« | Home | »


Tags: | |

velvet underground and nico

The peelable banana that Andy Warhol designed for The Velvet Underground & Nico was a dry-run, of sorts, for the unzippable jeans he designed for the Rolling Stones’ Sticky Fingers – an early attempt, on the artist’s part, to answer the question: ‘Hey, is that a giant cock on your rock and roll album cover?’

sticky fingers

Warhol’s banana was perfectly ripe; maybe a bit rotten. Its peeled flesh was an almost fluorescent pink. Among other things, the banana was Warhol’s rejoinder to Magritte’s pipe-that-was-not-a-pipe. Like Magritte’s pipe, it’s popular with consumers. Today, you see the banana on tote bags, T-shirts, key-rings, baby bibs, duvet covers, cigarette lighters, athletic shoes and skateboard decks. Warhol was a teetotaller, but in 2002, a slightly modified version of the image appeared in advertisements for Absolut Vodka. And in 2011, when Incase, a California tech company, launched a Warhol line of iPhone and iPad cases, computer sleeves and shoulder bags, the banana was given pride of place. ‘We wanted the first release to be definitively Warhol,’ a representative of the Warhol Foundation explained. ‘So we went with the banana.’

It took Lou Reed and John Cale of the Velvet Underground some time to register their objections. When they did, in January 2012, it was in the form of a lawsuit against the foundation, which had licensed the banana to Incase. The musicians asked for damages based on their own, trademark-based claims to the image, which they called ‘a symbol, truly an icon, of the Velvet Underground’. Confusingly, they also said that the image belonged in the public domain. Part of the suit was later dismissed; last week, the parties agreed to a confidential settlement.

Any number of jokes presented themselves, about apples, bananas, the lawsuit itself – a tug-of-war over banana peels. (In 1981, Apple Computer settled a lawsuit brought by the Beatles’ holding company, Apple Corps; as one of the conditions, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business.) One was also reminded that the Warhol Foundation, which does a great deal of good for working artists, can come off as a bit of a bully.

Comments on “Bananas”

  1. Timothy Rogers says:

    This is pretty funny – the dazed and decrepit in combat with the ripe and the rotten, one branch of commerce (rock-n-roll) going into the lists with another (branding and sales, sales sales!). Reed and the VU folks (ahem, old folks) have made no progress in clear thinking (or expression), so it’s hardly surprising that they confuse “intellectual property” with the public domain. Once the cutting edge of “revolutionary” pop-art – both music and painting – these ancient crones and their testators point out the ludicrous pretensions of an earlier era that keeps getting reborn, a veritable revenge of the cretins. In point of fact they should all be bowing in reverence to their unacknowledged sire, Walt Disney, pioneer of “Imagineering”. Thank you old geezers for fueling the engines of parody.

  2. eknm says:

    One day Timothy, if you eat your leafy greens, you may enjoy “old geezer” status. Chronological age is irrelevant to stoking the grimy parodic furnace, as you so ably demonstrate.

  3. Timothy Rogers says:

    Ah, dear Eknm, I’ve enjoyed that status for some time,as I fast approach my 70th year this Fall. But then I didn’t like the poseurs the first time around when they were my age-mates decades ago. Stick with the history, follow the money, and discard any illusions you might harbor about the art-commerce nexus. You’ll feel like you just ate some leafy greens yourself.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement