Andy Warhol is an observer he does it all the time, at parties at the factory he would just sit there and watch observe people and he also made some films of just people starring into a camera for 5 minutes.
Being dumbfounded about this and that doesn't make you an observer, let alone observant. Andy lived in a reality that is for the eye alone. He missed out.
Frank was very straight forward and not afraid to speak his mind, of course, but never fake. He was usually pretty reasonable, so if he was pissed off, more than likely it was something Warhol did. Warhol wasn't the most well-adjusted guy you could meet, anyway.
I'm surprised that a "true" fan of Zappa's would think that he was "going after" social and political targets in his lyrics and music. If you're going after someone, you have a personal agenda to stop people from doing what you disagree with YOURSELF. What Frank was doing, as far as I can tell, was social and political commentary in the form of (mainly musical) satire. And that's not the same as actively trying to stop someone from doing their duties or prohibiting them from engaging in their chosen activities. It's simply sharing a point of view regarding people and things that you find to be ridiculous or unjustified in some way (based on facts). And you share that point of view in the hope of raising awareness of certain issues. And if people, who otherwise might not have given much, if any, thought on the matter hear the songs or whatever, they can then make up their own mind if they agree with you or not. Compare that with the PMRC-instigated senate hearings, which were nothing short of McCarthy-esqe witch hunts. Or why not how the religious factions try to limit free speech and stage "outrage" over the slightest detail that they don't like or agree with. Those people ARE going after others. And they've got the money to pose a serious threat to individual freedom and rights, since they've managed to go after enough people who believe that they've got the absolute moral truth on their side. Frank Zappa and others like him, should be celebrated for their efforts against moral oppression, political correctness and for their support of a truly improved educational system, etc. But people who try to make a change never get the credit they deserve.
teppolundgren I kind of doubt that the interviewer meant "going after" in the strict sense of "attacking"...just a not very thought out choice of words. And like alot of humorist (I put Zappa right up there with Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and George Carlin), some of his observations on some subjects had alot more sting, than on other subjects. I do think Zappa didn't like when people assumed that they had him figured out, because nobody did
klmullins65 Well, how much you perceive "the sting" depends a lot on how closely you associate with a particular subject, and your general moral attitude. People are hypocrites. It's fine to have freedom of speech as long as their own values aren't being criticized. Frank had no such qualms. His life was in no way dictated by political correctness, and neither is mine. For those who feel that certain things shouldn't be said, it doesn't take much before they feel attacked. I prefer to give educated opinions on ANYTHING, rather than only say what I think people want to hear. As long as you can prove what you're saying and are prepared to deal with the consequences of your words, you can say anything. But you can speculate openly about whatever you like. And people shouldn't forbid you from doing so. Instead, they should focus on proving you wrong, if they disagree with you. I think Frank was trying to make people think for themselves by pointing out the flaws in the system. And even though he had every right to do so, he was constantly attacked for being an attacker. This isn't a war. It's a difference of opinion. And I will choose to side with the person who dares to question and upset the status quo, every time. Political correctness leads to stagnation. We cannot be overly sensitive and also make true progress. Frank was trying to point that out, but you try telling the right-wing bores that.
teppolundgren I agree to a large extent...but the problem some people have with free speech is that they think that the use of free speech should come without repercussions...but if someone pisses somebody off, that other person has a right to his reaction too...with free speech comes personal responsibility. Take, for example, when the singer for The Dixie Chicks made a remark about George W. Bush...she had every right to say it...but she should have considered that her band's fan base was made up largely of conservatives, and there would be a backlash that might possibly end their career...and the people in that fan base has every right to stop supporting them if they choose. Too often, people mistake "free speech", for being able to say anything they want, without repercussions.
klmullins65 She said that in London, in front of English liberal fans. Furthermore, she did what she wanted to do, and then she lived with her decision and defended it. Eventually, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and the majority of people now consider George W, Bush an idiot, and the Dixie Chicks continued to have hit albums. So she was right to say what she did. She only said it before their American audience had caught on to the truth... Anyway, freedom of speech does not mean that we've also got freedom of reaction. Free words can be fought with free words. But if you want to bitch slap someone in retaliation, you have to do so within the confines of the law, which coincidentally is made up of words. ;)
teppolundgren I know WHERE she said, and believe me, I have NO problem at all with what she said...I'm no fan of George W Bush...but Im using that incident as an example of the often unintended repercussions of free speech...the Dixie Chicks' fan base in the US were pretty much the average country music fans, rural and suburban conservatives (they'd only just crossed over to a pop audience)... but that's just an example of free speech having consequences...people criticized the people who reacted negatively, but those people are exercising their right to free expression too, so its hyporcritical to criticize somebody who reacts negatively to your opinion...unless they insist that you have no right to express yourself...and we all know that some people who cite the right to free speech are often the ones who dont want OTHERS to have that right!
That's becuase he was permanently out of his depth...he's nothing more than a confection manufactured by rich Manahattan art dealers for their benefit.....every seen Being There with Peter Sellers?...that's Andy
Warhol never said anything remotely clever about his own work. He was just another wanna be DaDaist who some critics spin into a genius... The only thing he was good at was keeping his mouth shut.
Andy Warhol is a "Genius"? Please. That is the sort of BS that everyone repeats and no one can support or explain. He was nothing close to genius ever.
