| 01:00:17 17.57 |
WNET graphic slate
|
| 01:01:09 69.6 |
Blank
|
| 01:01:35 95.58 |
Title Slate: The Eleventh Hour #134 - Andy Warhol - Rec: 2/22/89
|
| 01:01:54 114.64 |
Blank
|
| 01:02:04 124.34 |
Funding for the show announced and overlay The Eleventh Hour graphic.
|
| 01:02:15 135.63 |
The Eleventh Hour graphic and show opener
|
| 01:02:29 149.47 |
Close up on oversized samples of commercial consumer products - two Coke bottles, box of Brillo and can of Campbell's Tomato Soup.
|
| 01:02:32 152.15 |
Host Robert Lipsyte at desk slides oversized box of Brillo to the side revealing himself! He welcomes viewers to the show and introduces himself.
|
| 01:02:45 165.41 |
Host Lipsyte discusses topic of today's topic, the art, subculture, and influence of the artist, Andy Warhol and cuts away to samples of Warhol's work.
|
| 01:03:07 187.62 |
Montage of the iconic works of Andy Warhol to the music of David Bowie's song "Andy Warhol", silk screens of Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Kennedy, Truman Capote, Campbell Soup cans, Coca Cola, and self portraits
|
| 01:03:22 202.3 |
Clip of video where Andy Warhol's head falls off and drops to the floor
|
| 01:03:26 206.1 |
Pan in to close up on Warhol's face.
|
| 01:03:38 218.78 |
B&W clip of Warhol in his studio, most likely The Factory, at work painting on a canvass that is laid out on the floor - he narrates about how he would like to disappear or turn into dust or sand.
|
| 01:03:48 228.09 |
Iconic Warhol's Elizabeth Taylor framed silk screen
|
| 01:03:52 232.65 |
Art critic, Donald Kuspit speaking with unknown unseen interviewer discusses how Warhol's art shocked the art public and the popular public.
|
| 01:03:59 239.54 |
Pan giant sized Brillo and Campbells Soup can boxes lined up on a table
|
| 01:04:04 244.16 |
Colorful iconic Warhol Pepsi Cola "Say Pepsi Please" painting
|
| 01:04:07 247.48 |
Pan down on one of Warhol's iconic Coca Cola bottles painting -dozens of identical Coca Cola bottles lined up.
|
| 01:04:10 250.45 |
Vito Giallo, Antique Dealer speaking with unseen, unknown interviewer about Warhol's Campbell soup can paintings, how canned soup was an everyday part of his diet and how Warhol made an icon out of a mundane item.
|
| 01:04:15 255.51 |
Pan of the series of Warhol's original Campbell's Soup cans.
|
| 01:04:30 270.09 |
Paige Powell, Advertising Director from Andy Warhol's "Interview Magazine" speaking with unseen unknown interviewer about Andy's art
|
| 01:04:45 285.44 |
Montage of Warhol's famous silk screens of celebrities, Liza Minelli, Truman Capote, Marilyn Monroe, to David Bowie's song, Fame.
|
| 01:04:50 290.24 |
Andy's signed painting "In the Future Everybody Will Be Famous for Fifteen Minutes.
|
| 01:04:54 294.28 |
Montage of the covers of Andy Warhol's Interview Magazine - Stevie Wonder, Michelle Pfeiffer, Lisa Bonet, Dolly Parton, Cindy Lauper
|
| 01:04:58 298.77 |
Back with Powell standing amidst male mannequins speaking with unseen interviewer. States that Warhol loved "ads" and wanted to make the magazine all ads!
|
| 01:05:19 319.81 |
Cut back to art critic Donald Kuspit talking with unseen interviewer about living in a society of mass production Warhol was inspired to have images of mass production.
|
| 01:05:25 325.82 |
A montage of Warhol's works where he used repetition, seriality, or reproduction of the images in his works ie, Handle with Care Glass signs, dollar bills, multiple lips, Coca Cola bottles
|
| 01:05:35 335.44 |
close up on a collection of clay pipes circa 1890 in a box -? holding the box stating how Warhol loved "multiples".
|
| 01:05:52 352.7 |
Richard Sennett from New York University speaking with unseen unknown interviewer about the Warhol portraits of famous mouths
|
| 01:05:59 359.66 |
pan across multiples of the Marilyn Monroe, Mao Tse Tung silk screens.
|
| 01:06:08 368.63 |
Wide shot of the Marilyn Monroe multiples silk screen hanging on wall
|
| 01:06:14 374.01 |
Single Marilyn Monroe Warhol circa 1967
|
| 01:06:38 398.68 |
Marilyn Monroe hanging on wall above several Heinz cartons
|
| 01:06:40 400.45 |
pan in to close up of Monroe
|
| 01:06:45 405.08 |
Warhol's Elvis Presley in triple repeat
|
| 01:06:47 407.75 |
Duplicate Mona Lisa painting
|
| 01:06:54 414.32 |
Artist Jeff Koons sitting amidst large cartoon characters talking with unseen unknown interviewer about the pornography in Warhol's art.
|
| 01:07:00 420.47 |
Montage of examples of the tinting method Warhol used in many of his paintings that appeared pornographic - a woman's naked torso
|
| 01:07:07 427.65 |
close up on Koons lips moving as he speaks about Warhol's painting of disembodied floating lips.
|
| 01:07:11 431.89 |
four way split screen of Koons' mouth, lips moving as he speaks.
|
| 01:07:23 443.35 |
Close up on Warhol's famous painting of Marilyn Monroe's repeated lips, circa 1962
|
| 01:07:35 455.54 |
montage of close ups on various Warhol paintings focusing on lips and eyes of Marilyn Monroe and Jackie Kennedy to Lou Reed's tune, "Take a Walk on the Wild Side"
|
| 01:07:38 458.43 |
Kuspit talking with unseen interviewer about Warhol's obsession with death and disaster.
|
| 01:07:43 463.21 |
Pan up and down Warhol's famous painting "Silver Car Crash" 1963
|
| 01:07:54 474.31 |
Wide shot Warhol's 1976 "Skulls" painting. Close up on single white skull painting.
|
| 01:08:05 485.47 |
Antique Dealer Vito Giallo talks about Warhol as a "saint"
|
| 01:08:18 498.2 |
Richard Sennett talking about Warhol dealing with the public as a victimizer - American's have a strong sense of irony that everything is a phony or fake. Warhol capitalized on this.
|
| 01:08:19 499.46 |
As Sennet narrates images of Warhol's works are seen, Campbell's Soup Can, multiple Brillo boxes, Coca Cola painting, Campbell's soup cans painting
|
| 01:09:01 541.77 |
Back to the Eleventh Hour studio with big Brillo boxes and large Coca Cola bottles on shelves, Host Lipsyte introduces his first guest.
|
| 01:09:07 547.02 |
INSERT INTERVIEW:
Robert Lipsyte: Joining me now is Ivan Karp, owner of the Ok Harris Art Gallery. I think you turned on to Andy very early. What was it? What did you see? Ivan Karp: I went to his studio in 1961. Shortly after he had visited the Castelli gallery, and billboard, a small drawing of Jasper Johns at a wonderfully reasonable price. And he had asked me during that interval, if there was anything else in the gallery that looks rather dramatic or promising, and we had one work that by Roy Lichtenstein who just recently appeared also, and I showed him that work and he seemed to be rather disconcerted at confronting it. He said, 'Well, I'm doing work very much like that. And would you come to my studio?' And uh following my regular practice of visiting artist studios, I went to his studio a couple of days later and went into this rather seemingly Victorian setting on Lexington Avenue. And they're in one room, which, of course, have been beautifully ornamented, was a body of paintings, you know, two sets of paintings. They're very vivid depictions of common objects much as what you see around here, you know, and they were both two different kinds, and one was full of gesturing and drip marks and active surfaces. The other was very stark. And having already seen the works of Lichtenstein, I was an authority on this type of art, you know. And I remember talking with Warhol about the work then, my response to it was a sense of refreshment essentially, that is that the prevailing mood of the arts was very explicit, abstract painting. And it was very much about the self and personal feelings and personal anguish and alienation and stress. And these words, were all about the world outside of the self. And that said, seeing them was kind of a bright light in a way, you know. And I said, there were two portions of work. One was full of expressive gesturing the other was very stark, and Warhol said to me in his peculiar way, 'which, which do you like?' you know, and I was already as I say, an authority on the style. And I said, 'you know, if you're going to do this kind of imagery, you don't need to drip or reveal how terribly sensitive you are. You can just do the image straight on.' He said, 'but won't they be upset if I don't show that I'm really very sensitive?' I said, 'no! it's not necessary.' I was an expert in the field and he said, 'I would much rather do just the images straight on' and he said, I said, 'let's do that,' you know. So I came back to visit on my regular occasion after that, and I brought people to look at his work and other dealers and Castelli came in at a certain point, and I think he was disconcerted by Andy's presence. And he is a curious, physical type. He had very rough complexion, and a shock of white hair as we know. And he was very shy about himself and he wore a theatrical mask when you visited him and offer that you put one on also during your visit, so that I brought people in we all wore theatrical masks while we sat there with Warhol. I think Castelli was disconcerted by this Robert Lipsyte: You talked through the mask? You didn't see each other's faces? Ivan Karp: Yeah, through the mask. Well you, well, we knew each other, of course. But it was a curious environment. And I think just tell you a little bit disconcerted by Warhol's presence he wasn't ready to exhibit his work. I thought four or five other colleague dealers over who also distressed not only by Andy's presence, but by the nature of his work it was so really contrary to the prevailing mood of the arts at the time. I had some collectors came in a couple of very bright there was a very small audience for advanced started America at that time, we used to count 15 or 20, so called 'enlightened people' who would acquire difficult art and I knew them. And I brought them over to Andy's studio, and several of the great paintings were sold Mrs. Tremains - Marilyn Monroe, an enormous picture, I think she bought for $650, recently sold for four or five million or more, can't remember the price. But those were very traumatic days. And Andy couldn't get a gallery until 1963. |
| 01:12:32 752.2 |
Wide shot of the studio - Coca Cola Bottle and big Brillow boxes in the foreground, Lipsyte on chair speaking with Karp on sofa.
|
| 01:12:33 753.6 |
INTERVIEW CONTINUES:
Robert Lipsyte: Let me ask you, were you? Was it the theatrics that turns you on the possibility? The kind of way this nicked with the movement of the '60s? Or did you think this really was an ad man who could become a fine artist, Ivan Karp: I never thought about, I knew nothing about Andy as a person or his life's work. I didn't know he was involved in the advertising world. He was no shock to me, I saw a lot of eccentric people in my life. You know, it was his work I was responsive to I think Andy's early work is worth between 1961 and '66, '67 will remain in the culture. You know, I don't feel that way about later work. But the early work has great striking power. And there are great icons among those pieces, you know, Robert Lipsyte: You think that's the work that will last Ivan Karp: That's what I feel about the work and I say my response, essentially, to the objects themselves, not to Andy's personality, I grew to like him, and we became very close friends for a while. Robert Lipsyte: And you separate? Ivan Karp : I separate his late work from his early work. His early work for me has great dramatic power. Still having seen it the other night, at the opening of his event at the Museum of Modern Art. I met all these old friend pictures, you know, and I'm very impressed by the early work. |
| 01:13:34 814.91 |
Host Lipsyte with Brillo box backdrop announces a break and upcoming guests.
|
| 01:13:41 821.67 |
The Eleventh Hour graphic - Warhol style "Multiples: - four graphics in four colors
|
| 01:13:45 825.29 |
Lipsyte returns and announces two more guests joining himself and Ivan Karp. Wide shot of studio, guests on sofa. Campbell's Soup can and Brillo boxes.
|
| 01:14:00 840.71 |
INTERVIEW INSERT CONTINUES:
Robert Lipsyte: Joining me are Hilton Kramer, editor of the New Criterion and a very well known critic of art and popular culture. And Victor Bockris, author of the forthcoming The Life and Death of Andy Warhol. Something that surprised me was the Warhol Retrospective is the largest show at the museum since the Picasso Show. What does that tell us? Hilton Kramer: Well, I think what it tells us is that the standards have plummeted at the Museum of Modern Art, that they have totally surrendered to the kind of public relations image that the Warhol phenomenon succeeded in foisting upon us. And by no stretch of the imagination is Warhol an artist who justifies an exhibition on this gigantic scale. Robert Lipsyte: Let me ask you beyond the museum standards, do you think Warhol has had a similar impact in art and popular culture? Hilton Kramer: Well, he's had an impact on art, but it's been all terrible. I don't know that he's had an impact on popular culture. I think it worked the other way. That is, he brought certain things from popular culture into art, and succeeded in persuading people to accept them as a form of fine art. Whereas I think in actuality is real genius, if it can be called that consisted of his understanding that the time had come, when you could persuade the art world that there was really no difference between advertising art and fine art. Robert Lipsyte : Victor, as his biographer, and a student of Warhol, you might have a different take. Victor Bockris : Well, I mean, I, I'm not an art critic. And so I don't really want to indulge in an argument, Mr. Kramer about art. But I think that I think that it's really unfortunate that people will criticize Warhol in the way Mr. Kramer just did. Because I think that this is somebody that the began, of course in the '60s when he first came on the scene. And it's based on a complete misunderstanding of what he did and what he was doing then. And because he caused so much controversy, then this misunderstanding's never been cleared up. And I think that my book will clear it up because it goes into his background a great length, and what, what, how Warhol became who he was as an artist. And he was a man who was deeply involved in art from a very early age, and was very serious about it. And I think that this misunderstanding of Warhol's work because of the technical uses he made of silk screening, and also because of the use of made publicity in the '60s and that strange changing time, obscured this very serious commitment to art and Warhol was a very serious artist, very serious about his art. And I think that did the his greatest paintings. I mean, the Death and Disaster paintings, for example, which take up quite a large part of the Museum of Modern Art, are great works, and will be seen increasingly in the future as great works. And one could go on a great length about why he was a good artist or why he was a bad artist. But I just I'm astounded that people at this in this day and age are still harping on these repeated criticisms, which just seem to be have disintegrated over time. Robert Lipsyte: We've certainly established some polarity here. Ivan, is there any possibility that we are at once taking him too seriously, and not seriously enough Ivan Karp: The thing is not to concern oneself with Warhol's personality or his activity in his social climate, is to judge the merits of the work itself. And those who have the perceptual ability to identify works of consequence can identify that some of Warhol's work is is of great power, and will probably, as I said, enter the visual arts culture, if the Hilton here feels that none of the work is worthy of that, then it's a failure of judgment on his part, it won't be the first time it's happened to him. Robert Lipsyte: You're saying that Hilton is wrong? Well, it comes to that. Hilton Kramer: Well, certainly my view of Warhol represents a dissenting opinion from establishment opinion. But of course, as we know, establishment opinion is usually wrong. And Ivan, as a member of the establishment there and in good standing, Ivan Karp: That's not true, I'm an outsider. Hilton Kramer: Certainly presents that. But it's, it's, of course ridiculous to say that you can say it's good art or bad art or that it doesn't matter. But do you know but that these are not the issues we should be talking about! For an art critic, those are the only issues really worth talking about is the art itself! I mean, Warhols print analysis is |
| 01:18:10 1090.92 |
INSERT INTERVIEW CONTINUES:
Robert Lipsyte : What about it's value, as as a commentary, what about its value is a window on consumer culture on the '60s? Hilton Kramer: Well if you, if the question you're asking is does Warhol's, Warhol's visual images have some interest as journalism, as visual journalism? I would say yes, they do have an interest as visual journalism. But he took all those images out of the mass media of his time, these Death and Disaster pictures which some people consider great pictures. I mean, it was just, I mean, what was his work? He just took the themes that were then dominating, and beginning to dominate the mass culture in a big way, which was sex and violence. I mean, that's, that's a sex Robert Lipsyte : As sex and violence was part of ours was part of his like, Victor. It's very hard for people not in the art world, perhaps, to separate the artist and his art, the personality, the, the moral climate that he creates. And certainly there was a sense about a Warhol that he was an exploiter of perhaps sick people that he did surround himself with a moral climate that a lot of people didn't fully understand. Victor Bockris: Well, no more than any any great film director like Hitchcock or von Stroheim. Why no more than any of the rock groups, the 60s like the Rolling Stones, The Beatles evolved on their walls surrounded by large numbers of people who are self destructive, and I don't know why Warhol was always singled out to be criticized for this. Robert Lipsyte: He seemed to seek them out. And of course, he was shot and they were also interesting, scandalous doing. Victor Bockris: Yeah, well, I mean, he he picked up on the climate of the times and made out of it great works. I think that it's also funny to be discussing Warhol only as a painter because he was as great filmmaker as he was a painter and I think he's Hilton Kramer: Oh come on now, that's ridiculous.Well, those films are rubbish! Victor Bockris : Well, it's an opinion. Ivan Karp : For the most part, they're numbing, they're boring. Victor Bockris : Well, Chelsea Girls, no, Chelsea Girls isn't numbing and boring! Ivan Karp : Well they're the perfect solution to insomnia! Victor Bockris : Again, it's rather than getting into a discussion about whether they were good films or not, and all I'm saying is that he did do many other things other than just paint. And and I mean, he changed the way rock and roll was performed in this country, for example, with the choreography, the Velvet Underground. And Robert Lipsyte: How did he do that? Victor Bockris : Well, because the before the Velvet Underground, there was no multimedia in rock and roll. And now almost all rock and roll shows are based on multimedia, and that's just a fact. And it's quite a contribution. It changed things a great deal. And also, I think he also did- Hilton Kramer : Gosh it's worse than I thought! Victor Bockris: Well, he, I mean, he did and it is worse than you thought, from your point of view, because anything he did, obviously, you will see negatively, and he did do a great deal. And he influenced the culture, not only in his paintings. I don't know, I think that people have a terrible misconception of what Warhol was like as a person. You know, he really was a, he was a very kind man, he was a very encouraging man. Hilton Kramer: Yes, but that doesn't make any difference as far as his art is concerned! Victor Bockris : He's asking about his his exploiting people. Ivan Karp : And I think I don't think he exploited anybody else, for that matter. In fact, I don't think that men the effects that were generated by his presence were calculated. Oh, Andy's physical character was something remarkable, and it occurred at the right time in history. He's a '60s person, fabulously so! Robert Lipsyte: And you say he did his best work in the '60s. Ivan Karp: The fact of the matter was that he was he has a curious magic presence about him, and people reacted to that presence and things happened as a result of that. Victor Bockris : Yeah, I think it's unfortunate that people think that he was only a '60s person, I think, actually Warhol's life and what he did in the '70s was was as interesting, if not more interesting than he was, certainly more effective. I mean, in the '70s, he became much more well known. Ivan Karp : Well, I dispute the effectiveness of his creation. Victor Bockris : Okay, well, I mean, films like Trash and Eat and Flesh this phone was sure the '70s were, were seen by more people. I mean, they would they got they got around more, he got around more as a person he was Hilton Kramer : I mean standards declined and he naturally became more and more famous. Robert Lipsyte: Well, let me ask you this. I mean, behind what you're saying of, I don't know whether it's art or not, I don't like it, is is also a kind of a moral judgment. You are making a moral judgment, could you- address that? Hilton Kramer : Well, I'm making a moral judgment in this sense that there is a moral issue involved in upholding a certain standard in art, and and not calling this, you know, something by its wrong name. Ivan Karp: That we're villainous and appreciating what he's achieved. Hilton Kramer : Well, I think that you are making a negative contribution to our lives. Yes Robert Lipsyte: Do you think he tricked us? Do you think he played a joke? Hilton Kramer : Oh, absolutely. I mean, Warhol was Ivan Karp : Imagine me being deceived, I can't believe! Hilton Kramer : I mean Warhol was, he performed the greatest trick in the art scene of his time. Ivan Karp : Which is what? Hilton Kramer : Which was to get get the art world to accept something as high art that he very well understood wasn't. Robert Lipsyte : And would you think this was clear and manipulative? Hilton Kramer : I think it was clear and manipulative and I think he's, that's where his real genius is. Ivan Karp I don't think that Hilton knew Andy as a person. Hilton Kramer : I did not know him as a person. Ivan Karp : Andy was not manipulative. Hilton Kramer : I'm talking about his art. Robert Lipsyte : And Victor, but I mean, you have a really good, clear sense, the fact that beyond his artistry, he was a very smart commercial man. I mean he knew what he was doing. |
| 01:22:54 1375.01 |
INTERVIEW INSERT CONTINUED:
Victor Bockris: Yeah, showing you what he was doing. But I think that, again, the emphasis is put on his commercial success, is is mistaken. And I think that he did much, he contributed much more, he was much more interested than in commercial necessity than actually in what he did. I think his work and his whole life at The Factory and the movement of it came out of a much deeper interest and commitment and the culture than is generally understood. And he did a lot of things that were failures. And he made a lot of decisions that lost him a lot of money. His, his things were not always commercial success, but he had as many failures as he had successes. Robert Lipsyte: Yeah, Ivan, you felt that he left the best, his best work in the '60s. Did you mean just the art? Ivan Karp: The works over a period of time really will lend to the culture. But I like his portraits a great deal also. That was- Andy understood that he lacked certain technical abilities, and he couldn't draw. Victor Bockris: It's complete nonsense that he couldn't draw! When he was at Carnegie tech, his teachers thought he was a better draftsman that some of the teachers there! Ivan Karp: Well, I don't like his drawing very much, but he learned that he would that was a very wise decision is to use the screening technique for projecting the portraits. Those portraits are remarkably effective, especially the one of me. He didn't do one of you, did he Hilton? Hilton Kramer: No he didn't! Ivan Karp: What do you mean by a positive legacy? Robert Lipsyte : Do you think that there is a positive legacy right now of Andy Warhol? Is it a positive legacy in terms of art, in in culture? Ivan Karp : I think there's too much of him right now. And I think that basically, it should ease off a little bit. This show, basically, there's a good terminating event for this particular moment about Andy and I think we should have moment of quiet. Robert Lipsyte : Why is that? Ivan Karp : It's been- it's overinexploited. The personality's overly exploited. Robert Lipsyte : Well certainly not until Victor's book is out. Ivan Karp: I think Victor's book makes reference to me! Victor Bockris : It interesting the positive legacy will, I think will come to be seen more and more as a kind of society. What Allen Ginsberg referred to it at the museum opening other day as an aesthetic society that Warhol created. There's a large number of people in the Western world who who grew up with Warhol and came to see a way of living differently through his films and through his philosophy. And uh Robert Lipsyte: What does that mean? A way of living differently? We Victor Bockris : Well, uh, the films that Warhol made about that society, that underground society of New York in the '60s and the early '70s took a very different view of attitudes towards sex, love, life, what what the value of - Drugs, of course, all the values, the basic things and just misunderstood that, obviously, Mr. Kramer thinks that he took a positive attitude toward drugs. But I think if you look at those films, you couldn't possibly think they were taking a positive, they show the horror of drug addiction. And anyway, the point that what I'm trying to say is that, that people grew up to really live differently because of what they'd seen from Warhol, this is about the philosophy of Andy Warhol. Hilton Kramer: Drugs. And, and and how did they live? I mean, it's ridiculous to say that he represented some kind of a model that it was wise to follow. I mean, this is this is corruption, from an aesthetic point of view, from a moral point of view, from a social point of view. Victor Bockris : It is wise, not that I'm not saying it's wise, I'm just saying that the an aesthetic society was created. And that is the larger legacy, I think in time Warhol will be seen as a philosopher more than a painter. Robert Lipsyte: We don't have a lot of time left and perhaps we could we could put him in, in context of 20th century art. Hilton, how would you place him, his importance, and where he is? Hilton Kramer: I would place him at the juncture where art had to be radically devalued before this recycling of the commercial images could be made acceptable to the art world. Robert Lipsyte: Could you say that again? The way that I don't fully understand. Hilton Kramer: Well, I think the standards governing our sense of what a work of art is, had to be radically devaluated, demolished, before the art world could be made to accept the recycling of commercial images as fine art. And Warhol will be remembered as the principal instrument effecting that change. Robert Lipsyte: It was kind of a cultural urban renewal before you could put up shoddy buildings. Hilton Kramer : Well, yeah, I think it's not so much urban renewal as urban, uh, disaster. Ivan Karp: Andy's Andy's cultural contribution is the awakening of the the observer to a broader, broader scope of objects to be considered in the world. And he liberates artists to that degree. And that's a major role that he achieved that as he opens the spectrum of possibility for artists, and in that sense, he was a liberator. And as I said before, his very best work of his early work has great striking power, and I think will remain in the culture for us. Robert Lipsyte : Victor? Victor Bockris: I think he brought a lot of joy and fun back into the art world that had become a very gloomy place. I- he reminded me was a Muhammad Ali in the sense that Ali brought to the sport of boxing more than just boxing itself. And then of course, he was very heavily criticised in a kind of similar way. So I think Andy was a celebrator of life and a celebrator of art. And that's what I personally get most from him. It's a celebration rather than a kind of heavy metal down. Robert Lipsyte : And a lot of people thought that Ali was a put on artist in the '60s. Victor Bockris : Exactly! I think it's very similar. Robert Lipsyte 27:58 That's right popularizer or vulgarizer. We'll be talking about that for some time. This is the 11th hour. I'm Robert Lipsyte. |
| 01:28:04 1684.69 |
Interview concludes. Robert Lipsyte announces the show and introduces himself.
|
| 01:28:08 1688 |
Credits overlay Campbell's soup boxes and Warhol's art.
|
| 01:28:33 1713.33 |
Funding for the show announced and overlay the Eleventh Hour graphic.
|
| 01:28:47 1727.13 |
Reel Ends.
|
Jump to this Point
Specialty CollectionThis reel is currently not available for online viewing.
Year: 1989
Color: Color
Genre: 1980s NEWS
Description: The Eleventh Hour - Show #134 Title: Andy Warhol Guests: Donald Kuspit, Art Critic; Vito Giallo, Antique Dealer; Paige Powell, Advertising Dir. Interview Magazine; Ivan Karp, Art Gallery Owner; Hilton Kramer, Art Critic; Victor Bockris, Warhol Biographer Description: What is Warhol's artistic legacy? The art, subculture and influence of the artist Andy Warhol is discussed with art critics, antique dealers, biographer. Original Broadcast Date: 2-28-89
Keywords: silkscreen
