Rance, you don’t really know or appreciate the historical context within which the word “magick” is being utilized. But that will teach me to be a bit more specific and explicit and not just assume people get what I’m saying. So thanks for pointing that out.

When you mention that these artists were “extremely deft in their manipulation and shifting of costumes, roles and approaches to their work” and that they were “in full control of their art,” you are basically providing support for what I was saying in my one bit of speculation re: Burroughs and Bowie at the beginning of the piece. They engaged in magick; i.e. manipulation of perceptions, about themselves and about others, as well as perceptions about their work; they also used their work as “tools” of magick in this sense. Magick is about “conscious brain change”, in the terminology of the late Robert Anton Wilson; it’s about learning how to induce, change and control perceptions of the self and the world, for starters. It’s certainly about other things, too, but most folks can grok this much, anyway.

You might wanna read this interview for some background:
http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=1815

Alan Moore, the artist and writer interviewed above, is very knowledgeable about the history of magic as it relates to the arts. He is, by the way, completely pragmatic and in control of his art. He’s also into gobbledegook.

Warhol was very much engaged in magick in the sense I’m discussing–given his use of persona and manipulation of perceptions via the media. A lot of what in earlier times was understood and recognized as magic (in a much more sophisticated way than modern-day reductionists give credit for) is now just referred to as p.r. and marketing.

You might check out the book Eros and Magic in the Renaissance, particularly the introduction, by the late Ioan P. Couliano to get a better appreciation of these things. Many artists and scientists for that matter, were practicing “brain change” via trance induction and various techniques for perception manipulation a long side whatever painting, sculpture, writing or scientific experiments they engaged in. Newton was one of these in the scientific sphere.

Really, if you wanna understand what the “gobbledeegook” I’m saying about Bowie’s relationship to magick is, all you needed to do was click the link within the essay and read Koenig’s extensive writing. If you’re not interested in exploring that or have already made up your mind about the matter, then that’s another thing altogether.

I do appreciate the historical context that you present and am thankful that you brought it up. It adds to the conversation. It just wasn’t my focus. See, I simply wanted to highlight a synchronous bit of the conversation that dovetails with some of the more “out there” beliefs/theories that have made the rounds with different rabbit hole tunnelers ‘ (i.e. conspiracy theorists/researchers; analysts of metapolitics). I’m not saying anything about what that bit of “lizard” conversation means, simply pointing it out.

You can do with that what you will.

We are our own best and worst magicians.

Peace.

Warhol was always known for his insularity, his pallor, his distance. His work is all about distance. Despite his gayness, he always seemed rather asexual and his Polish Catholic upbringing likely didn’t help. “Reptilian” was a rather accurate descriptive adjective of his persona, especially once he started wearing his horrible platinum wigs.

After he was shot, he became extremely paranoid, who wouldn’t? He started his career and had his initial success as an illustrator of shoe advertising, why wouldn’t he find Bowie’s shoes interesting given how sartorially sharp Bowie has always been? At this point in time, Bowie seems unaware of this historical fact even though he’d already recorded the song “Andy Warhol”.

As highly intelligent artists of that era, both Bowie and Warhol, among many others, were acutely aware of image and extremely deft in their manipulation and the shifting of costumes, roles and approaches to their work

I don’t know what this gobbledegook about magic is in reference to; all three of this artists were highly pragmatic and in full control of their art. There’s nothing “magical” about Burroughs “cut-up” technique, it’s simply a process to help the artist from falling back onto technique and cliche. Brian Eno used it extensively in his own work (see the lyrics to “Baby’s On Fire”) in direct emulation of Burroughs, to whom he was glad to credit. They also experimented with so-called stream-of-consciousness and “automatic” writing too, a different technique entirely.

Again, I don’t know what the speculation here is about, if any. But I get really tired of reading stuff that has no knowledge of historical context or of the rich and varied (and sick, twisted and drug-addled) lives some of these folks led. Bowie and Warhol especially were constant shape-shifters and to try and fix them is to misunderstand what they were about.

For what it’s worth, I don’t buy into David Icke-brand cosmic scape-goating of lizard people, whether or not he’s using it as code for anti-semitic stupidity.

Here is a little more about Bowie from a 1976 profile that sheds light–or shadow–on the consummate rock magickian:

“Bowie’s contradictions are like Houdini’s underwater cages, self-set traps from which he executes miraculous escapes that work as well as the illusions they create. In fact, Bowie itself is a stage name, adopted 11 years ago by David Jones because it was “the ultimate American knife.” Bowie, he says, “is the medium for a conglomerate of statements and illusions. I have no confidence in David Jones as a public figure.” “The thin white duke” – as depicted in his latest LP – “that’s as close to David Jones as Bowie is ever likely to be onstage,” says Bowie. “Jones has become a real shell. He’s given it all to Bowie.”"

Check it out:
http://www.bowiewonderworld.com/press/70/760906people.htm

One other thought on Burroughs and Bowie’s comments on Andy Warhol: given that it seems they both admire his work, perhaps they were simply doing a bit of unsolicited guerilla marketing on his behalf, adding a little more mystery and magic to Warhol’s image thereby helping increase his art-world influence and art-world sales.

Just a thought. We’ll probably never know.

Perhaps it is because I am a child of the 80s, but when ever I see/hear/think of David Bowie, fragments of his smile in _Labyrinth_ dance through my head… Even as that of the Cheshire Cat did for Alice? Thank you for this other window into three very strange individuals.

Great blog–I do look forward to reading more…