Exploring Cinema Verite and Direct Cinema: Uncontrolled Filmmaking and Realism in Documentary

1. Cinema Verite Vs Direct Cinema

Various definitions have been proposed in relation to Cinema verite, however, in more general terms, cinema verite can be described as a method of filming that involves real people in uncontrolled situations (Mamber, 1974). The meaning of “uncontrolled” situation is that the filmmaker neither functions as a director, nor as a screenwriter. The use of the term “real” people, in this case, is as a result of the strong commitment to the uncontrolled shooting where the use of professional actors is avoided and the only thing required is permission from the people to be filmed (Mamber, 1974). In such a movie, the actors are not instructed what to say or how to act, and the filmmaker is expected to be an observer who does not show any preferences in relation to the actions they witness. In a shallower definition, cinema verite is defined as the method of filming that employs hand-held cameras and live, synchronous sound (Mamber, 1974). Hand-held cameras imply portability which is an essential requirement for this type of filming as shooting is done in uncontrollable situations where “instead of people coming to the camera, the camera goes to them” (Mamber, 1974). Thus cinema verite can also be considered as a practical working method that is based on unmanipulated reality. If you are seeking expertise in media dissertation help, then you will get more understanding of the nuances of cinema and its practical applications for your research.

The first movie camera was invented in 1895 by the Lumiere brothers which led to the introduction of unedited real-life situation documentation better known as “actualities.” However, today, two methods are now commonly in use, and these are “cinema verite” and the more commonly recognised “direct cinema.” These two practices were developed in the early 1960`s a period during which documentary movie was more comparable to highly edited post-World War II propaganda than (Nam, 2015) real events portrayals. With the development of new technology like lighter and smaller cameras, editing became unnecessary as the hand-held cameras ensured a closer and more authentic view of the subjects in question (Nam, 2015). Though the two techniques brought about same realism ideologies, important differences exist between them.

The development of direct cinema is mostly associated with two brothers from the United States, David, and Albert Maysles, who instead of planning a scene, they shot the story as it organically unfolded. The dual considered the documentarian as an objective observer who was completely invisible in comparison to a participant or director, which distinguishes direct cinema from cinema verite. In the early 1960s, the first cinema verite was developed by an ethnologist and filmmaker from France, Jean Rouch who introduced natural dialogue and action authenticity to documentary filmmaking. However, unlike in direct cinema, this technique was the philosophy that the filmmaker takes part as a subjective observer who combines participatory and observational filming in a similar breath. Fundamentally, the subjects are aware of the scene filming which establishes a link between the filmmaker and the subjects being filmed. Cinema verite also involves staged and stylised set-ups and a higher intervention degree than is the case in direct cinema. Thus, in comparison, though uncovering the truth is the primary aim of both cinema verite and direct cinema, they do so in two distinct ways. While direct cinema hopes to expose truth through the observation of subjects and events by the camera, cinema verite makes use of any available means to seek out the truth and involves the gradual revelation of an internal process. In documentary filmmaking, the two are viewed as alternative methods whose use of particular new technology and cinematic philosophy hugely influenced many filmmakers’ generations, and the effect is still felt today (Nam, 2015)

2. Warhol Queer Film

As argued by Benshoff and Griffin (2006), human sexuality should not be considered as a singular thing, heterosexuality, nor should it be taken as a choice between two unique things, either heterosexuality or homosexuality. Thus, human sexuality can be described as multiple, diverse and varying and the term “queer” has been coined in the recent years to describe the multiplicity of sexualities which comprise of both straight and gay as well as the gray areas existing between and beyond these two sexualities. In this regard, then, a queer film history involves an attempt to illustrate the representation of human sexualities on movie screens. The film is said to be one of the key aspects of the vast popular culture industry that has a significant influence on the way people think about themselves and the world around them (Benshoff & Griffin, 2006). As such, the study of films is considered necessary as it helps in answering questions of identification, desire, fantasy, cultural appropriation, spectatorship, and performativity. This has an implication that films are cultural objects with an intricate connection to people`s understanding of sexuality, gender identity, and history. Warhol Queer Film will be used to illustrate these aspects by highlighting how revolutionary this work was at the time and how it still influences the modern popular culture.

From a description given by Doyle, Flatley, and Muñoz (1996), Andy Warhol displayed a queer character in more than one way. First, he was a legendary queen who enjoyed pornography and prurience and greatly admired the male body. His queer part was well-known by the gay community who found much fun in his films. On the other hand, there were gallery owners who excepted Warhol`s male nude sketches from their exhibits and artists who were uncomfortable with his swishiness (Doyle, Flatley & Muñoz, 1996). Warhol’s sexuality was in the public domain and guided the people`s evaluation of and response to him and his work which made him a key figure in postmodernism and mass culture works as well as film studies. Despite Warhol`s sexuality being known widely, on the contrary to the expectation that there would be a lot of criticism exploring Warhol’s queerness, most considerations have “degayed” Warhol. Though a majority of the people was aware of Warhol`s gay nature, none of them could speak of it in theory or the world of criticism (Doyle, Flatley & Muñoz, 1996).

Since their very beginning, Andy Warhol`s films have occupied a legendary realm (Angell, 1994). His early series were of silent minimalist films which gained instant fame due to their extraordinary length and the remarkable lack of action. These films included the “sleep” (1963) that showed a man sleeping and “Empire” (1964) that were 5-hour, 21-minute and 8-hours long respectively. As the works of Warhol rose to fame over the years, their aura stuck to Warhol resulting in an enhanced mystique that surrounded his artistic image. The rapidly shifting interests in Warhol are evident in his film production compound history which is outlined as a sequence of different film series; the 1963-64 minimalist films; eraly experimental narratives like the “Tarzan and Jane Regained” 1963 and the Balman, Soap Opera and Dracula (1964) which were unfinished (Angell, 1994). Further, the “Screen tests” and other portrait films were shot between 1964 to 1966 and “The Chelsea Girls” in 1966-1967. In the course of the fantastic creative production, Warhol redefined the filmgoing experience as well as the filmmaking practice on his own terms. This led to seemingly endless movies and series which rose from a radical film fantasy as an ever-present medium which was capable of literally lasting forever. Furthermore, the medium ultimately gave a revelation of its subjects (Angell, 1994). All Warhol`s films reveal his fascination with personality mysteries which is a theme that is consistently evident in his work. Collectively, his movies led to the construction of a different film performance definition as a constant dialectic between personal and personality, drama and documentary as well as illusion and reality. Warhol`s films raise challenging questions regarding clear boundaries that exist between low and high in cultural production. His film career underwent a massive revolution, moving from avant-garde art movies to feature length films in less than five years. Though Warhol`s artistic stature consistently aided in the legitimisation of cinema as a form of art, his work`s peculiarities have further complicated any efforts to view his movies as artworks in many normal senses. For instance, his collaboration with others, particularly Paul Morrissey, has led to puzzling questions regarding his film`s authorship (Angell, 1994).

Warhol`s first major achievement in his filmmaking career was the collection of minimalist films that were static silent and extremely long and whose production was in 1963 and 1964. As a result, Warhol rose to fame as a filmmaker with some of his widely known works being Kiss, Sleep, Haircut, Eat, Blow Job, Henry Geldzahler and Empire. Warhol`s minimalist technique evolution can be traced through Kiss, Sleep, and Haircut (1963-64). He gradually excluded his hand-held camera and eliminated editing in his filmmaking practice while minimising the number of camera setups (Angell, 1994). With time, Warhol was able to rise above the restrictions of his equipment and achieve the paradoxical stillness effect and monumental duration in the moving images.

Nearly, all films by Warhol are concerned with portraiture (Angell, 1994). Warhol represented individual personalities, of real human beings and not just fictional characters on screen which Angel (1994) terms as Warhol`s most consistent preoccupation in filmmaking that linked the formal film portraits of the past, like the “Screen Tests” (1964-66), the minimalist films of 1963-64 to the unique self-expressive performance forms that were developed in the later narratives such as “The Chelsea Girls” (1966), “Lonesome Cowboys” (1967-68) and “Bike Boy” (1967-68). Warhol`s enduring fascination with the human identity mysteries as revealed on screen has a direct relation to his work in portraiture. Numerous rich connections exist between filmed, and Warhol`s painted portraits and can be explored. However, as pointed out by Warhol, another whole dimension, time, resulted from the film (Angell, 1994). Using film`s unique properties for the exploration of portrayal in time dynamics, Warhol successfully extended the portrait concept into new performance and representation areas that are more revelatory, more sophisticated and more intimate compared to the world of images in Warhol`s paintings. In many aspects, the “Screen Tests” have the straightest relationship with Warhol`s portraiture in other media (Angell, 1994). Warhol`s different filmmaking techniques had a direct relation to his exceptional film portraiture and performance conceptions. In most cases, Warhol`s films had no scripts or lines for memorising and rehearsing to help his actors to learn their parts. Warhol`s editing avoidance and the use of the full-length and uncut camera roll as his filmmaking basic unit also had a connection to his concentration on performance as ‘the logical cinematic extension of portraiture” (Angell, 1994, p. 4)

According to Michel Foucault, there are multiple ways in which sexuality has turned to be “the truth” of an individual (De Villiers, 2012), a truth that should be motivated to speak continuously in the confessional permutations that are ever-new. Both modern psychoanalysis and Christian confessional tackle the deciphering sexuality task through speech as a medium. A fundamental connection exists between the hermeneutics of suspicion and the impulse of suspicious hermeneutic. Hermeneutics of suspicion is said to disturb appearances while sexuality can be understood as an obscured meaning which can nevertheless be made open to scrutiny (De Villiers, 2012). Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick describes an operation that changes sexuality into an identifiable secret resulting in the circulation of certain types of privileged knowingness. Sedgwick describes the process as “the epistemology of the closet” (De Villiers, 2012, p. 2). Further, Sedgwick indicates that there are ways in which truth telling is not a simple operation while other critics such as David Van Leer question the privilege rendered to the metaphor of “coming out of the closet” (De Villiers, 2012, p. 1) in its stress on self-revelation, confession, and conversion. In accordance with the closet logic, the behaviour where an individual refuses to reveal their sexuality can only betoken closetedness which implies a lack of truthfulness to oneself and a complicity with homophobia (De Villiers, 2012).

