Wednesday, December 26, 2007


I think maybe Marilyn Monroe was a form of reconstructivist art.

Oh hi, it's Wednesday now. Just got out of bed.

Anyway, Marilyn. I find her fascinating. It seems to me that she was either completely fake or completely real.

I guess I should explain that.

Yeah, everybody really cares.

Shut up interior monologue. We're not doing that anymore.

Well, I'll just post anonymously in the comments then.

Um, yeah. You do that. Bye now.

Where was I? Marilyn Monroe. I don't think I have to point out how she may have been completely fake, you get that. But completely real? Well, she was troubled, naive, childlike, alcoholic (narcotic), in and out of love, not the kind of things you would expect from something that is a complete fabrication. Except she was a fabrication. I think she invented a persona that allowed her to completely be herself, something you can't really be in society unless you have an excuse.

I mean she was so good at presenting that image, you all know the image, that she was either a fantastic actress (non-stop, day and night) and hyper-intelligent (not unthinkable), or she just didn't have to think about it.

I think that might make her a piece of reconstructivist art. How can a person be art? Well, Marilyn was a creation of Norma Jeane Baker, completely fictional and perfect, and completely detached from Norma Jeane. And I think Andy Warhol agreed with me when he used her image to show something that he didn't actually create, it was already there. He showed Marilyn, i.e. art.

So why reconstructivist? And who cares? To answer the second question first, and very quickly, I think the idea of reconstructivist art can help us make better art, and I think we can learn from Marilyn. To answer the first question, I'll take the lazy way out and just address the points given on the website one by one. I've just looked at them, and I think this will be easy.

1. A Nod to Artifice: As with deconstructionism, a reconstructivist artwork is aware of its own status as a creation, an illusion or a fiction.

Well what can I say. Of course she was aware, she created Marilyn. She herself was the artwork.

2. A Classic Structure: Despite the inclusion of surprising or startling elements, a reconstructivist artwork is always based on a classic or conventional structure.

Absolutely. Not only was Marilyn based on what a 'star' is, she also embodied traditional ideas of what a woman should look like. Even physically, she had a classic structure.

3. Transcontextual and/or Iconic Elements: A reconstructivist artwork is literally a construct, generally made of decontextualized elements from many different sources.

If Marilyn Monroe is not an icon then I don't know what is. Concerning context, I think it is obvious that she was a fictional character, something borrowed from movies, advertising, and directly from people's imaginations (men have fantasized about women like her, she even borrowed from that).

4. Moments of Genuine Emotion or Significance: No matter how theatrical, cynical or shallow it might appear, a reconstructivist artwork must portray real emotions or inspire a genuine emotional response.

This is the whole point of my argument, I think. She was fake, she was artificial, she was made-up, and at the same time she was completely real. She had affairs, breakdowns, happiness, misery, even a tragic death. You don't fake that stuff. That was real, and emotional.

I think Marilyn Monroe was a work of art, and very good art. I'm going to buy her autobiography, it could be the best work of fiction that ever really happened.

No comments: