Wo ist Werner Herzog?

I haven't thought about Herzog in some time, but there has always been something about him that captivates me. His accent, his mannerisms, his thought process and what he says always seem to captivate me, especially the way he seems to pause long enough to contemplate anything before he says it. I think that is very telling about his character. He also has a seemingly honest way about him, that seems as though he is always speaking the absolute truth or something at the core of what he believes. But he also seems to give limited, or restrictively consistent responses. They seem almost scripted as if he has written a response once and will always stick to it. That leads me to believe that there is something more going on and I start to try to read between the lines. This makes me think that some of the questions he doesn't answer or the explanations he won't provide are more interesting than the ideas he does maintain. Recently, reading selections from Herzog on Herzog and watching the commentary version of his film, Stroszek, among other research, I have been reminded of this odd sense of the filmmaker.

My favorite and perhaps first encounter with Herzog as a figure in the filmmaking industry (I say in because of his appearance) was in the Incident at Loch Ness. I had heard of the man before then, but not really seen him or had any concept of who he is. The premise of this film is basically a mockumentary or spoof of a film crew attempting to make a documentary of Herzog while he makes a documentary about Loch Ness. This leads to tension between the differing goals of Herzog and Zak Penn. Perhaps even more interesting is the way in which Herzog delivers his stock answers and static explanations about the film. He basically says in interviews that this film, while fictional to some degree, still captures what his personality is like at work. So, basically it is him and it isn't him, which I find to be a pretty funny way of effectively circumventing the point of the questioning. True, this does in someways represent that unique sort of blend between factual documentary and scripted narrative of his own film style, but I can't help thinking he is really just poking fun at interviews and interviewers by not really giving them what they want. I think that his interview with Henry Rollins is slightly different, but that one is still humorous and both of them seem to take the interview process lightly. Maybe this isn't something real at all though, just German to English language barrier (then again maybe Herzog is just exploiting that expectation) and it just says something about me or how I would react if I were a famous filmmaker being interviewed.

I think I relate most to the mention of obscure inspirations and artists that Herzog mentions in Herzog on Herzog. For example, after listing more well-known artists as influences he says, "there is is a painter who I feel even closer to, a virtual unknown called Hercules Segers." Then he goes on to explicate his affinity for this artist that the renowned Rembrandt recognized. However, he seems to be the only one who noticed this artist. In some sense this relates to Andy Warhol and his fascination with what he calls "leftovers." Perhaps it is that same quality that I relate to then. In my interest in independent artists I find that, like Herzog, there is plenty of beauty and undiscovered talent in a largely unknown artist or someone who may be really gifted, but just lacks the means to share there gifts and goes unnoticed. I derive a real pleasure from discovering these kinds of artists and I believe that is the origin of my interest in little known or independently released or DIY musicians. This relates to my own exploration of music and videos in my current project ideas since today there are so many internet sites that create means for little or unknown musicians to get recognized. I enjoy finding them through my job as a director at WLFM, the University radio station. It is that job that has made me more aware of a lot of these sites and new means for recognition of musicians. College radio in some ways is a great model for this because of its ability to give heavy rotation to artists that are overlooked by mainstream artists.

On a side note I don't know what to make about the whole idea of Herzog's exploitation of Bruno S. It seems unlikely that he was exploiting Bruno from the beginning since he wrote a whole screenplay out of guilt to include Bruno in a main role. And it is tough to dismiss that "the Bruno" is very clever indeed. Perhaps it was he who exploited Herzog? Who is exploiting whom? I would suggest that Stroszek represents a symbiotic relationship. Bruno may have learned from being exploited and abused all his life even if he allowed Herzog to also exploit him in some ways.

Warholworld

It seems to me that things in Andy Warhol's world are quite strange. Or at least most people think so, but I found that upon looking at him anew from several different sources recently, I can relate to a lot of his philosophy. Though his thinking comes off at times as quirky, insincere, or ambiguous, I could still relate to a lot of the content at the core of his ideas.
After watching the documentary made about Warhol by Ric Burns, I have some mixed feelings. The strange juxtaposition of sound textures, interviews, archival footage, rereading of Warhol quotes, praise for the artist, etc. seems to take Warhol a little bit out of context for me. Burns' work seems to me to glorify Warhol in an unnecessary fashion. It seems that a lot of the structure and direction of the documentary is orchestrated to make Warhol seem larger than life, but that seems a bit of a contradiction to me. Reading about Warhol and his quotations in the context of his life and even some of the information that I got from the film seem to tell me something different. Despite the ways Warhol seems intentionally misleading or comical, I find that his ideas of leftovers and art as business really make sense to me. I can relate to his feeling misplaced or trying to grapple with his fame. I don't think I could handle some of that attention and I don't like a maid cleaning up after me either. Anyway, a lot of these details reveal to me that Warhol was eccentric and famous, but also a regular person that got put into these positions and categories. I don't think he ever felt like some kind of absolute genius or one of the most influential artists of the 20th century any more than I or my classmates do. This image does not really fit with what many expect of a genius even though we may expect awkwardness and eccentricity to be a part of the formula. We have a lot of evidence to support that he was confused and lost more often than not, and even almost forgotten or ignored while he was still alive. While that does not prevent him from being a genius, it does seem to contradict some of the image that seems to have been constructed by the documentary or perhaps the Warhol foundation on a larger scale.

IHRTLUHC
Jordan Severson

John McKinnon: Misconceptions of the late Andy Warhol

Warhol's embrace of commercialism is, in some ways, continually relevant for artists. But even more relevant than that tendency to examine and use the commercialism that is still so deeply embedded within our culture is the reality of getting trapped between the old habits and bodies of work as one's repertoire might tend to find comfort in repetition and the urge to branch out in search of a new direction of creativity. The risk of this is that for someone like Warhol it means that the public may not follow his new interests and thus, he was relatively ignored in the latter period of his life. McKinnon makes this point up front as a reason to explore and understand Warhol's later works outside of the instinct to ignore his later works. It is interesting to find how fruitful this time in his life was following the attempt on his life when he began searching for new avenues in his art. When I think of myself as an artist, I have similar struggles when trying to consider whether it is best to stick with a style, series, or project long enough to create something larger and more recognizable of to change more quickly toward improvement and untouched potential. I am currently trying to find a way to explore this personal tension in my work while drawing off of my experiences abroad in Italy.

Warhol was able to find concepts and ideas worth pursuit anywhere he went (e.g. suggestion of camouflage or looking through magazine ads) and he also made use of collaboration to draw off of artists like Basquiat. While visiting the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples, I saw a silkscreen of Mount Vesuvius that was a commission from Warhol. He also appeared in many photographs in another part of the modern art wing as a collaborator and social figure. I think that this sort of reach and depth of Warhol even after he was regarded as washed up (though he was still producing copious amounts of new concepts and pieces that revisiting old subject matter) shows Warhol's true artistic strength in his ability to draw from a variety of sources and inspirations, internalize the concepts that he witnessed or designed and reapply or redistribute the benefits of his experiences through works that took advantages of all the connections he made with the world. It would seem that this sort of characteristic is what made Warhol a modern artist with a success that remains after him even if his popularity waned during his lifetime. I hope to find ways to combine my own interests in all my artwork, and especially my video, to make similarly strong connections that take advantage of my experiences.



IHRTLUHC

Jordan Severson