How American Bandstand Changed American Culture: Revisit Scenes from the Iconic Music Show

In a Pon­ti­ac adver­tise­ment that aired just before the 1969 episode of Amer­i­can Band­stand above, the year’s mod­els are tout­ed as “break­away cars” — vehi­cles for escape with­out rebel­lion. The ad shows a hand­ful of get­aways, all end­ing at the deal­er­ship, presided over by a bland sales­man who smiles and nods his approval. It’s an appo­site choice for the pro­gram that fol­lows — a show which, for 37 years, gave Amer­i­can audi­ences safe teenage rebel­lion in the whole­some con­tain­er of Dick Clark’s fic­tion­al 50s record shop.

As the episode opens, the cam­era pans around the bod­ies of teenage dancers, as if they were this year’s newest mod­els, then lands on the smil­ing, square-jawed Clark, the seem­ing­ly age­less host who gave approval to the pro­ceed­ings for the folks back home. What was he sell­ing?

View­ers could con­sume the lat­est dance trends and pop hits in their liv­ing rooms, then jour­ney to the local record shop — just like the one on set! The show’s reach was huge, and most every artist who made an appear­ance crossed over into main­stream suc­cess.

Amer­i­can Band­stand began its life in 1952 on a local ABC affil­i­ate sta­tion in Philadel­phia. Then it was called Band­standand its hosts were radio per­son­al­i­ty Bob Horn and for­mer ad sales­man Lee Stew­art, whom, it was thought, “could bring some of his clients on board as adver­tis­ers,” as Steve Cohen writes at the Cul­tur­al Crit­ic. “Stew­art had no charis­ma and even­tu­al­ly was dropped from the pro­gram.” Horn con­tin­ued until 1956, when he was fired from the show after a drunk-dri­ving arrest. The show’s whole­some image belied sor­did begin­nings.

Clark joined at the young age of 26 to replace Horn, the hard-drink­ing, chain-smok­ing 40-year-old. Estab­lish­ing an easy rap­port with the show’s young dancers, who came from the local West Philadel­phia Neigh­bor­hood, Clark helped return Band­stand to respectabil­i­ty, then pushed for it to go nation­al, which it did in 1957, “beam­ing images of clean-cut, aver­age teenagers,” notes History.com, “danc­ing to the not-so-clean-cut Jer­ry Lee Lewis’ ‘Whole Lot­ta Shakin’ Goin’ On’ to 67 ABC affil­i­ates across the nation.” (A gross­ly iron­ic musi­cal choice.)

Renamed Amer­i­can Band­stand, the new­ly nation­al pro­gram fea­tured a num­ber of new ele­ments that became part of its trade­mark, includ­ing the high school gym-like bleach­ers and the famous seg­ment in which teenage stu­dio guests rat­ed the newest records on a scale from 25 to 98 and offered such crit­i­cisms as “It’s got a good beat, and you can dance to it.” But the heart of Amer­i­can Band­stand always remained the sound of the day’s most pop­u­lar music com­bined with the sight of the show’s unpol­ished teen “reg­u­lars” danc­ing and show­ing off the lat­est fash­ions in cloth­ing and hair­styles.

Four years after becom­ing the show’s host, Clark became a mil­lion­aire at age 30. Hauled before Con­gress in 1960 to answer pay­ola charges, he admit­ted to tak­ing a few bribes, promised to divest, and skat­ed away on charm while a busi­ness part­ner con­fessed and resigned. At the time, he described him­self as “hav­ing an inter­est in 33 busi­ness­es,” Becky Krys­tal writes at The Wash­ing­ton Post, “rang­ing from music pub­lish­ers to, as The New York Times report­ed, an oper­a­tion that made and sold a stuffed kit­ten for sale on Amer­i­can Band­stand called the Plat­ter-Puss.” His busi­ness mod­el was decades ahead of the indus­try.

“A man with an unerr­ing sense of what Amer­i­cans want­ed to hear and see,” Krys­tal writes (or a sense of who to ask), Clark “achieved his great­est renown for an abil­i­ty to con­nect with the taste of the post-World War II baby-boom gen­er­a­tion. By the show’s 30th anniver­sary, almost 600,000 teenagers and 10,000 per­form­ers had appeared on the pro­gram. Among those to make ear­ly nation­al appear­ances includ­ed Bud­dy Hol­ly, James Brown, Ike and Tina Turn­er, and Simon and Gar­funkel. Dance crazes such as the Twist and the Watusi could be traced to the ‘Band­stand’ stu­dio.”

Amer­i­can Band­stand did­n’t only dis­sem­i­nate pop cul­ture to the mass­es; it also has been cred­it­ed with help­ing to inte­grate Amer­i­can cul­ture with its inte­grat­ed for­mat. It’s a claim large­ly spread, his crit­ics allege, by Clark him­self. Amer­i­can Stud­ies pro­fes­sor Matthew Del­mont argues that, while the show sold an image of inte­gra­tion, allow­ing a few Black kids from the large­ly inte­grat­ed West Philly neigh­bor­hood to appear, it also employed dis­crim­i­na­to­ry tac­tics to exclude the major­i­ty of Black stu­dents who want­ed to dance.

Clark may have bowed to the pres­sure of the times, but he was a con­sum­mate sales­man who nev­er lost a chance to make a buck. As Del­mont says, he began tout­ing the show’s his­to­ry of inte­gra­tion when Amer­i­can Band­stand faced stiff com­pe­ti­tion in the 70s from upstart rival Soul Train,a show that taught a new, post-boomer, post-Civ­il Rights gen­er­a­tion of kids how to dance, and whose smooth-voiced cre­ator-host Don Cor­nelius made the square-jawed Clark look like a total square. See many more clips and edit­ed episodes of Amer­i­can Band­stand from 1963–1970, before Soul Train con­sid­er­ably upped the ante for dance shows every­where, on YouTube here.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

John Lydon & Pub­lic Image Ltd. Sow Chaos on Amer­i­can Band­stand: The Show’s Best and Worst Moment (1980)

Talk­ing Heads’ First TV Appear­ance Was on Amer­i­can Band­stand, and It Was a Lit­tle Awk­ward (1979)

Dick Clark Intro­duces Jef­fer­son Air­plane & the Sounds of Psy­che­del­ic San Fran­cis­co to Amer­i­ca: Yes Par­ents, You Should Be Afraid (1967)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Hear Isabella Rossellini Sing “Blue Velvet” in Its Entirety

Blue had a big moment in 1990’s Euro­pean art­house cin­e­ma, in films like Krzysztof Kieślowski’s Three Colours: Blue and Derek Jarman’s auto-ele­giac Blue, the last film the direc­tor made before his death in 1995; blue as a col­or of impos­si­ble love, loss, and death — moods and themes deeply inter­twined with music in both films and both direc­tors’ oeu­vres. But where would the col­or blue in art house cin­e­ma be with­out David Lynch’s 1986 Blue Vel­vet, the sur­re­al neo-noir that intro­duced Lynch to Brook­lyn-born com­pos­er Ange­lo Badala­men­ti, and thus began one of most cre­ative of art house rela­tion­ships between cin­e­ma and music?

Badala­men­ti first joined the film’s pro­duc­tion not as a com­pos­er but as a voice coach for star Isabel­la Rosselli­ni, who played a risky role not only because of Blue Vel­vet’s sado­masochism and nudi­ty, but also because she was cast as a lounge singer, even though, as Rosselli­ni admits, she could­n’t sing. “My friend Peter Run­flo said Lynch was shoot­ing in North Car­oli­na and Isabel­la Rosselli­ni wasn’t hap­py with the peo­ple teach­ing her to sing,” Badala­men­ti tells Spir­it and Flesh mag­a­zine.

“I said, ‘You can get any­body for that. I got­ta wash my car.’ [laughs] I was more into arrang­ing and orches­trat­ing and didn’t know who David Lynch was. But he con­vinced me by say­ing it’s a Dino De Lau­ren­ti­is movie – I knew that name. I met with Isabel­la and after a cou­ple of hours with a piano and a lit­tle cas­sette recorder, we got a decent vocal.”

Lynch want­ed Badala­men­ti to stick around and write a theme that sound­ed like the Cocteau Twins’ “Song of the Siren,” his favorite song at the time, which he could­n’t afford to license. The result was “Mys­ter­ies of Love,” sung by anoth­er stal­wart Lynch musi­cal col­lab­o­ra­tor, Julee Cruise. But it was the vocal stylings of Dorothy Val­lens that gave the film its title and its pre­vail­ing mood. “Adorned in blue eye­shad­ow, carmine lip­stick and a cheap wig, Dorothy sings in a joint called ‘The Slow Club,’ ” writes The New York Times’ Lau­rie Win­er, “Per­form­ing only bal­lads with the word ‘blue’ in the title, she man­ages to put togeth­er a tat­tered glam­our, like a rem­nant from a 40’s movie, that is pal­pa­bly dis­tress­ing when her stare floats out into the smoke-filled club.”

Lit in lurid blue light, Rosselli­ni sings the film’s “Blue Velvet/Blue Star” med­ley in a smoky con­tral­to, recall­ing Wass­i­ly Kandin­sky’s obser­va­tion, “the col­or blue can even cause a tem­po­rary paral­y­sis.” In the video at the top, a YouTube user has recon­struct­ed Rossellini’s full ren­di­tion of the tit­u­lar song, a Num­ber One hit in 1963 for Bob­by Vin­ton and a break­out hit in 1951 for Tony Ben­nett. “Par­don the huge qual­i­ty dip (and total mono for aur­al con­sis­ten­cy),” the video’s cre­ator notes, “but short of a new sound­track release using the mas­ter, this is the most com­plete ver­sion of this we’ll be get­ting.”

The images and audio were cob­bled togeth­er from the orig­i­nal 1990 sound­track, Ger­man Film­mak­er Peter Braatz’s 2016 doc­u­men­tary, Blue Vel­vet Revis­it­ed, a VHS copy of the film, and the orig­i­nal film audio. Like Nico, anoth­er heav­i­ly-Euro­pean-accent­ed for­mer mod­el whose monot­o­ne defined a new art move­ment, Rossellini’s tune­less lounge act announced a new sur­re­al­ist aes­thet­ic that would reach the main­stream with Blue Vel­vet’s promi­nence upon its release. The last­ing impact of Lynch’s love of blue on the fol­low­ing decade’s cin­e­ma deserves a study all its own, and we should always mark Blue Vel­vet as the first meet­ing of two artists (two “broth­ers,”  Badala­men­ti says) who did more to mar­ry cin­e­mat­ic col­or and musi­cal mood than per­haps any two col­lab­o­ra­tors in the art form.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

David Fos­ter Wal­lace Explains How David Lynch’s Blue Vel­vet Taught Him the True Mean­ing of Avant Garde Art

The Sur­re­al Film­mak­ing of David Lynch Explained in 9 Video Essays

David Lynch Posts His Night­mar­ish Sit­com Rab­bits Online–the Show That Psy­chol­o­gists Use to Induce a Sense of Exis­ten­tial Cri­sis in Research Sub­jects

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Discover Japan’s Oldest Surviving Cookbook Ryori Monogatari (1643)

Maybe your inter­est in Japan was first stoked by the sto­ry of the sev­en­teenth-cen­tu­ry shō­gun Toku­gawa Ieya­su and his cam­paign to uni­fy the coun­try. Or maybe it was Japan­ese food. Either way, culi­nary and his­tor­i­cal sub­jects have a way of inter­twin­ing in every land — not to men­tion mak­ing count­less pos­si­ble lit­er­ary and cul­tur­al con­nec­tions along the way. For the curi­ous mind, enjoy­ing a Japan­ese meal may well lead, soon­er or lat­er, to read­ing Japan’s old­est cook­book. Pub­lished in 1643, the sur­viv­ing edi­tion of Ryori Mono­gatari (var­i­ous­ly trans­lat­ed as “Nar­ra­tive of Actu­al Food Prepa­ra­tion” or, more sim­ply, “A Tale of Food”) resides at the Tokyo Nation­al Muse­um, but you can read a fac­sim­i­le at the Tokyo Met­ro­pol­i­tan Library.

Trans­la­tor Joshua L. Bad­g­ley did just that in order to pro­duce an online Eng­lish ver­sion of the ven­er­a­ble recipe col­lec­tion. In an intro­duc­to­ry essay, he describes his trans­la­tion process and offers some his­tor­i­cal con­text as well. Ryori Mono­gatari was writ­ten ear­ly in the era of the Toku­gawa shogu­nate, which had been found­ed by the afore­men­tioned Ieya­su.

“For the pre­vi­ous 120 years, the coun­try had been engulfed in civ­il wars,” but this “Age of War­ring States” also “saw the first major con­tact with Euro­peans through the Por­tuguese, who land­ed in 1542, and lat­er saw the inva­sion of Korea.” The for­eign­ers “brought with them new ideas, and access to a new world of food, which con­tin­ues to this day in the form of things like tem­pu­ra and kasutera (castel­la).”

Con­sol­i­dat­ed by Ieya­su, Japan’s sub­se­quent 250-year-long peace “saw an increased empha­sis on schol­ar­ship, and many books on the his­to­ry of Japan were writ­ten in this time. In addi­tion, trav­el jour­nals were becom­ing pop­u­lar, indi­cat­ing var­i­ous spe­cial­ties and del­i­ca­cies in each vil­lage.” The now-unknown author of Ryori Mono­gatari seems to have gone around col­lect­ing recipes that had been passed down oral­ly for gen­er­a­tions — hence the some­times vague and approx­i­mate instruc­tions. But unusu­al­ly, note pub­lish­ers Red Cir­cle, the book also “includes recipes for game at a time when eat­ing meat was viewed by most as a taboo.” In it one finds instruc­tions for prepar­ing veni­son, hare, boar, and even rac­coon dog.

Your fas­ci­na­tion with Japan might not have begun with a meal of rac­coon dog. But Ryori Mono­gatari also includes recipes for sashi­mi, sushi, udon and yak­i­tori, all eat­en so wide­ly around the world today that their names no longer mer­it ital­ics. Tak­en togeth­er, the book’s expla­na­tions of its dish­es open a win­dow on how the Japan­ese ate dur­ing the Edo peri­od, named for the cap­i­tal city we now know as Tokyo, which last­ed from 1603 to 1863. (In the video just above, Tast­ing His­to­ry vlog­ger Max Miller makes a typ­i­cal bowl of Edo noo­dles, based on a recipe from the 1643 cook­book.) “From the mid-Edo peri­od,” says the Tokyo Nation­al Muse­um, “restau­rants began to emerge across Japan, reflect­ing a new trend toward enjoy­ing food as recre­ation.” By the late Edo peri­od, an era cap­tured by ukiyo‑e mas­ter Hiroshige, eat­ing out had become a nation­al pas­time. And not so long there­after, going for Japan­ese food would become a culi­nary, his­tor­i­cal, and cul­tur­al treat savored the world over.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

An Archive of 3,000 Vin­tage Cook­books Lets You Trav­el Back Through Culi­nary Time

Cook­pad, the Largest Recipe Site in Japan, Launch­es New Site in Eng­lish

1,000+ His­toric Japan­ese Illus­trat­ed Books Dig­i­tized & Put Online by the Smith­son­ian: From the Edo & Meji Eras (1600–1912)

Tast­ing His­to­ry: A Hit YouTube Series Shows How to Cook the Foods of Ancient Greece & Rome, Medieval Europe, and Oth­er Places & Peri­ods

The New York Times Makes 17,000 Tasty Recipes Avail­able Online: Japan­ese, Ital­ian, Thai & Much More

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities, the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

B.F. Skinner Demonstrates His “Teaching Machine,” the 1950s Automated Learning Device

The name B.F. Skin­ner often pro­vokes dark­ly humor­ous ref­er­ences to such bizarre ideas as “Skin­ner box­es,” which put babies in cage-like cribs, and put the cribs in win­dows as if they were air-con­di­tion­ers, leav­ing the poor infants to raise them­selves. Skin­ner was hard­ly alone in con­duct­ing exper­i­ments that flout­ed, if not fla­grant­ly ignored, the eth­i­cal con­cerns now cen­tral to exper­i­men­ta­tion on humans. The code of con­duct on tor­ture and abuse that osten­si­bly gov­erns mem­bers of the Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion did not exist. Rad­i­cal behav­ior­ists like Skin­ner were redefin­ing the field. His work has come to stand for some of its worst abus­es.

But Skin­ner has been mis­char­ac­ter­ized in the pop­u­lar­iza­tion of his ideas — a pop­u­lar­iza­tion, it’s true, in which he enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly took part. The actu­al “Skin­ner box” was cru­el enough — an elec­tri­fied cage for ani­mal exper­i­men­ta­tion — but it was not the infant win­dow box that often goes by the name. This was, instead, called an “air­crib” or “baby-ten­der,” and it was loaded with crea­ture com­forts like cli­mate con­trol and a com­ple­ment of toys. “In our com­part­ment,” Skin­ner wrote in a 1945 Ladies Home Jour­nal arti­cle, “the wak­ing hours are invari­ably active and hap­py ones.” Describ­ing his first test sub­ject, his own child, he wrote, “our baby acquit­ted an amus­ing, almost ape­like skill in the use of her feet.”

Skin­ner was not a soul­less mon­ster who put babies in cages, but he also did not under­stand mam­malian babies’ need for phys­i­cal touch. Like­wise, when it came to edu­ca­tion, Skin­ner had ideas that can seem con­trary to what we know works best, name­ly a vari­ety of meth­ods that hon­or dif­fer­ent learn­ing styles and abil­i­ties. Edu­ca­tors in the 1950s embraced far more reg­i­ment­ed prac­tices, and Skin­ner believed humans could be trained just like oth­er ani­mals. He treat­ed an ear­ly exper­i­ment in class­room tech­nol­o­gy just like an exper­i­ment teach­ing pigeons to play ping-pong. It was, in fact, “the foun­da­tion for his edu­ca­tion tech­nol­o­gy,” says edu­ca­tion jour­nal­ist Audrey Wat­ters, “that we’ll build machines and they’ll give stu­dents — just like pigeons — pos­i­tive rein­force­ment and stu­dents — just like pigeons — will learn new skills.”

To this end, Skin­ner cre­at­ed what he called the Teach­ing Machine in 1954 while he taught psy­chol­o­gy at Har­vard. He was hard­ly the first to design such a device, but he was the first to invent a machine based on behav­ior­ist prin­ci­ples, as Abhishek Solan­ki explains in a Medi­um arti­cle:

The teach­ing machine was com­posed of main­ly a pro­gram, which was a sys­tem of com­bined teach­ing and test items that car­ried the stu­dent grad­u­al­ly through the mate­r­i­al to be learned. The “machine” was com­posed of a fill-in-the-blank method on either a work­book or on a com­put­er. If the stu­dent was cor­rect, he/she got rein­force­ment and moved on to the next ques­tion. If the answer was incor­rect, the stu­dent stud­ied the cor­rect answer to increas­ing the chances of get­ting rein­forced next time.

Con­sist­ing of a wood­en box, a met­al lid with cutouts, and var­i­ous paper discs with ques­tions and answers writ­ten on them, the machine did adjust for dif­fer­ent stu­dents’ needs, in a way. Skin­ner “not­ed that the learn­ing process should be divid­ed into a large num­ber of very small steps and rein­force­ment must be depen­dent upon the com­ple­tion of each step. He believed this was the best pos­si­ble arrange­ment for learn­ing because it took into account the rate of learn­ing for each indi­vid­ual stu­dent.” He was again inspired by his own chil­dren, com­ing up with the machine after vis­it­ing his daugh­ter’s school and decid­ing he could improve on things.

The method and means of learn­ing, as you’ll see in the demon­stra­tion films above, were not indi­vid­u­al­ized. “There was very, very lit­tle free­dom in Skin­ner’s vision,” says Wat­ters. “Indeed Skin­ner wrote a very well-known book, Beyond Free­dom and Dig­ni­ty in the ear­ly 1970s, in which he said free­dom does­n’t exist.” While Skin­ner’s machine did­n’t itself become wide­ly used, his ideas about edu­ca­tion, and edu­ca­tion tech­nol­o­gy, are still very much with us. We see Skin­ner’s machine “tak­ing new forms with adap­tive teach­ing and e‑learning,” writes Solan­ki.

And we see the dark­er side of his design in class­room tech­nol­o­gy, says Wat­ters, in an indus­try that prof­its from alien­at­ing, one-size-fits all ed-tech solu­tions. But she also sees “stu­dents who are resist­ing and com­mu­ni­ties who are build­ing prac­tices that serve their needs rather than serv­ing the needs of engi­neers.” Skin­ner’s the­o­ries of con­di­tion­ing were and are incred­i­bly per­sua­sive, but his reduc­tive views of human nature seem to leave out more than they explain. Learn more about the his­to­ry of teach­ing machines in Wat­ters’ new book, Teach­ing Machines: The His­to­ry of Per­son­al­ized Learn­ing.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

The Lit­tle Albert Exper­i­ment: The Per­verse 1920 Study That Made a Baby Afraid of San­ta Claus & Bun­nies

Her­mann Rorschach’s Orig­i­nal Rorschach Test: What Do You See? (1921)

A Brief Ani­mat­ed Intro­duc­tion to Noam Chomsky’s Lin­guis­tic The­o­ry, Nar­rat­ed by The X‑Files‘ Gillian Ander­son

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Do We Outgrow the Music of Our Youth? Pretty Much Pop: A Culture Podcast #99

What long-term effects do songs that we’re exposed to ear­ly have on our adult tastes? As chil­dren we (hope­ful­ly) learn to love music, but then our crit­i­cal fac­ul­ties and peer pres­sure kick in, and many ear­ly influ­ences become unac­knowl­edged or trans­formed into guilty plea­sures. Is the gen­er­a­tion gap in musi­cal taste real­ly just due to how styles change over time (and we old folks just don’t get the new sound), or are there more fun­da­men­tal rea­sons why it’s eas­i­er for younger peo­ple to absorb new music?

Today’s pan­el includes your host Mark Lin­sen­may­er plus Eri­ca Spyres, Bri­an Hirt, and The Hus­tle pod­cast host Jon Lam­ore­aux. They share their own expe­ri­ences, songs from yes­ter­year that they have com­pli­cat­ed feel­ings about now, and get into relat­ed top­ics like the activ­i­ties of for­mer pop stars and nos­tal­gia in film sound­tracks.

A few par­tic­u­lar tracks that we men­tion are Go West­’s “King of Wish­ful Think­ing,” Jo Box­ers’  “Just Got Lucky,” Jethro Tul­l’s “Songs from the Wood,” and The Cars’ “Mag­ic.” Can a pret­ty Steve Howe intro redeem this Asia cheese­fest?

A few arti­cles we con­sult­ed includ­ed:

Fol­low Jon’s pod­cast @thehustlepod. To get an idea of the for­mats of The Hus­tle as com­pared to Mark’s Naked­ly Exam­ined Music, why not take a deep dive on Grand Funk Rail­road­’s amaz­ing Mark Farn­er who appeared on both? …NEM, Hus­tle.

Hear more of this pod­cast at prettymuchpop.com. This episode includes bonus dis­cus­sion that you can access by sup­port­ing the pod­cast at patreon.com/prettymuchpop. This pod­cast is part of the Par­tial­ly Exam­ined Life pod­cast net­work.

Pret­ty Much Pop: A Cul­ture Pod­cast is the first pod­cast curat­ed by Open Cul­ture. Browse all Pret­ty Much Pop posts.

Carl Sagan Tells Johnny Carson What’s Wrong with Star Wars: “They’re All White” & There’s a “Large Amount of Human Chauvinism in It” (1978)

Is Star Wars sci­ence fic­tion or fan­ta­sy? Dif­fer­ent fans make dif­fer­ent argu­ments, some even opt­ing for a third way, claim­ing that the ever-mul­ti­ply­ing sto­ries of its ever-expand­ing fic­tion­al uni­verse belong to nei­ther genre. Back in 1978, the year after the release of the orig­i­nal Star Wars film (which no one then called “A New Hope,” let alone “Episode Four”), the ques­tion was approached by no less a pop­u­lar sci­en­tif­ic per­son­al­i­ty than Carl Sagan. It hap­pened on nation­al tele­vi­sion, as the astronomer, cos­mol­o­gist, writer, and tele­vi­sion host in his own right sat oppo­site John­ny Car­son. “The eleven-year-old in me loved them,” Sagan says in the clip above of Star WarsClose Encoun­ters of the Third Kind, and oth­er then-recent space-themed block­busters. “But they could’ve made a bet­ter effort to do things right.”

Every­one remem­bers how Star Wars sets its stage: “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” But right there, Sagan has a prob­lem. Despite its remote­ness from us, this galaxy hap­pens also to be pop­u­lat­ed by human beings, “the result of a unique evo­lu­tion­ary sequence, based upon so many indi­vid­u­al­ly unlike­ly, ran­dom events on the Earth.”

So Homo sapi­ens could­n’t have evolved on any oth­er plan­et, Car­son asks, let alone one in anoth­er galaxy? “It’s extreme­ly unlike­ly that there would be crea­tures as sim­i­lar to us as the dom­i­nant ones in Star Wars.” He goes on to make a more spe­cif­ic cri­tique, one pub­li­cized again in recent years as ahead of its time: “They’re all white.” That is, in the skins of most of the movie’s char­ac­ters, “not even the oth­er col­ors rep­re­sent­ed on the Earth are present, much less greens and blues and pur­ples and oranges.”

Car­son responds, as any­one would, by bring­ing up Star Warscan­ti­na scene, with its rogue’s gallery of var­i­ous­ly non-humanoid habitués. “But none of them seemed to be in charge of the galaxy,” Sagan points out. “Every­body in charge of the galaxy seemed to look like us. I thought there was a large amount of human chau­vin­ism in it.” That no medal is bestowed upon Chew­bac­ca, despite his hero­ics, Sagan declares an exam­ple of “anti-Wook­iee dis­crim­i­na­tion” — with tongue in cheek, grant­ed, but point­ing up how much more inter­est­ing sci­ence fic­tion could be if it relied a lit­tle less on human con­ven­tions and drew a lit­tle more from sci­en­tif­ic dis­cov­er­ies. Not that Star Wars is nec­es­sar­i­ly sci­ence fic­tion. “It was a shootout, was­n’t it?” Car­son asks. “A West­ern in out­er space.” John­ny nev­er did hes­i­tate to call ’em as he saw ’em.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Fans Recon­struct Authen­tic Ver­sion of Star Wars, As It Was Shown in The­aters in 1977

The Com­plete Star Wars “Fil­mu­men­tary”: A 6‑Hour, Fan-Made Star Wars Doc­u­men­tary, with Behind-the-Scenes Footage & Com­men­tary

Carl Sagan Pre­dicts the Decline of Amer­i­ca: Unable to Know “What’s True,” We Will Slide, “With­out Notic­ing, Back into Super­sti­tion & Dark­ness” (1995)

Carl Sagan on the Impor­tance of Choos­ing Wise­ly What You Read (Even If You Read a Book a Week)

Blade Run­ner: The Pil­lar of Sci-Fi Cin­e­ma that Siskel, Ebert, and Stu­dio Execs Orig­i­nal­ly Hat­ed

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities, the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Andy Warhol’s Art Explained: What Makes His Iconic Campbell’s Soup Cans & Marilyn Monroe Diptych Art?

Pop Art looks out into the world. It does­n’t look like a paint­ing of some­thing, it looks like the thing itself. — Artist Roy Licht­en­stein

By 2021, most of us accept that Andy Warhol’s Camp­bel­l’s Soup Cans are art, but there are some who are still not con­fi­dent as to why.

No shame in that.

Art His­to­ri­an Steven Zuck­er and the Khan Academy’s Sal Khan tack­le the ques­tion head on in the below video, con­clud­ing that the work is not only a reflec­tion of the time in which it was cre­at­ed, but that the enor­mi­ty of its impact was made pos­si­ble by that tim­ing.

Forty-five years before Warhol escort­ed those low­ly, instant­ly rec­og­niz­able soup cans from the super­mar­ket to the far lofti­er realm of muse­um and gallery, the art world was thrown into an uproar over Mar­cel Duchamp’s provoca­tive ready­made, Foun­tain, a pre­fab­ri­cat­ed uri­nal sub­mit­ted to the Soci­ety of Inde­pen­dent Artists inau­gur­al exhi­bi­tion as the work of the fic­ti­tious R. Mutt. The Tate Modern’s web­site sum­ma­rizes its impor­tance:

Foun­tain test­ed beliefs about art and the role of taste in the art world. Inter­viewed in 1964, Duchamp said he had cho­sen a uri­nal in part because he thought it had the least chance of being liked (although many at the time did find it aes­thet­i­cal­ly pleas­ing). He con­tin­ued: ‘I was draw­ing people’s atten­tion to the fact that art is a mirage. A mirage, exact­ly like an oasis appears in the desert. It is very beau­ti­ful until, of course, you are dying of thirst. But you don’t die in the field of art. The mirage is sol­id.’

Campbell’s soup cans pos­sess a sim­i­lar solid­i­ty.

The famil­iar label dates back to 1898 when a Campbell’s exec drew inspi­ra­tion from Cor­nell Uni­ver­si­ty’s red and white foot­ball uni­forms.

A full page mag­a­zine ad from 1934 intro­duces Cream of Mush­room and Noo­dle with Chick­en (soon to become Chick­en Noo­dle) by remind­ing read­ers to “Look for the Red-and-White Label.”

By 1962, Campbell’s had giv­en con­sumers their pick of 32 fla­vors, and Warhol paint­ed all 32 of them. Not the con­tents. Just those uni­form cans.

Los Ange­les’ Ferus Gallery sold five of them before gal­lerist Irv­ing Blum real­ized that their impact was great­est when all 32 were dis­played togeth­er, to echo how con­sumers were used to see­ing the real thing.

Warhol had a per­son­al con­nec­tion to his sub­ject mat­ter, but it wasn’t like he set out to rep a life­long favorite. Rather, he was fol­low­ing up on a friend’s sug­ges­tion to paint some­thing every­one would would rec­og­nize, with or with­out pas­sion­ate feel­ings. (He seemed to be with­out:)

I used to drink it. I used to have the same lunch every day, for 20 years, I guess, the same thing over and over again.

Warhol brought a suc­cess­ful com­mer­cial illus­tra­tor’s eye to his Campell’s Soup Cans, cap­i­tal­iz­ing on the public’s exist­ing knowl­edge. The col­ors, the cus­tom cur­sive logo over the sans serif fla­vor font, and the shape of the cans had couched them­selves in the ear­ly-60s Amer­i­can con­scious­ness.

As had indus­tri­al­iza­tion as the over­ar­ch­ing sys­tem by which most lives were ordered. The artist may not have offered overt com­ment on mass pro­duced items, con­ve­nience foods, or brand loy­al­ty. He just depend­ed on the pub­lic to be so inti­mate­ly acquaint­ed with them, they had fad­ed into the wall­pa­per of their dai­ly lives.

Nor was the pub­lic over­ly accus­tomed to every­day objects recon­cep­tu­al­ized as art. These days, we’re a bit blasé.

Warhol’s sub­ject mat­ter may have been pro­sa­ic, but his tim­ing, Khan and Zuck­er tell us, could not have been bet­ter.

As Campbell’s is to soup, Mar­i­lyn Mon­roe is to celebri­ty — an endur­ing house­hold name. Her sexy, youth­ful image is imprint­ed on fans born decades after her death.

The most uni­ver­sal Mar­i­lyn is the one from the Nia­gara pub­lic­i­ty still, immor­tal­ized in acrylic and silkscreen in Warhol’s Mar­i­lyn Dip­tych. One of his most defin­ing works, it was pro­duced the same year as his soup cans (and Monroe’s sui­cide at the age of 36).

In con­sid­er­ing this work for his ongo­ing series, Great Art Explained, gal­lerist James Payne delves into Warhol’s fas­ci­na­tion with mul­ti­ples, celebri­ty, reli­gious iconog­ra­phy, machi­na­tion, and death, not­ing that “both Warhol and Mar­i­lyn under­stood trans­for­ma­tion”:

From ear­ly on in his career, Andy Warhol had an extra­or­di­nary abil­i­ty of find­ing the sacred in the pro­fane.… He was a prod­uct of the East­ern Euro­pean immi­grant expe­ri­ence who him­self became an icon, a shy, gay, work­ing class man who became the court painter of the 1970s, an artist who embraced con­sumerism,  celebri­ty and the coun­ter­cul­ture and changed mod­ern art in the process.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

Andy Warhol Demys­ti­fied: Four Videos Explain His Ground­break­ing Art and Its Cul­tur­al Impact

Andy Warhol Explains Why He Decid­ed to Give Up Paint­ing & Man­age the Vel­vet Under­ground Instead (1966)

Take a Vir­tu­al Tour of the Andy Warhol Exhi­bi­tion at the Tate Mod­ern

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author, the­ater­mak­er, and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

Radiohead’s Thom Yorke Releases a Super Creepy Version of “Creep”

Like many bands with a killer, career-launch­ing debut sin­gle, Radio­head has had a long, love-hate rela­tion­ship with 1992’s “Creep”. There’s no way they would have become sta­di­um fillers with­out it, but they’re also under­stand­ably sick of it. Accord­ing to setlist.fm, they played it over 310 times between 1992 and 1998, and then they kind of dropped it from their gigs once they entered their Kid A phase. Only in 2016, dur­ing the Moon Shaped Pool tours did they add it back into the set.

But man, 2016 seems like a lonnnnnng time ago, doesn’t it? Everybody’s still fig­ur­ing out the future of live con­certs. Nobody is sure how far ahead is safe enough to announce tick­et sales. Will venues be open or shut again? Into the fray of uncer­tain­ty comes this odd­i­ty: a nine-plus minute ver­sion of “Creep” cred­it­ed to Thom Yorke. (“Thom Yorke should col­lab with Radio­head more often” says one wag in the YouTube com­ments). You want Creep, ya say? Well, here’s a LOT of it.

Thom Yorke takes his vocals, stretch­es them out until they’re cor­rupt­ed dig­i­tal­ly, and fills the airy gaps with acoustic gui­tar, adding twice as many bars as the orig­i­nal. As NPR said, Yorke’s vocals sound like a “rant from a man who’s lost his mind to old age and iso­la­tion.” (Hence the “Very 2021 Remix” title). It was about 30 years ago, we have to add, though we hate to admit it. Elec­tron­ic bur­bles and bass throbs enter halfway through and fur­ther dis­turb the already dis­turb­ing.

Yorke cre­at­ed the mix for fash­ion design­er Jun Taka­hashi, whose ani­mat­ed art­work runs in a loop for the video. The song accom­pa­nies Takahashi’s UNDERWORLD Fall 2021 col­lec­tion run­way show.

As Pitch­fork points out, Yorke has con­tributed music to fash­ion shows before:

n 2016, he con­tributed an orig­i­nal song called “Coloured Can­dy” to Rag & Bone’s 2017 Spring/Summer show­case. Years pri­or, he con­tributed the songs “Stuck Togeth­er” and “Twist” for anoth­er one of the fash­ion label’s shows.

Yorke, by the way, hasn’t been lay­ing low dur­ing the plague year. In May of this year he debuted a new side band called The Smile at Glas­ton­bury, called out the John­son gov­ern­ment as “spine­less” regard­ing their response to COVID and the live music scene, and shared a 30-minute mix of new music on BBC Radio 6. What comes next? Stay tuned.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Radiohead’s Thom Yorke Per­forms Songs from His New Sound­track for the Hor­ror Film, Sus­piria

Radio­head Bal­lets: Watch Bal­lets Chore­o­graphed Cre­ative­ly to the Music of Radio­head

Thom Yorke’s Iso­lat­ed Vocal Track on Radiohead’s 1992 Clas­sic, ‘Creep’

Intro­duc­ing The Radio­head Pub­lic Library: Radio­head Makes Their Full Cat­a­logue Avail­able via a Free Online Web Site

Ted Mills is a free­lance writer on the arts who cur­rent­ly hosts the Notes from the Shed pod­cast and is the pro­duc­er of KCR­W’s Curi­ous Coast. You can also fol­low him on Twit­ter at @tedmills, and/or watch his films here.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast