryMarkopolis,theKuchar brothers,Ken Jacobs,and Ron Rice to,
somewhatlater,JohnVacarro's Theater of the Ridiculous and Charles
Ludlum'sRidiculousTheatricalCompany.A wholemotleycrewof artists,
actors,writers,and dragqueens and othersexual deviantsworkedon one
another'sprojects and generallyfound mutual inspirationin a shared
counterculturalmilieu. And they inhabitedand helped make a world
beyondtheiraestheticendeavors,a worldthatdevisedinnumerablemeans
of resistingthe forcesof conformity and repressionwithradicalhilarity,
perversepleasure,defiantsolidarity-a trulyqueer world.39A historyof
sexual subculturesthat failsto include the contributionsof this milieu
willbe seriouslyimpoverished,and apt to perpetuatethe oversimplified,
conventionalpictureof sexualminorities leadingshadowy,isolated,abject
livesuntilthe Stonewallriotsof 1969 broughtforthan era of greatertol-
erance.Withoutknowledgeof theinsurgentdisruptiveforceexpressedin
earlyqueer alternative cultures,we are leftwitha bland narrativeof pro-
gressivenormalization, thenarrativethatdominates-and poisons-sexual
politicsin the United Statestoday.
In therecentretrospective exhibitionofJackSmith'sworkat P.S. 1 in
New York,one of a numberof Smith'scasuallyscrawlednoteson display
leapt straightinto the present:"Normalcy,"it said, "is the evil side of
homosexuality."40 What Smithwrotethen-wheneveritwas-could never
have been morepertinentthanit is rightnow,withnormalization thebat-
tlegroundof queer politicalstruggle.That is one reasonwhyan art such
as Smith's-and Warhol's-matters,why I want to make of it the art I
need and theartI deserve-not because it reflectsor refersto a historical
gay identityand thusservesto confirmmyown now,but because it dis-
dains and defiesthecoherenceand stabilityof all sexual identity.
That to
me is themeaningof queer,and it is a meaningwe need now,in all itshis-
toricalrichness,to counterboththenormalization of sexualityand theart
of avant-gardegenealogy.Wherewillit come from,if
historicalreification
not fromculturalstudies?

Notes

1. RobertRosenblum,"Warholas ArtHistory,"
in AndyWarhol:
A Retro-
ed. KynastonMcShine(New York:Museumof ModernArt,1989),
spective,
25-37.
2. GaryGarrels, to TheWork
introduction ed. GaryGarrels
ofAndyWarhol,
(Seattle:Bay,1989),x-xi.
3. "Discussion," in Garrels,The WorkofAndyWarhol,124.
4. SimonWatney,"The WarholEffect,"in Garrels,The WorkofAndy
Warhol,118.

64 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 5. Ibid., 122.
6. Qtd. in ScottHeller,"Visual Images Replace Text as Focal Pointof Many
Scholars," ChronicleofHigherEducation,19 July1996, A8.
7. "Visual CultureQuestionnaire,"October77 (summer1996): 25-70.
8. Qtd. in Scott Heller,"What Are They Doing to Art History?"ArtNews
96 (January1997): 105.
9. RosalindKrauss, "Welcometo the CulturalRevolution,"October77 (sum-
mer 1996): 96.
10. Hal Foster, "The Archive withoutMuseums," October77 (summer
1996), 104. Hereaftercitedin thetextas AWM.
11. "Visual CultureQuestionnaire,"35.
12. "Visual CultureQuestionnaire,"25.
13. Krauss, "CulturalRevolution,"90-91.
14. Diana Fuss, Identification
Papers(New York:Routledge,1995), 6. Fuss is
summarizingthe insightsofJudithButler'swork.
15. Krauss, "CulturalRevolution,"90.
16. Meaghan Morris, "Banalityin Cultural Studies," in WhatIs Cultural
Studies?A Reader,ed. JohnStorey(London: Arnold,1996), 156-57.
17. Ibid., 156.
18. Ibid., 158.
19. Hal Foster, TheReturnoftheReal (Cambridge:MIT Press, 1996), 182.
Hereaftercitedin thetextas RR.
20. Rosalind Krauss and Hal Foster,"Introduction,"October77 (summer
1996): 4.
21. Krauss, "CulturalRevolution,"96.
22. StuartHall, "CulturalStudies and Its TheoreticalLegacies," in Cultural
Studies,ed. Lawrence Grossberg,Cary Nelson, and Paula Treichler(New York:
Routledge,1992), 278.
23. Cary Nelson, "AlwaysAlreadyCulturalStudies:Academic Conferences
and a Manifesto,"in Storey,WhatIs CulturalStudies?,273-86.
24. Hall, "CulturalStudies,"277.
25. For a recentcritiqueof Crow's argument,togetherwithotherexamples
of an "insistenceon certaintheoreticalconstructsin the face of artisticphenom-
ena" thatclearlybelie those constructs,see Paul Mattick,"The AndyWarholof
Philosophyand the Philosophyof Andy Warhol,"CriticalInquiry24 (summer
1998): 965-87.
26. Jennifer Doyle,JonathanFlatley,and JoseEstebanMufioz,eds., Pop Out:
Queer Warhol(Durham, N.C.: Duke UniversityPress, 1996). Foster was per-
haps unable to assess thegenuinevalue of thisbook, since it was publishedin the
same year as his own; Pop Out collectsthe papers of a highlypublicizedconfer-
ence, "Re-Reading Warhol: The Politics of Pop," held at Duke Universityin
1993. It is particularlyinterestingto compare Foster's longer version of the
Warholportionof his chapter["The ReturnoftheReal,"] titled"Death in Amer-
ica" (in WhoIs AndyWarhol?, ed. Colin McCabe [London: BritishFilm Institute,
1997], 117-30) withJonathanFlatley's"WarholGives Good Face: Publicityand
the Politicsof Prosopopoeia" in Pop Out. Both essays relyon Michael Warner's
essay "The Mass Public and the Mass Subject" (in The PhantomPublicSphere,
ed. Bruce Robbins [Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress, 1993], 234-56),
but whereasFosterneutralizesthe radicaldemocraticpoliticsof Warner'simpor-
tant essay, Flatley draws on its queer possibilitiesfor a brilliantreading of
Warhol'swork.

Gettingthe WarholWe Deserve 65

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 27. RichardMeyer,"Warhol'sClones," in Negotiating Lesbianand Gay Sub-
jects,ed. Monica Dorenkampand RichardHenke (New York:Routledge,1995),
105-06.
28. Ibid., 113.
29. Doyle, Flatley,and Mufioz,Pop Out, 2.
30. Meyer,"Warhol'sClones," 97-98.
31. RichardMeyer, OutlawRepresentation: Censorshipand Homosexuality in
AmericanArt,1934-1994, forthcoming fromOxfordUniversityPress.
32. Qtd. in Martin Duberman, About Time:Exploringthe Gay Past (New
York:Gay Presses of New York,1986), 203-06.
33. J. Hoberman and JonathanRosenbaum, MidnightMovies (New York:
Da Capo, 1983), 59-60.
34. This is one benefitof the shiftFoster characterizesas "from art to
visual"; visual studiesthusexposes, once again,thelimitations of modernistcrit-
icism'smedium-specificity.
35. Andy Warhol and Pat Hackett,POPism: The Warhol'60s (New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1980), 32. Warhol'sfilmhas neverbeen retrieved
since its confiscationby the police.
36. See J.Hoberman,"The Big Heat: Makingand UnmakingFlamingCrea-
tures,"in FlamingCreature:JackSmith,His AmazingLifeand Times,ed. Edward
Leffingwell, Carole Kismaric,and Marvin Heiferman(New York:The Institute
forContemporaryArt,1997), 164-65.
37. Marc Siegel,"DocumentarythatDare/NotSpeak Its Name: JackSmith's
FlamingCreatures," in BetweentheSheets,in theStreets:Queer,Lesbian,Gay Docu-
mentary,ed. Chris Holmlund and CynthiaFuchs (Minneapolis: Universityof
MinnesotaPress, 1997), 92.
38. Ibid., 104-05.
39. Michael Moon has writtenwonderfully of many of the figuresin this
queer worldin A Small Boy and Others:Imitationand Initiationin AmericanCul-
turefromHenryJamestoAndy Warhol(Durham, N.C.: Duke UniversityPress,
1998).
40. Also includedin J.Hobermanand EdwardLeffingwell, eds., WaitforMe
at theBottomofthePool: The Writings ofJackSmith(New York:High Risk, 1997)
in the section"Statements,'Ravings,'and Epigrams,"151.

66 Douglas Crimp

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:27:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions