Winckelmann Revisited:
Andy Warhol’s Blow Job
Ariana Kaye
Citation: Kaye, Ariana. “Winckelmann Revisited: Andy Warhol’s Blow Job.” The Coalition of Master’s Scholars on Material Culture, February 19, 2021.
Abstract: In 1964, Andy Warhol released a short film titled Blow Job. The film captures a man with an ecstatic facial expression, presumably due to his reception of oral sex. Watching Blow Job, we are voyeurs to a scene of mystery and homoeroticism, invoking our imagination as to what could or could not be happening beyond Warhol’s camera lens. When the film was first released, viewers heckled it and attempted to block the monitor. Warhol was homosexual. We have missed Warhol’s full intentions because of marginalization embedded in Art Historical discourse from its beginnings in the eighteenth-century. I would like to rethink Warhol in light of Johann Joachim Winckelmann, the so-called Father of Art History. Warhol was aware of Winckelmann’s art historical traditions and reflected on them in his own practice.
Keywords: Andy Warhol, underground cinema, JJ Winckelmann, homosexuality, contemporary art, art history
Winckelmann Revisited: Andy Warhol’s Blow Job
By: Ariana Kaye
Abstract: In 1964, Andy Warhol released a short film titled Blow Job. The film captures a man with an ecstatic facial expression, presumably due to his reception of oral sex. Watching Blow Job, we are voyeurs to a scene of mystery and homoeroticism, invoking our imagination as to what could or could not be happening beyond Warhol’s camera lens. When the film was first released, viewers heckled it and attempted to block the monitor. Warhol was homosexual. We have missed Warhol’s full intentions because of marginalization embedded in Art Historical discourse from its beginnings in the eighteenth-century. I would like to rethink Warhol in light of Johann Joachim Winckelmann, the so-called Father of Art History. Warhol was aware of Winckelmann’s art historical traditions and reflected on them in his own practice.
Keywords: Andy Warhol, underground cinema, JJ Winckelmann, homosexuality, contemporary art, art history
In 1964, Andy Warhol released a forty-one minute film titled Blow Job (see MOMA for image). The film captures the upper body of a man with an ecstatic facial expression, presumably due to his reception of oral sex. Viewers do not know what happens beyond what is shown to us by Warhol. Did the man receive oral sex or was the scene staged? Watching Blow Job, viewers are voyeurs to a scene of mystery and homoeroticism. The viewer’s imagination is provoked, and they are left to wonder as to what could or could not be happening behind Warhol’s camera lens. Public reactions to this scene of mystery vary. When the film was first released, viewers heckled it and attempted to block the monitor. Gradually, as America underwent a cultural transformation throughout the 1960s, due to the Vietnam war and racial uprisings, American society confronted its cultural anxieties over the public viewing of sexuality.
According to the University of Michigan based art historian Alex Potts[1], the founding father of art history, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, gazed at the ancient sculpture of the Laocoön to project his own homosexual and fetishistic inclinations, desiring to see the male body in its perfect form: muscular, heroic, and nude. The central figure of the Laocoön and His Sons is a Trojan priest who accepts a gift from the Trojan enemy, namely the Greeks in the form of the famous Trojan Horse filled with Greek soldiers. The priest goes to warn the city of Troy that soldiers have arrived. However, the Greek Goddess Athena does not like what the priest has done, and as a result sends serpents to strangle both the priest and his sons.[2] In Reflections, Winckelmann pioneered a methodology of interpretation of the history of Greek art. He divided his perception of art into two categories: the sublime and the beautiful. The beautiful is everything that is mathematically proportional. Winckelmann highlights the beauty depicted in the ideal male figure as seen in the sculpture of the Apollo Belvedere (Figure 1). The sublime is anything mysterious, unknown, and incapable of human perception, but also encompasses the strange and fear provoking.[3] Blow Job can be seen as part of Winckelmann’s conception of the sublime due to the unknown and unseen portions of the film as well as the film’s controversial reception in the 60s and 70s.
Bringing these two figures together keeps Winckelmann’s writings on the foundations of art history alive and relevant in the continual investigation of the types of connections that are possible within the discipline. The concepts of the sublime and beautiful were also foundational for Edmund Burke, who wrote A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful in 1757, deepening the understanding of the human relationship to a sublime image. Burke’s text will contribute to the discussion of Winckelmann and Warhol. This essay will seek to shed light on Winckelmann’s queer possibilities and connect them with Blow Job as a manifestation of Winckelmann’s ideas of the beautiful and the sublime. Linking the experiences of Winckelmann and Warhol are important because of their shared experiences of sexual suppression in their own respective heteronormative societies and their key roles within the long history of art. Warhol read Winckelmann’s accounts of art and contemplated their importance within his own artistic practice.
When Winckelmann created the two categories of the sublime and the beautiful, Potts remarked, “at issue in Winckelmann is a masculine erotic fantasy and politics of subjectivity exposing complexities in projections of male identity that conventional heterosexist ideology tends to disavow”.[4] Heteronormative society did not have the foresight to understand what Winckelmann was trying to say about the way he admired art in his writing, because they could not perceive of Winckelmann as a man who desired other men. However, even Winckelmann himself did not have the word “homosexuality” within his lexicon to describe his sexuality but did know of his different attitudes towards his peers and the art he admired. Beginning in the 1960s, society began to grapple with queer theory and uncovered previously hidden discourses as pointed out by Potts. D’Alleva, who is the author of Methods and Theories of Art History, discussed the way in which non-normative and heterosexual narratives were erased throughout history. Jonathan Weinberg, an art historian mentioned by D’Alleva, described Winkelmann specifically as a person whose history was subjected to erasure, stating: “from its beginnings in the writings of Johann Winkelmann, art history has been a closeted profession in which the erotic is hidden or displaced.”[5] To view Winkelmann as queer is to go through a process of “making [him] strange in order to destabilize our confidence in the relationship of representation to identity, authorship and behavior.”[6] In his 1764 text History of Ancient Art, Winckelmann (1717-1768) associated Greek art formally and historically with what he called “freedom”, but never mentioned what freedom meant to him.[7] “Freedom” is the potential freedom to create works that explicitly show homoerotic desire.[8] In uncovering Winkelmann’s intentions, there lies the potential to link his transformative writing with contemporary work such as Blow Job to uncover a queer narrative.
In Winckelmann Divided: Mourning the Death of Art History, Davis mined Winkelmann’s History of Ancient Art and returned to Winkelmann’s use of the word “freedom” to describe a culture that he found to exist among the ancients that allowed for appreciation of the male form, however what that freedom means was left vague.[9] Most likely it is the freedom to express the passion between two men. During Winckelmann’s lifetime, he served as the personal librarian for Cardinal Alessandro Albani and the Curator of Roman antiquities for the Vatican. Over the course of Winkelmann’s career, he admired many young men in the arts and culture scene to whom he wrote love letters. His motivation to write these letters came from his reading of Plato, who wrote that “the contemplation of the beauty of youths would lead to the discovery of spiritual beauty”[10], so in writing these letters, Winckelmann sought higher spiritual and sexual power. However, his feelings towards these men were never reciprocated. Due to his unrequited love, I believe that Greek and Roman objects became the main loves of his life.
While Winkelmann could never experience the life of being an openly gay person, Andy Warhol got to experience a type of freedom that Davis referred to. In Pop Out: Queer Warhol, the authors stated that Warhol was out and proud and created many works that referred to gay sex.[11] He was fortunate to live in New York in the 60s and show his works to gay audiences and have his own creative space in his studio, which he called The Factory, to create whatever content he wished. In interviews, Warhol remarked that “five beautiful boys” performed the act in Blow Job who “happened to be hanging around the factory that day.”[12] While those five boys are not known to us, the person who received the oral sex is, and his name was DeVeren Bookhalter. At the end of 1963, Warhol decided to film Blow Job and he originally asked Charles Rydell to star in it. Warhol told Rydell the shoot involved Rydell laying down and receiving oral sex from five people, individually. Rydell agreed to the terms, however when the day came to film, Rydell never showed. Warhol called him at his hotel and asked where he was, to which Rydell responded, “Are you crazy? I thought you were kidding. I would never do that!” Warhol needed a new lead and said that Bookwalter was at The Factory that day. Warhol recalled seeing Bookwalter in a Clint Eastwood movie later on in his career,[13] as Blow Job presumably helped him launch his cinematic career. The way that Warhol described the process in which the film came into fruition gives insight to the way that Warhol viewed homosexuality. He exuded confidence and was unafraid of the way others would perceive his work.
During the time the movie was filmed, there was heightened surveillance of underground cinema, and Warhol created Blow Job as a sort of “catch me if you can,” according to Douglas Crimp.[14] This act of rebellion occurred as a statement against the policing of explicit material, but also as a sort of titillating project where Warhol could play with humor as an artistic device and could shock the public. It is unclear if the film actually displays oral sex or not; however, most art historians who have studied this work have operated under the assumption that this is what we are looking at. Foucault’s famous 1969 essay “What Is An Author?” spoke to the categorization of art and claimed that authorship and naming of artworks serves an aesthetic function, to give people an understanding of what they are looking at.[15] If Warhol labeled Blow Job as such, it is clearly what he wanted us to glean from the film. Despite the fact that the film is humorous and created shock value, Crimp said the film is too sexy to serve only a humorous cause. During the first showing of the film, Taylor Mead, a famous underground actor, got up midway through the film and announced, “I came already.”[16] Winkelmann’s mention of the term “freedom,” as mentioned in History of Ancient Art as the freedom to express homosexual desires brought to light by Davis, helps us understand the social context in which both Winkelmann and Warhol had the ability to work. The term also discloses the external influences that created an environment in which they could either express or not express sexuality, regardless if their expression of sexuality was explicit or intentional.
Both Warhol and Winckelmann can be described as having scopophilia, defined by Laura Mulvey as an aesthetic pleasure in looking at the body.[17] The term is used to describe the objectifying portrayal of women in films by male directors, though it fits here because both Warhol and Winkelmann objectified the male figure by focusing on their bodies in a similar way to how women are objectified under patriarchy. Davis’ term “queer beauty” clarified the subverted use of Mulvey’s scopophilia. In the 1750s, Cardinal Albani installed a relief of Antinous, the lover of the Roman emperor Hadrian, in his villa in Rome (Figure 2). Winkelmann’s reaction to the relief and other works at Albani’s villa was passionate: “whom I would kiss before the eyes of all of the saints.”[18] Additionally, embedded in Winckelmann’s Reflections, was the fundamental belief in a sexual awakening that is possible when admiring queer beauty. According to Winckelmann, this sexual awakening should be an educational opportunity. He felt that “a modern observer’s erotics – his [recollection of what he notices as beautiful in the world] and desire for what he subjectively accepts as beautiful in ethical and aesthetic terms, could be an instrument of historical criticism.”[19] Winckelmann’s scopophilic tendency drove him to create his observations of Greek sculpture and divided the sculptures into categories for the first time. He categorized the styles created during different periods such as birth through maturity to decay. He further divided art from an archaic period to a high and classical period in the fourth and fifth centuries BCE. Winckelmann distinguished art through the decline in the Roman and Hellenistic periods created by artists, such as Phidias and Apelles, in a way that had not been done before.[20]
While Winckelmann expressed his scopophilia through words, Andy Warhol made it into art. Warhol’s interest in portraying the erotic male form came early in his artistic career, partially coming from his own consumption of male pornographic content before Blow Job was filmed. Warhol created ball point pen drawings of nude boys in the 1950s, as seen in Warhol’s drawing Excited Male Torso of 1953 (Figure 3). These early expressions of Warhol’s art were banned from galleries because of the still taboo subject of homosexuality in the 50s, and the fact that sodomy continued to be a felony in every American state. These drawings are emotionally vulnerable, showing Warhol’s most intimate desires. When he tried to exhibit them, he experienced homophobic rejection from gallery owners. Warhol’s biographers remarked that he asserted that “Gay was beautiful,”[21] before it was accepted, and even at a young age Warhol was a non-conformist[22], making art the way he saw fit.
Scopophilia is a form of objectification, but it is also a psychoanalytic condition present in the psychic states of both Winckelmann and Warhol. Mentioned by Laura Mulvey but originally referenced in Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), the term references “taking other people as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze”. The examples Freud presented to introduce scopophilia in his writing revolved around childhood fascination with looking at sex and sexual organs. Freud’s examples applied to Winckelmann’s admiration of the ideal male of the Apollo Belvedere and to Warhol’s beautiful boys. Warhol’s use of a close-up view of the face was also something that is addressed in Freud’s Three Essays. Warhol displayed the face as a site of sexual engagement that is separate from the genitals. Freud interpreted the showing of a close up in art as “sexual activities that extend…beyond the regions of the body that are designated for sexual union.”[23] Regarding this close up, Ara Osterweil stated that Warhol presented the face as having as many erotic possibilities as the penis itself.[24] Freud’s theories about sex and scopophilia also shed light on the sexist process of perception of art located in Winckelmann’s categories of the beautiful and the sublime.
The beautiful and the sublime are gendered categories, in which Winckelmann associated the sublime with powerful masculinity and the beautiful with a heteronormative subject of desire or femininity. These categories are epitomized in the first through second century BC sculpture of the Greek sculptor Cleomenes’ Venus di’ Medici (Figure 4). Winckelmann described the sculpture as “no more than a delectable natural object, comparable to a rose opening up before the rising sun, or a firm and still not quite fully ripe fruit”.[25] Freud’s theory of castration anxiety provides a framework in which to explain Winckelmann’s approach to differentiate the viewing of male sculpture from the female ‘other’. A sculpture of a woman could never be as heroic or as powerful to perceive because the woman, according to Freud, is inherently lacking.[26] Warhol experienced the same anxiety as he sought comfort in looking and was reassured by looking at the male form because that was the object of his desire.
In Philosophical Enquiry, Burke also divided art into the beautiful and the sublime to highlight that when viewers look at objects that are beautiful, one can experience a pleasing reaction to that work. On the other hand, for Burke the sublime was the “removal or diminution of pain,” meaning that as viewers “we can take pleasure in what terrifies us or overwhelms us, as long as we know ourselves at a safe distance from actual harm.”[27] The distance from harm in Burke’s conception of the sublime also registered for Winckelmann when seeing the ancient sculpture of the Laocoön and His Sons (Figure 5) for the first time upon his arrival in Rome during the same year that he wrote Reflections. He saw the pain in the central figure and remarked: “the pain is revealed in all the muscles and sinews of his body, and we ourselves can almost feel it as we observe the painful contraction of the abdomen”.[28] The sculpture is threatening and epitomizes Burke’s understanding of the sublime, to remind viewers of their insignificance in the face of the will of the natural world, e.g., great storms or vast natural landscapes. The sublime also encompasses reverence of higher powers such as the goddess Athena in the case of the Laocoön.[29] Roy Grundmann’s investigation of Blow Job signaled the pain that is visible in it: “the significance of the sex act itself is constantly threatened to be subsumed under the possibility of heightened non-sexual extremes such as pain and psychological anguish”.[30] Both works present evidence of the sublime in the form of pain, anguish, and even possible death.
Burke’s conception of the sublime also included viewing things that may humiliate the viewer or cause them discomfort. Blow Job has exactly this affect, both on the viewers of the film and Warhol as the creator of it. The film was revealed to different audiences who experienced it in different ways. When film critic Peter Gidal first saw it in 1965, he remarked that the viewing audience was mostly quiet. That changed over time, as people expressed clear opposition to the film by laughing, joking, and blocking the projector.[31] Consequently by 1969, the film was shown at places more compatible with “the artist’s prurience” and potential viewers had to call the movie theatre to learn the name and location of the movie,[32] such as movie theaters specializing in gay porn. Viewers like Peter Gidal and including Warhol, saw this film and experience purgation via catharsis. According to Aristotelian catharsis, a person sees themselves mirrored in an act that is being shown in a play or movie that they are watching. In Warhol’s case, viewing the film served as a way to purge feelings of guilt, shame, and disgust, and this comes from what Plato considered a fear of seeing something from the natural world, a man receiving oral sex replicated in art or an imitation of reality.[33] As a result of the different reactions that the theory of the sublime encompasses, the sublime could be seen as a queer theory because of its engagement with everything that is strange, other-worldly, fear provoking, and revering. In a process of queering, there has been a continuous process of destabilization, starting when queer theory was first written and continuing throughout the present day, which allows scholars to look at things in an innovative and different way, and this is also precisely how the sublime functions.
Burke’s sublime underscores how people revere natural occurrences, including consideration of their own death. Death was a major additional theme for both Warhol and Winckelmann, as seen for example in Warhol’s Orange Car Crash Fourteen Times (1963) (Figure 6). For Winckelmann, death was looking at the Laocoön as the priest was eaten and the father had the look of death on his face. For Warhol, the image stills within Blow Job were slowed down, making the viewer question if the person we are viewing is still present or not, perhaps he is slowing dying too. The movie is shot at 24 or 25 frames per second, and the movements in the film are slowed down by one third from the recording speed when displayed. The person receiving the blow job moved his face and averted his eyes repeatedly, making it feel like “the image is catching up with itself or lagging”. This lag was called “drag/drug time,”[34] or what is now referred to as longue durée, or long time. The lag caused the person in the film to have what we perceive as a possible longer orgasm. At one point in the film, the man’s head tilted back to a 45-degree angle and appeared not to be moving for multiple frames, making us think that he could be falling backwards. The lighting for the film was set up so that the light was above Bookwalter’s head, so that in some frames only his nose and forehead are visible, and his eyes are transformed into “hollow, black cavities” when he looks at the camera[35] creating a skull-like appearance. Additionally, because of celluloid film technology which was available during the time that Warhol was filming, every few minutes the “film will flicker and flare momentarily into whiteness”. When one film reel ended and was combined with the next one, a temporary but frightening pause in the film was created.[36] All of this evokes fear in the viewer or evokes the sublime. While viewing the frozen frame or the man falling backwards, the viewer’s fear of death comes quickly. In French, the word for orgasm is la petite mort, or “little death,” implying that in sex there exists the implication of death. Hal Foster’s Death in America recounted Warhol’s reaction to death when Warhol stated, “I don’t believe in it because you are not around to know it happened. I can’t say anything about it because I am not prepared for it”.[37] This is precisely a sublime idea because here we see Warhol admitting that death is bigger than the human being, to be controlled by unknown external forces. In Orange Car Crash Fourteen Times, the image of a car crash was cut out from a newspaper and replicated fourteen times via a silkscreen technique. The silkscreen is like a stamp on a canvas. Over the course of Warhol’s stamping, the image diminishes, fading into oblivion, or slowly dying as the frames do in Blow Job.
The man in blow job appeared standing in front of a brick wall, alluding to Warhol’s fascination with power and sex. James Dean was the exemplar of power for Warhol, as he was a popular celebrity “whose handsome features made him an object of identification and desire for gay men”.[38] According to Warhol, James Dean’s power came from his status as a celebrity. Earlier in Warhol’s career when he was still creating ballpoint drawings, Warhol made one of James Dean in 1955, the same year Dean died, placing him next to a brick wall (Figure 7). This brick wall had two functions, and the first was to signal the alleyway “as a sign of gay men’s hazardous claim to public space”[39], as gay men during this time in New York would engage in public sexual acts in alleyways, but this did not come without danger, violence, or arrest. The second association was equivocating James Dean with the brick wall and thus commemorating him in Blow Job. This pseudo-memorial furthered the idea of reference to death in Blow Job. James Dean also famously died in a 1955 car crash, which could have possibly served as a point of reference for Warhol’s fascination with death as related to a mysterious or sublime car crash, in which Dean’s car was lost forever. This is seen in Orange Car Crash Fourteen Times, in Blow Job’s longue durée and in the priestly death of the Laocoön.
For Winckelmann, power referred to the unequal power dynamics between an ancient Greek man as a “teacher” of a younger man. In one of Winckelmann’s favorite ancient texts from his twenties, there was a story recounted by Socrates of Autolycus the Younger and the wealthy Callias. Callias was said to have only taught Autolycus in front of Autolycus’ father due to his fear of his attraction towards the man, an act that Socrates praises Callias for. Sex between student and teacher was seen as something that should not be done as it would distract the teacher from conducting his educational mission.[40] This story implies sexual tension and reads as a soft-core pornography, which tells us more about Winckelmann’s consumption of homoerotic content in order to develop his responses to art.
In his 1979 interview in French, conducted by Patrick Mauriès, Warhol clearly indicated that he has read Winkelmann and was familiar with the written history of art. Warhol was possibly inspired by him when thinking of the body of the male figure: “All of this, this game of seduction, runs through the writing and is lost in a series of effects, surface folds, like, Winckelmann would say, a wet cloth on skin…”[41] When Warhol was in fact reading Winkelmann, it is possible that he read Winkelmann’s specific engagement with the subject of the Laocoön and might have even seen it in person on his many trips to Europe as a result of his status as an artist and international celebrity.
Prior to my engagement with these Winckelmann, the father of art history as a discipline and Andy Warhol, there has been no written material that brought them together. However, I feel that their two lifestyles, scopophilic tendencies, and engagements with homoeroticism share an uncanny resemblance, even though one expressed his through writing and the other through visual art. Despite having lived one hundred years apart from each other, they proved the old saying that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ and dealt with the same identity struggles as people unfortunately still deal with in the present. While there is much more to say about these two, this essay is just the tip of the iceberg. My investigation is just the start of what could lead to an extensive project of revisiting the foundational writings of art history and applying them in a contemporary context.
Figures
Endnotes
[1] Potts looks at Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works of Painting and Sculpture, published in 1754.
[2] “Laoöcon and His Sons”, Khan Academy, Beth Harris and Steven Zucker.
[3] Alex Potts, Flesh and the Ideal : Winckelmann and the Origins of Art History, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) 116.
[4] Potts 1994, 113.
[5] D’Alleva, Anne. Methods & Theories of Art History 2nd ed. (London: Laurence King, 2012) 72.
[6] Jonathan Weinberg, "Things Are Queer." Art Journal 55, no. 4 (1996): 2.
[7] Whitney Davis, “Winckelmann Divided: The Death of Art History” in Preziosi, The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, 2nd ed., (Oxford University Press 2009) 35.
[8] Davis 2009, 35.
[9] Davis 2009, 35.
[10] Michael Preston Worley, “The Love Letters of JJ Winckelmann”, The Gay & Lesbian Review, September 2011. https://glreview.org/article/the-love-letters-of-j-j-winckelmann/
[11] “Introduction” in Doyle, Jennifer., Jonathan. Flatley, and José Esteban. Muñoz. Pop Out : Queer Warhol Durham: Duke University Press, 1996, 1.
[12] Rachel Rabbit White, “Sex Scenes: How Andy Warhol’s ‘Blow Job’ Helped Create Queer Visibility”, Garage/Vice Media, November 6 2018 https://garage.vice.com/en_us/article/mbyjja/andy-warhol-blow-job
[13] Andy Warhol, and Pat Hackett. POPism : the Warhol ’60s 1st ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980) 88-89.
[14] Douglas Crimp, "Face Value" in Our Kind of Movie : The Films of Andy Warhol ( MIT Press, 2012) 3.
[15] Ben Davis, “Connoisseurship and Critique”, e-flux 72, 2016, https://www.e flux.com/journal/72/60496/connoisseurship-and-critique/
[16] Crimp 2012, 4.
[17] Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” in Screen, Volume 16, Issue 3, (Autumn 1975):, 10.
[18] Whitney Davis, “Queer Beauty: Winkelmann and Kant on the Vicissitudes of the Ideal” in Queer Beauty: Sexuality and Aesthetics from Winckelmann to Freud and Beyond (New York; Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2010) 28.
[19] Whitney Davis, “Winckelmann’s ‘Homosexual’ Teleologies” In Kampen, Natalie., and Bettina Ann. Bergmann. Sexuality in Ancient Art : Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy (Cambridge ;: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 263.
[20] Johann Joachim Winckelmann, “A History of Ancient Art” in Art in Theory, 1648-1815, 466.
[21] “Introduction” Pop Out : Queer Warhol, 3.
[22] Gunseli Yalcinkaya, “A Selection of Andy Warhol’s erotic Drawings of Men will debut in London” Dazed, 17 February 2020, https://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/47977/1/see-andy-warhols-erotic-drawings-of-men-for-the-first-time
[23] Ara Osterweil, “Andy Warhol’s Blow Job: Toward the Recognition of a Pornographic Avant-Garde.” In Porn Studies, (Duke University Press, 2004) 438-439.
[24]. Osterweil, “Andy Warhol’s Blow Job: Toward the Recognition of a Pornographic Avant-Garde.” 438-439.
[25] Potts 1994,130.
[26] Potts 1994 ,131.
[27] Edmund Burke, “A Philosophical Enquiry Into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful” in Art in Theory, 1648-1815, 516.
[28] Johann Joachim Winckelmann, “Reflections on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture” in Preziosi, The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, 2nd ed., (Oxford 2009) 30.
[29] The School of Life, “Burke: On the Sublime”, youtube video, 22 January 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvzG_p_sdOQ
[30] Roy. Grundmann, Andy Warhol’s Blow Job (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003) 33.
[31] Rachel White Rabbit, “Sex Scenes: How Andy Warhol’s Blow Job Created Queer Visibility, Garage, November 6 2018. https://garage.vice.com/en_us/article/mbyjja/andy-warhol-blow-job
[32] Osterweil, “Andy Warhol’s Blow Job: Toward the Recognition of a Pornographic Avant-Garde.” 432.
[33] Euron, “The Beginning of Western Aesthetics: Art, Imitation and Beauty in Plato’s Philosophy” in ead. Art Beauty and Imitation: An Outline of Aesthetics, (Rome 2009) 12.
[34] Gidal, Peter. Andy Warhol : Blow Job (London: Afterall, 2008), 25.
[35] Osterweil, Andy Warhol’s Blow Job: Toward the Recognition of a Pornographic Avant-Garde, 434.
[36] Crimp 2012, 3.
[37] Foster, Hal. "Death in America." October 75 (1996): 37.
[38] Grundmann 2003, 137.
[39] Grundmann 2003, 139.
[40] Davis 1996, 264-265.
[41] Mauriès, Patrick. "Andy Warhol Interview." Communications 30, no. 1 (1979): 173. original French passage: “Tout cela, ce jeu de séduction, traverse l'écriture et se perd en une série d'effets, de plissements de surface, comme, dirait Winckelmann, un linge mouillé sur une peau…”.
Bibliography
Burke, Edmund. “A Philosophical Enquiry into Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful”, in Art in Theory, 1648-1815, 516-526.
Crimp, Douglas. "Face Value" in Our Kind of Movie : The Films of Andy Warhol, MIT Press, 2012.
D’Alleva, Anne. Methods & Theories of Art History 2nd ed. London: Laurence King, 2012.
Davis, Ben “Connoisseurship and Critique”, e-flux 72 (2016) https://www.e flux.com/journal/72/60496/connoisseurship-and-critique/
Davis, Whitney. Queer Beauty: Sexuality and Aesthetics from Winckelmann to Freud and Beyond, New York; Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2010.
Davis, Whitney. “Winckelmann’s ‘Homosexual’ Teleologies” In Kampen, Natalie., and Bettina Ann. Bergmann. Sexuality in Ancient Art : Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Davis, Whitney. “Winckelmann Divided: The Death of Art History” in Preziosi, The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, 2nd ed., Oxford 2009, 35-44.
Ettlinger, L. D. “Winckelmann, or Marble Boys are Better,” In Art, the Ape of Nature: Studies in Honor of H. W. Janson. Moshe Barasch and Lucy Freeman Sandler, eds. Harry N. Abrams, 1981, 505-511.
Euron, “The Beginning of Western Aesthetics: Art, Imitation and Beauty in Plato’s Philosophy” in ead. Art Beauty and Imitation: An Outline of Aesthetics, Rome (2009): 11-15.
Foster, Hal. "Death in America." October 75 (1996): 37-59.
Gidal, Peter. Andy Warhol : Blow Job London: Afterall, 2008.
Grundmann, Roy. Andy Warhol’s Blow Job Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003.
“Introduction” in Doyle, Jennifer., Jonathan. Flatley, and José Esteban. Muñoz. Pop Out : Queer Warhol Durham: Duke University Press, 1996.
Mauriès, Patrick. "Andy Warhol Interview." Communications 30, no. 1 (1979): 164-178.
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” in Screen, Volume 16, Issue 3, (Autumn 1975): 6–18.
Osterweil, Ara. “Andy Warhol’s Blow Job: Toward the Recognition of a Pornographic Avant-Garde.” In Porn Studies, Duke University Press (2004): 431-460.
Potts, Alex. Flesh and the Ideal : Winckelmann and the Origins of Art History New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Preston Worley, Michael. “The Love Letters of JJ Winckelmann”, The Gay & Lesbian Review, (September 2011) https://glreview.org/article/the-love-letters-of-j-j-winckelmann/.
Rabbit, Rachel White. “Sex Scenes: How Andy Warhol’s Blow Job Created Queer Visibility, Garage, November 6 2018. https://garage.vice.com/en_us/article/mbyjja/andy-warhol-blow-job.
Ruprecht, Louis A. "Winckelmann and Casanova in Rome: A Case Study of Religion and Sexual Politics in Eighteenth-Century Rome." The Journal of Religious Ethics 38, no. 2 (2010): 297-320.
The School of Life, “Burke On: The Sublime”, youtube video, January 22 2016, 4:20min. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvzG_p_sdOQ.
Warhol, Andy, and Pat Hackett. POPism:the Warhol ’60s. 1st ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.
Weinberg, Jonathan. "Things Are Queer." Art Journal 55, no. 4 (1996): 11-14.
Yalcinkaya, Gunseli. “A Selection of Andy Warhol’s erotic Drawings of Men will debut in London” Dazed, 17 February 2020, https://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/47977/1/see-andy-warhols-erotic-drawings-of-men-for-the-first-time