#there’s other things that happened that i’m omitting solely because i ramble a lot.

[irlnikeiyomiuri]

guys did i ever tell u abt my bestie in 8th grade. we were so fucking close genuinely attached at the hip and then we went into ninth grade and covid, and then i saw him again at senior hoco and it was great and then i saw him at senior prom and it was fucking nasty he ain’t even greet me even though we hung out w the same group of people the whole night.

[a-little-slice-of-fandom]

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Irish-ness of Dracula, if you wanna ramble about it!

(Okay I just want to apologise for how long this took to answer because I know it’s been sitting in my inbox for over a month but..depression and work happened and I just didn’t have the time or energy to complete it. I seriously do apologise for this but I hope you enjoy the post anyway!)

So the first thing I need to clear up is this: the concept of a monster or a demon that feeds upon the life force of humans is not limited to one singular culture or folklore. In fact, this core concept is a wider cultural phenomenon and variations of it exist across both countries and continents. And no one country can take sole credit for the this core concept of vampires. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise either doesn’t know much about vampires or is intentionally being disingenuous. There can be cultural variations that are specific to certain folklores (and to just blatantly steal these would be cultural appropriation), but the main idea of vampires exists across a wide range of folklores and no singular person, group of people or culture can take credit for the creation of vampires.

However, arguably it was the work of Bram Stoker that aided in the solidification of the concept of Vampires that we know today. While there were other authors from a wide range of nationalities who wrote about Vampires before Stoker (including John William Polidori who wrote the Vampyre in 1819)...Dracula is the best known. (Now I personally believe that’s because Dracula is an absolutely banging novel, although I do concede that the prevalence of adaptations of Dracula from the 1920’s to today helps keep Dracula in the forefront of audiences minds.) In addition, it’s important to remember that Stoker was inspired by another Irish author Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, who wrote the novel Carmilla. As far as I know, Le Fanu and Stoker actually worked together on a magazine!

Another thing I think that needs clarification is the common belief that Stoker heavily/religiously based Dracula on the historical figure Vlad the Impailer. This is heavily debated by scholars. While there’s an obvious, undeniable similarity between the names of these two...the similarities start to wain after this, with only small similarities between the two and there’s even literal contradictions between the history of Vlad the Impailer and Dracula’s history in the novel. In fact, there’s not much indication that Stoker based the character Dracula off Vlad the Impailer, or even that he had a working knowledge of Vlad the Impailer beyond the name. In all 124 pages of his notes, there’s nothing to indicate that Stoker’s inspiration for Dracula came from Vlad the Impailer.

(Plus Dracula in the novel wasn’t even originally called Dracula...he was called Count Wampyr in the original drafts of the novel and this was only changed, from what I can gather, in the last couple of drafts.)

In fact, I’d personally argue that that connection between Vlad the Impailer and Dracula is actually something that’s been retroactively added by other artists, for example the 1992 film “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” heavily leaned into this idea that Dracula and Vald the Impailer were one in the same, and as time has progressed people assume that these elements were in the original novel when that’s simply untrue! Stoker didn’t write that! It’s a retroactive addition by other artists that’s just assumed by the masses to be canon. This phenomenon is actually super interesting and it’s absolutely not limited to Stoker’s novel Dracula/the modern day perception of Dracula (another example would be Mary Shelley’s version of Frankenstein versus the modern day perception Frankenstein). I’m not sure if there’s a word for what this is, but I like the term “cultural canon”, where something that’s been added in by other artists has become as good as canon within the minds of the masses and as such is ingrained within the cultural perception of something, despite it having no basis within the original piece or even directly contradicting what is in canon.

(Now I’ll absolutely concede that Stoker taking the name of a historical figure and possibly their likeness from another country and making them into a literal monster is something that should be discussed. I don’t know how Vlad the Impailer is viewed within Romania - whether he’s viewed positively or negatively or a mixture - but regardless he was a historical figure and Stoker did eventually use that name for his own creative purposes. Again, Stoker didn’t say that Dracula and Vlad the Impailer were the same person, that’s other artists doing, but there’s still issues with Stoker that needs to be discussed)

Now, I’ve seen people talk about how Stoker took a lot of inspiration from the Baltic folklore surrounding vampires for his novel, but I don’t really know this folklore very well and therefore I don’t feel like I’m qualified to discuss it. If anyone is more well versed in this topic wants to add to this post then they’re more than welcome to! I don’t deny that Stoker too inspiration from places other than Ireland (like the novel is set in Whitby) but I just feel like people over hype the relation between stokers Dracula and Vlad the Impailer.

Now, onto the Irish mythology side!

So the most obvious inspiration for Dracula comes from the story of Abhartach. here is a link to an actual, respectable retelling of the story of Abhartach which I’d highly recommend people read (it’s really not that long) but the key points go as follows:

There was this Irish chieftain called Abhartach, who was really cruel and the townsfolk didn’t really like him. So, the townsfolk and another cheiftain (known as Cathain) banded together to kill Abhartach. They did succeed in killing him (yay), however, Abhartach just sort of...rose from the dead and began another reign of terror (not yay). However, Abhartach needed to be sustained by blood and required a bowlful every day to sustain his energy. Cathain comes back and kills Abhartach once again, but Abhartach rises from the dead once more and now needs more blood. Abhartach is only banished when Cathain uses a word made from yew wood and wounds Abhartach with it. Abhartach is buried upside down with a grant stone over the grave to stop Abhartach rising once again.

Sound familiar? The similarities between Abhartach and Dracula are undeniable! Yes, there’s some differences between the two but the core story here is almost identical. I could totally reword that paragraph, omitting the names, and it would be indistinguishable from a short summary of Dracula! Even the way that the main characters find out about the wooden weapon that can kill the monster is similar, as both Jonathan and Cathain go to wiser and older members of their community to learn more.

(Also please mythology blogs don’t come for me I know my retelling was an incredible oversimplification but I’m writing on my iPad and my thumbs are starting to hurt. People have wrote full papers on the similarities between Dracula and Abhartach and there’s so many more people more qualified than me, I’m just an 18 year old trying to make a fun and interesting tumblr post. Again, if anyone wants add anything like extra sources or more information or even to point out my mistakes then I more than welcome the additions)

Another piece of folklore that’s also said to have inspired Dracula is the Dearg Due. Now there’s multiple different versions of the tale, but the version I have heard goes like this:

There’s a noble woman who wants to marry a penniless peasant boy, but her dad disapproves and wants her to marry another man who is much richer. The rich man and the noble woman were eventually married but the woman didn’t love the rich man. In retaliation, the rich man locked the woman in a windowless castle where she starved to death. The woman was buried by the locals who took pity on her, but because she was buried hungry she came back to life and drank the blood of her father and her husband as revenge. The version I heard says that the dearg due now basically wanders ireland drinking the blood of men who have hurt or wronged women (as one should) but there’s other endings to the story.

(Again is anyone has a reliable source they want to share then please feel free to add!)

So this is another Irish piece of folklore that clearly includes some elements that we now associate with vampires. Now people (including Wikipedia) claim that this story was specifically what Stoker based Dracula on, and while I definitely think that Stoker was aware of this story and took inspiration from it, I personally think that the Dearg Due inspired the concept of Dracula’s wives more than Dracula himself.

However the key point still stands: Stoker was likely aware of these legends and even the most staunchly anti-Irish person would have to concede that there’s similarities between all three stories. And very rarely are these similarities discussed in classes about Dracula...which I feel is a real disservice. I don’t think students should have to have an intense knowledge of Irish mythology (my knowledge is spotty at best) nor do I think it should be an exam question...but even a brief acknowledgment of “hey, Stoker was inspired by these stories and you can clearly see similarities between them” would be nice. Moreover, it further solidifies my original argument that Stoker was, at least to some extent, Irish and that his Irishness inherently influenced his work.

Also...the social context of what was going on in Ireland in this period can’t be ignored! Again, while Stoker did spend time in both England and Romania, he spent a lot of his life in Ireland and therefore would have known what was going on in his own country.

Dracula was published in 1897, which is exactly 50 years after the worst year of the Irish Famine/ The Great Hunger/An Gorta Mór. Now I don’t have time to do a whole history of the Great Hunger but the effects of the famine were greatly exacerbated by the horrific mismanagement of Ireland by the British government and the British system of ruling in Ireland. How many people died during the famine isn’t clear, but we do know that the population of Ireland at the time was 8 million and the population today is 6 million...200 years later and we still haven’t recovered. So while we all like to joke about the fact that Stoker wrote about an unfeeling member of the aristocracy literally feeding off others with no remorse and basically ruining their lives...are we really going to pretend that there isn’t social commentary there? Scholars specifically think that Stoker was commenting on the absentee landlords (basically British aristocrats who owned land in Ireland but didn’t live there and as such didn’t care about the well being of their tenants) who would often have tenants forced off the land when they couldn’t pay rent...despite the fact that their tenenants were already starving and had no money because their only source of food and income failed.

(I’m not being shady by the way, I also love to joke about the social implications of Dracula, but I feel like people forget that the jokes have actual points behind them)

There was also a cholera epidemic in Ireland in 1832 which is generally accepted to be one of Stoker’s biggest inspirations. You can read more about the epidemic here if you wish, but I’ll summarise what I feel are the key points. Not only was Stoker’s mother from county Sligo and lived through this cholera epidemic, but Stoker also asked her to write down her memories of the epidemic and used her accounts to aid in his research of the cholera epidemic. Now the fact that he was actively researching this should indicate that it would influence his work, especially considering the situation in county Sligo was incredibly morbid. There’s accounts of the 20 carpenters in Sligo town being unable to make enough coffins to keep up with the amount of people dying, resulting in hundreds of dead bodies just lying on the street. However, the most horrific account from this epidemic was the stories of terrified nurses placing cholera patients into mass graves while they were still alive. Stoker himself literally stated that Dracula was “inspired by the idea of someone being buried before they were fully dead”. So while at first there seems to be very little relation between the novel and a medical epidemic, it quickly becomes clear that Stoker’s fascination with this historical event influenced his writing.

My overall point is that Stoker’s irishness inherently influenced his writing. Writers don’t write in their own little bubble, divorced from the world around them, their views and work are shaped by their position in society and their upbringing (it’s why I dislike death of the author as a literary theory). So when people try to claim that Dracula is a piece of British literature...it indicates either a lack of understanding of the context in which Stoker was writing in or a wilful ignorance founded on colonialist ideas. His influences are so obvious to me as an Irish woman but they rarely get discussed, and even if they are it’s seen as overreaching! To call Dracula British literature and to ignore the inherent Irishness of the novel does a great disservice to Stoker!

Anyways I really hope you enjoyed this discussion my love! Once again I apologise for how long this took to write. Also I’m sorry if this comes off as argumentative or anything, that absolutely wasn’t my intention, I just have a particular style of writing long posts haha.

[momo-de-avis]

The life of the Infamous Banana Art work is honestly fucking hilarious because it’s an exact reflex of what happens when someone fucks with the art world and incites passionate responses both for and against it.

The art's initial price was at 120.000$, and has bid up to 150.000$. Two museums have so far acquired a banana each.

There are also 3 editions of the same work.

According to the gallery (Perrotin) representing Cattelan, 

"Back then, Cattelan was thinking of a sculpture that was shaped like a banana," it reads. "Every time he traveled, he brought a banana with him and hung it in his hotel room to find inspiration. He made several models: first in resin, then in bronze and in painted bronze (before) finally coming back to the initial idea of a real banana."

(remember, this is the guy who made a fucking toilet out of 18-carat gold and it got fucking stolen).

Recently, a performance artist just straight up walked up to the wall, peeled the duct-tape, peeled the banana and ate it. He does not regret it, claims he was hungry (and, in fact, did not eat prior to this action, so he could experience maximum potassium enjoyment) and that the banana was, in fact, delicious.

after that, the banana had to be removed from Art Basel because people were going absolutely bonkers over it, and lines were so long and the space around it so crowded, security had to just remove the art work. This was all for a chance at a cool instagram photo.

And like, yall remember when the Berlin Dada group made an exhibition basically insulting the bourgeoisie, got roasted by the whole city, then did a second one, tripled the price of the tickets, and when people got there it was basically Hueselbeck saying “why the fuck did you idiots spend triple the money if you hated it so much”?

Or when Tristan Tzara, at the Cabaret Voltaire, along with Hugo Ball, made such a bonkers show that people (again, high-society folk) showed up with bags of rotten fruit---prepared beforehand, after having been there several times, since they had apparently developed a passion for just to going there again to feel angry---and started wrecking the shit out of Cabaret Voltaire, to the point where they destroyed figurines and props? And Tzara calling it “the final victory of Dada”?

Or like, this whole ‘the travelling banana was an inspiration for me’ just sounds a whole lot like when Jasper Johns heard someone say that famous art marchand Leo Castelli “could sell two beer cans if you had them” (or something to that effect), and Jasper Johns dead ass said “it’s on”, and the mad man actually did a bronze cast of two beer cans and Castelli actually sold them?

We can even go way back, to Manet. The moment Olympia was presented at the Salon, it was so infamously known across Paris, people flocked to it to see it in person, so much the Salon had an influx of attendees like it never had before. And the sole reason was to make fun of it lmao even fucking Courbet was there daily, pointing at laughing at ‘nakey girl staring right at me’.

Or like, when Kienholz displayed his walk-ins, in which one of them was a car with a teenage couple engaged in sex in the back seat, and the gallery had the audacity of forcing the artist to close the door and plant two body guards there not to shock the audience? And despite being outraged by this, people still went there en masse.

And I’m not even going back to the obvious influence here, papa Duchamp with his urinals, but I’ll say this: I don’t remember his name, but the dude who smashed one of Duchamp’s urinals and peed on the other is pretty on par with the guy who just ate the banana, albeit for different reasons (and, well, dude who peed in a Duchamp was arrested both times lmao).

Every single one of these instances, which caused so much outrage across the art world, appeared at a crossing point in history, somehow, and they are there for a conspicous objective: to bring out its own hypocrisy. And like papa Duchamp (who every single critic immediately establish a connection with), they are being assimilated, though faster than they were back in the day. The dude who peed on the urinal did so because he contests The Fountain being on a museum, defeating the art work’s initial purpose and proclaiming the first avant-garde’s movements ultimate failure. It should be noted that Duchamp signed 14 urinals and authenticated them as authentic reproductions (one of them smashed, another peed on lmao. Idk if the others are fully intact). And this dude with the banana is no different.

One article states something very interesting about Art Basel:

Mary Rozell, the global head of art collection at UBS Group, said the works she wanted were all snapped up. Pieces under US$1 million were going especially quickly.

"Half the stuff is sold before you get here," she said.

Amoako Boafo's portraits were all gone within seconds, and hundreds of collectors put their names on a waiting list, with prices for the artist du jour ranging from US$25,000 to US$50,000.

(...)

Mnuchin Gallery, which had an exhibition by Mr Clark last year, sold several smaller works, with prices ranging from US$150,000 to US$300,000. Michael McGinnis, a partner, said he sold one of the works during his flight to Miami. "I could have sold it five times," he said.

Ms Rozell said she finally managed to buy some art. One was a painting by Jeffrey Gibson. Another, a sculpture by Shinique Smith, whose works were on view at the UBS collectors' lounge at the fair.

"You've got to take your time," she said. "But then act quickly."

Act fast.

There’s a lot that could be said about this, and I’m not writing an essay, just rambling with the knowledge I have, and we all know how art fairs across the world serve as 1) a place to See and Be Seen, and the pruchase of expensive art works is a Thing of Status, and 2) it’s money laundering. It’s blind investment by random private auctioneers who need to put that dirty money fast onto an object they can quickly transform into an asset should they need to get rid of it---etc, etc. But like, think about the ludicrous implication here: you gotta buy fast, otherwise you’ll just get there and come out empty-handed, which for some reason, for these folks, it’s the worst that could happen. So like, it’s no wonder a guy who taped a banana onto a wall sold this shit for such a high price. I can’t point out the reason why this person bought the art work, because honestly being either money laundering or just rich person trying to invest fast into something they don’t know the value of---both sound incredibly plausible to me (in my country, there was an influx into the art market in the 80s, where people rushed to buy EVERYTHING, and it inflated the art market---and keep in mind, Portugal is a small country with barely any market at all---to the point where some of the artists who sold the most back then have fallen into oblivion, and the people who bought their works have been desperately trying to get rid of them for decades, but they are worth nothing and they refuse to get the full price back lmaooo).

This shit is mostly why I nurture a profound hatred for art fairs. Like, on paper, they’re a nice concept, but as of today, worldwide, we have over 500 art fairs everywhere, and couple this with the art market inflation and all the nasty shit we know about (take the fucking Sacklers, for example), it’s the perfect playground for us to have a French Salon multiplied by 500 where contemporary art is transformed into an Appearance Thing. 

But every so often, a dude shows up and pulls some really bizarre shit and I am again reminded that there are still a lot of not exatctly Duchamps, but people like Jasper Johns or Tristan Tzara or even Robert Rauchenberg, which somehow manage to create a really poignant moment of hypocrisy. The really atrocious downside to this is that these artists exist in a fast-pacing scenario and they’re being assimilated at the speed of light. While neo-dada appeared in the 60s to confront the assimilation (thus, failure) of the first avant-garde movements, today it happens in real time. 

This is where I tell you guys the banana was apparently sold with a 14-page manual, which states shit like:

It should be hung about 175 centimeters from the ground, fixed to the wall at a 37-degree angle and the banana should be changed, "depending on its aesthetic appearance", about every seven or 10 days. About the only specification omitted is the optimum length or bendiness of said banana.

(the bendiness of the banana lmao)

Also, funny correlation: Duchamp’s work was called The Fountain, but we all call it ‘the urinal’, in the same way this work is called The Comedian, but we call it ‘the banana’. Make with that information what you will lol