HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 44 years ago today: Andy ...

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:02 AM

 

44 years ago today: Andy Warhol is shot by Valerie Solanas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#Attempted_murder_.281968.29

On June 3, 1968, Valerie Solanas shot Warhol and art critic and curator Mario Amaya at Warhol's studio. Before the shooting, Solanas had been a marginal figure in the Factory scene. She authored the S.C.U.M. Manifesto, a separatist feminist attack on males. Solanas appears in the 1968 Warhol film I, a Man. Earlier on the day of the attack, Solanas had been turned away from the Factory after asking for the return of a script she had given to Warhol. The script had apparently been misplaced.

Amaya received only minor injuries and was released from the hospital later the same day. Warhol, however, was seriously wounded by the attack and barely survived: surgeons opened his chest and massaged his heart to help stimulate its movement again. He suffered physical effects for the rest of his life. The shooting had a profound effect on Warhol's life and art.

Solanas was arrested the day after the assault. By way of explanation, she said that Warhol "had too much control over my life." She was eventually sentenced to three years under the control of the Department of Corrections. After the shooting, the Factory scene became much more tightly controlled, and for many the "Factory 60s" ended. The shooting was mostly overshadowed in the media due to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy two days later.

Warhol had this to say about the attack: "Before I was shot, I always thought that I was more half-there than all-there I always suspected that I was watching TV instead of living life. People sometimes say that the way things happen in movies is unreal, but actually it's the way things happen in life that's unreal. The movies make emotions look so strong and real, whereas when things really do happen to you, it's like watching television you don't feel anything. Right when I was being shot and ever since, I knew that I was watching television. The channels switch, but it's all television



Fascinating - I never really knew much about this until now...

43 replies, 9145 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply 44 years ago today: Andy Warhol is shot by Valerie Solanas (Original post)
Cooley Hurd Jun 2012 OP
Zalatix Jun 2012 #1
DonCoquixote Jun 2012 #2
Zalatix Jun 2012 #3
RadiationTherapy Jun 2012 #6
obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #7
Zalatix Jun 2012 #11
DonCoquixote Jun 2012 #23
obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #32
Zalatix Jun 2012 #34
Blue_Tires Jun 2012 #42
Zalatix Jun 2012 #43
undeterred Jun 2012 #4
RadiationTherapy Jun 2012 #5
obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #8
Zalatix Jun 2012 #9
cali Jun 2012 #10
Zalatix Jun 2012 #12
cali Jun 2012 #13
Zalatix Jun 2012 #17
obamanut2012 Jun 2012 #33
Zalatix Jun 2012 #36
magical thyme Jun 2012 #14
cali Jun 2012 #15
Concordia Jun 2012 #18
DonCoquixote Jun 2012 #21
Zalatix Jun 2012 #24
cali Jun 2012 #25
Zalatix Jun 2012 #27
cali Jun 2012 #28
Zalatix Jun 2012 #29
cali Jun 2012 #30
Zalatix Jun 2012 #31
cali Jun 2012 #37
Zalatix Jun 2012 #38
Zalatix Jun 2012 #22
magical thyme Jun 2012 #40
unreadierLizard Jun 2012 #16
cali Jun 2012 #19
cali Jun 2012 #20
Quantess Jun 2012 #26
frazzled Jun 2012 #35
Rhiannon12866 Jun 2012 #39
Tom Ripley Jun 2012 #41

Response to Cooley Hurd (Original post)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:09 AM

1. The motivation behind Solanas shooting Warhol:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.C.U.M._Manifesto#Reception_and_criticism

"Life" in this "society" being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of "society" being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex

If 'men' and 'women' were reversed in this manifesto it would be called hate speech.

40 years have passed and absolutely nothing has changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:17 AM

2. Be careful

It's not like many Feminists embrace Solanas, if any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:21 AM

3. True, but still, when has "SCUM Manifesto" ever been called sexism or terrorism?

 

It would be if it was a man writing about women.

Valerie Solanas is right up there with the worst of bigots. All she lacks, fortunately as you indicated, is an adoring army.

Thank God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:26 AM

6. For someone who just found out about this - because it has no historical significance -

it is strange you are implying that this nobody requires our attention now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:32 AM

7. The Manifesto has been HEAVILY criticized over the years

Many critics and scholars have also considered it satire, and Solanas herself called it a literary device ala Swift.

I agree with the other poster: you are attempting a broad brush here this is inaccurate and unfair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:49 AM

11. Uh sorry but I can't let that "Solanas called it a literary device" claim stand, because it's wrong.

 

Solanas first claimed she was dead serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.C.U.M._Manifesto#cite_note-

Someone else, particularly Alexandra DeMonte, claimed that Solanas later flip-flopped on that.

There is also the fact that she backed up her Manifesto with action: by shooting Warhol. I'm not sure how you can get more serious than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:24 AM

23. hang on

Let us not forget the woman was mentally ill, and also a HEAVY drug user. Consider that she died an early grave after going back to prostitution. Not very feminist, especially when, if she was clever, she could have turned this crime into a gig (especially as a lot of people HATED Warhol, and could have given her money for the sheer joy of spite.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:49 AM

32. Sorry, but I'm right

She claimed it was a literally device. I think it was either satire or the work of a mentally ill mind, because Solanas was quite obviously mentally ill.

Going by your logic, then I guess SCUM was a real organization since she said it was, right? Even though it never existed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:51 AM

34. The fact that Solanas said she was dead serious contradicts you.

 

But she was quite mentally ill.

SCUM wasn't a real organization unless an organization of one. It is no stretch of logic at all to assume she wanted it to be an organization of many.

Remember, she did say she was DEAD serious about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 09:07 AM

42. DUers have called it out in the past...

You'd have to search waayyyy back (it may have even been the 35th anniversary), but iirc there was a prominent DUer who knew both Solanas and Warhol, and that poster didn't mince words of what she thought of Solanas...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #42)

Mon Jun 4, 2012, 09:28 AM

43. Yes, that's the DU, as I said elsewhere in here I wasn't accusing the DU

 

I was actually referring to the critics mentioned in the Wiki article about Solanas. Not a single person in that article referred to her as a bigot, terrorist or hatemonger. The worst you heard from them was she was a radical. The pundits were extremely reserved.

Given the wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide diversity of opinions on the DU it would be impossible to say what DUers' opinions were. I wasn't even going there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:24 AM

4. Its hard to comprehend why any feminist who wanted to eliminate males

would start out with a male artist, much less with Warhol. I never even knew this happened to him.

Edit: I guess her reasons were as much personal as political.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:24 AM

5. Well, the old testament is thousands of years old and has caused immeasurably more pain,

humilation, and subjugation of women than this silly 'manifesto' ever could to men. Find one person who takes Solana's nonsense as seriously as biblical nonsense and I'll give you a nickle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RadiationTherapy (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:32 AM

8. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RadiationTherapy (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:34 AM

9. I'm not sure where I ever said Solanas caused as much pain as the Old Testament.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 07:38 AM

10. uh, bullshit. it is hate speech and I don't know that anyone would claim differently

 

now continue your whine about how unfair this society is to men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:22 AM

12. I can show you a bunch of people who claim differently right in the Wiki source I posted.

 

Now feel free to continue your ignorance about reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:24 AM

13. I think what you're doing is cheap and very ugly.

 

yes, I'm sure you can dig up crap- anyone can dig up crap that supports their bullshit on the web. alas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:39 AM

17. Cheap and ugly? Just because what you said was demonstrably wrong?

 

"I don't know that anyone would claim differently". I showed you plenty of people, pundits no less, who claimed differently.

Why can't you just admit that, instead of coming up with crap like "cheap and ugly"?

Am I taking rights away from you or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:50 AM

33. Exactly Cali

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 11:05 AM

36. Cali said "I don't know that anyone would claim differently"

 

Let's see if you find the presentation of the following facts to be cheap and ugly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

Prof. Dana Heller said the author had an "anarchic social vision"[37] and the Manifesto had "near-utopian theories"[38]

According to Village Voice reviewer B. Ruby Rich, "SCUM was an uncompromising global vision",[9]

Rich says the Manifesto brought out women's "despair and anger" and advanced feminism

Laura Winkiel, an associate professor of English at the University of Colorado at Boulder, argues that the "SCUM manifesto parodies the performance of patriarchal social order it refuses."


These people didn't see the SCUM manifesto as hate speech. This clearly refutes cali's statement.

What's cheap and ugly here, apparently, is dispelling Cali's erroneous arguments. However, what neither you nor Cali can do is say that EVERYONE looked upon Solanas's words as hate speech. That is untrue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:35 AM

14. you're right. in 40 years nothing has changed

 

It is hate speech

Women still make something like 75 cents on the dollar for equal work, even the same work

Men still dominate society, whether it's the pope and a bunch of pedophile rapist priests plus politicians sticking their noses into our uteri, the media dominating the airwaves with football, or corporations denying us equal opportunity, or schools tracking girls away from math and science, it just keeps on.

Because as others have written, her manifesto largely ignored and irrelevent, her acts seem to have been more personal than political. A sole nutcase.

So your point is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:36 AM

15. I think his point is that women can get away with hate speech and men can't.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:47 AM

18. You're right

Men can just get away with regulating our bodies instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Concordia (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:21 AM

21. I know you are being baited

However, don't let the guy bait you. No feminist I know of has praised Valerie, but the game played is of course "The mean lady insulted me, there she makes my point."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:32 AM

24. Baited into doing what? My critique was about the wiki article, not DUers.

 

The wiki article itself hardly portrayed Solanas as what she was: a heinous, hateful monster who took her bigoted beliefs into real life by putting a bullet into a man. Okay, so it's a wiki article and it's not supposed to delve into such emotional words. Okay. But it didn't even refer to her as a bigot or a terrorist, both of which she clearly was.

44 years later we have people like Maureen Dowd calling men unnecessary and Sharon Osborne laughing and making jokes about a man being castrated (with a follow-up that was about as apologetic as Rush Limbaugh re: Sandra Fluke).

Note to any potential jury: nowhere in this have been I attacking or baiting DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:45 AM

25. No, your so called criticque was that women get away with shit that men don't

 

and your misogynistic crap is really getting old. For every comment by a Maureen Dowd or Sharon Osbourne, you have hundreds of comments that not only insult women but try to control them.

Your whiny crap about how you poor men are so oppressed by mean women, is sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:58 AM

27. It's your irrational attempts to wring misogyny out of thin air are getting old.

 

Just because others try to insult or control women doesn't mean what Maureen Dowd or Sharon Osbourne say are any less wrong. You have no counter argument to this.

Your intolerance of men voicing their displeasure about misandry is more hilarious than sickening. It shows just how far you're willing to go to make up charges of misogyny. For you to accuse me of misogyny you must show where I have ever supported attacks on women's rights. Outside of that you have no credibility here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:03 AM

28. Your harping on the widely repudiated actions and words of a lone nut

 

remind me of wingnuts who insist that the real problem with racism is black on white racism.

and I'm hardly the only person in this thread calling you out on your bullshit, honey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:17 AM

29. LOL you can't back your irrational misogyny accusation so instead you associate me with wingnuts.

 

Once again you miss the mark. I never once said the real problem is male bashing.

You can call as many persons on this thread that you want, you still cannot back up your claims that I am spewing misogyny or your newest frantic allegation that I'm somehow saying that the oppression of women isn't a real problem.

So whatcha got next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #29)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:20 AM

30. wrong again.

 

I'm right on the mark, sweetie. Your insistence that women get away with being hateful bigots and that men don't is proof of the pudding.

but keep it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:35 AM

31. Ooooh now you declare yourself to be right on the mark. Even with absolutely no evidence.

 

I said "If 'men' and 'women' were reversed in this manifesto it would be called hate speech" which does basically mean Valerie Solanas didn't get a lick of criticism compared to what she deserved, and I cited the Wiki article which never ONCE portrayed her as any sort of bigot or terrorist. I also cited others, like Dowd and Osborne, who got away with that crap.

You tried to turn that into me hating women, and when that failed you morphed it into accusing me of saying that oppressing women wasn't a real problem in society.

You've failed on both counts. You've got nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 11:07 AM

37. LOL. and you're not doing that? too funny.

 

it's clear as a bell what you are, darlin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #37)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 11:09 AM

38. I'm not declaring victory. I'm just commenting on how lacking and meandering your argument is.

 

You're getting outrageously angry and indignant for no good reason.

Nobody here is being misogynistic. No one is claiming what women go through isn't a REAL problem. Nobody is doing anything that you're talking about.

You've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Concordia (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:24 AM

22. Au contraire, it may cost Robbedme the election.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:54 PM

40. you mean the way Rush Limbaugh has paid for his years of hate speech against women? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Original post)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:37 AM

16. I have to laugh about how

 

the people in this thread turn this disturbing event and it's propaganda(SCUM manifesto) into an attempt to rag on men.

I guess Andy Warhol deserved to be shot because he was an oppressive Patriarchy Member?

Get over yourselves. No one deserves to be shot or harmed, men or women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:53 AM

19. you might note that this is in response to someone

 

claiming that women get away with hate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 08:54 AM

20. oh, and not one person in this thread has condoned what she did or said

 

I despise the stupid trick of pretending people have said something they have not. It's contemptible, honey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unreadierLizard (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:47 AM

26. You just wove that out of whole cloth.

Complete and total fabrication on your part. I don't even care about this long-past event or even very much about the discussion, but I am blown away at how you came up with that impression from this discussion..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Original post)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:57 AM

35. She was nuts

I think that is the main point to take away from this: except to say that nuttiness was, unfortunately, hard at times to distinguish from the general tenor of the times, and thus gets mixed up with other, legitimate, issues of the era. I shouldn't say "nuts" but rather mentally ill.

It was a tragedy; and she deserved far more than the 3 years in prison (mental hospital).

I don't think you can make her into a legitimate figure of the feminist movement any more than Ted Kaczynski's manifestos and actions were representative of the left. Though, sadly, some feminists at the time did defend her. It was a time of excess, sometimes brilliant and sometimes very sad. Those of us who lived through it have bad tastes in our mouths from some of it (and fond memories of other, more innocent, craziness.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #35)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 03:55 PM

39. +1. Well said...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Original post)

Sun Jun 3, 2012, 09:57 PM

41. Pity that Paul Morrissey was in the bathroom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread