by anna missed
Last night Maureen Dowd was on both Charlie Rose and the Letterman show simultaneously. I´ll bet she has not been on any TV show in probably 10 years, which brought to mind both the media and the fact that on both shows she was asked how George Bush could put John Kerry on the defensive about the latter much more illustrious military career. Her rather lame answer to the question, was that Kerry himself was, a little lame. It would seem that this issue might harken to the larger conundrum of how Bush manages to keep the dialectic away from himself the man, and, turn it against Kerry the man. In some ways this is essentially the Teflon effect, that Reagan pioneered, and now Bush is using to greater effect (is this why Bush himself likes to identify with Reagan?)
So, coming from visual arts, I, would put forth the notion that the Bush (Rove) Administration has stolen, at least metaphorically, a page from the book (myth) of Andy Warhol. I know this sounds bizarre, but, Warhols career was essentially founded on two factors that might shed some light on this inexplicable issue.
First, Warhols career was established as an antithesis to the prevailing, and much lauded Abstract Expressionist movement, and the first American (visual) art movement to attract international respect. While grounded loosely to the tenets of phenomenology and existentialism its artistic embodiment lies in the act (of painting) as a vehicle to self, responsibility, and archetypal discovery. Andy Warhol, on the other hand, eschewed all that is intrinsic to the individual, replacing the individual, as it were, with a depersonalized image. While some may see this action as a critique of modern culture I would see it as a warm and submissive embrace.
Second, the artwork of Andy Warhol was in essence, supplanted by what Robert Hughes has called the “affectation”, or the embodiment, of the art idea as the personification of the artist himself. With cultural amusement aside i.e. “I want to marry my tape recorder”, “everyone will be famous for 15 minutes”, etc. etc. Warhol managed to in effect cultify himself. While this may sound trivial at first, in the political arena the notion that a person could assemble a personification, an affectation, an image that can supersede the man himself and have that image attain political currency, should give one pause.
The allurement of self affectation (on a stylistically level) is probably widespread in American culture; the complete remake of the person is another thing again. Could that little cinderblock church in Crawford Texas where George Bush was reportedly reborn be just a little bit like Warhols factory in New York City were he (Warhol) transformed himself from a “shoe illustrator” into the quintessential American artist?
Ironically, for Kerry, Bushes (new) affected image, like Warhol, renders criticism mute. Kerry is unable to attack Bush on his history as a man, because he is confronted with Bush the IMAGE, the affected and reformed Bush will defer to the weakness of us all and his triumph over weakness– essentially like Warhol could transmutate moral weakness into the ultimate coolness. Kerry on the other hand, is left pretty much with his own legacy, as a man, dealing with the challenges and contradictions that are the natural wake of public service.
George Bushes latest incarnation as the WAR PRESIDENT also carries the same invulnerability along with even greater self aggrandizement, belying confrontation with Kerrys own Vietnam proclamations of “who will be the last man to die for a mistake”.
So, John Kerrys challenge is to either show a better way around the mistakes of the Bush administration (lame), or to crack open the affectations with some kind of public “intervention” that would reveal the wider truth (in the debate).
We shouldn’t forget that after Andy Warhols death, he had few personal friends, his upper West side townhouse was found to be full of classical paintings and rococo furniture.