Michel Foucault devised a theory of “games of truth” (De Villiers, 2012, p. 118) which can be used to explain one of Andy Warhol`s photographs by Duane Michals (1958) in which Warhol uses his hands to hide his face. The theory mainly applies where the truth of a subject is sought in that individual`s sexuality, their identities secret truth. A diagnosis of this great “sexography” that makes people decipher sex as “the universal secret” (De Villiers, 2012, p. 118) is made by Foucault in the interview “The End of the Monarchy of Sex.” Additionally, Sedgwick points out that effective presentation of “the spectacle of the closet” occurs as “the truth of the homosexual” (De Villiers, 2012, p. 119).

Due to the queer nature of Warhol`s work, it was associated with an experimental filmmaking movement known as “underground cinema” (Benshoff & Griffin, 2006) whose popularity experienced growth during the 1960s. The term underground cinema was used to imply films that were often exhibited in late-night shows. Warhol`s films were known for their minimalist feature as evident in Sleep (1963), Eat (1964) and Empire (1964). However, his long-take aesthetic defied Hollywood`s storytelling and continuity editing assumptions. Like was the case with a majority of underground cinema, Warhol`s movies conflicted with many cinematic conventions. For instance, Warhol`s actors were regularly the transvestites, male hustlers, and junkies who used to hang around Warhol`s studio, the Factory (Benshoff & Griffin, 2006). In a mockery of the Hollywood star system, Warhol`s actors declared themselves Superstars and went about New York City mimicking the exclusivity and glamour associated with Hollywood celebrities (Benshoff & Griffin, 2006). Warhol`s movies frequently contained straightforward depictions of queer people and queer behaviours. For example, Haircut (1963) is a homoerotic film showing some semi-nude men getting, giving and watching a haircut. Similarly, Kiss (1963) has several close-ups of couples kissing including a heterosexual couple and male couples. O'Pray (1989) acknowledges that the authenticity of Warhol is demonstrated in his films` unflagging interest. The author adds that it is quite difficult to imagine any other individual achieving similar success in a project identical to that of Warhol.

Warhol’s filmmaking has continued to influence today's popular culture which is demonstrated in Hollywood mainstream film and experimental film (Carey, 2002). The Hollywood mainstream film adopted Warhol`s work “gritty street life realism, on-the-edge performances and sexual explicitness” (Carey, 2002). On the other hand, the experimental film reworked Warhol`s long-take and fixed-camera aesthetic which later came to be known as “structural film” (Carey, 2002). Warhol also personally acknowledged his influence by stating that he picked something up from Jack for his own movies, the way anyone who happened to be around him that day could do (Carey, 2002). According to Uhlin (2010), Warhol`s filmmaking was influenced to a great deal by television, particularly in the early period of black and white silent. Warhol`s work integrated a televisual temporality characteristic of an extended duration, liveness and the use of dead time (Uhlin, 2010). Further, in Warhol`s films, an element of repetition to screen the real can be identified (Crimp, 1999). The repetition serves to conjure the “sex appeal of the same” (Crimp, 1999, p. 59) which has also been referred to as the “homoness” of homosexuality.

As argued by Shaviro (1994), Warhol`s work can be read from an aggressively postmodern point of view creating room for taking the claims made by Warhol quite literally in relation to “presenting nothing but surfaces” (Shaviro, 1994, p. 16). As such, since everything is in the open for viewing, there is not much to explain, something that disqualifies hermeneutics. Shaviro (1994) argues that what is uncanny and scary about the films and art of Warhol is that it completely lacks latent content. The author states that Warhol`s surfaces are impenetrable precisely due to the fact that there is nothing under them which implies that there is no depth for any form of penetration. Shaviro believes in the accuracy of saying that the said surfaces have a porous nature as they are so passively and blindly open to any constructions people may try imposing on them. This leads to a conclusion that despite the contradiction that may arise between one another, all possible interpretation of Warhol and his work are therefore equally unfolded and plausible (Shaviro, 1994).

3. Case studies (Blow Job and Mario Banana)

Blow Job

In Warhol`s Blow job, the actual act described in the film`s title is not shown on the screen. However, a man`s face who presumably is getting a blowjob is shown for thirty-six minutes. This is in agreement with Angell`s (1994) conceptual status of the early films of Warhol in which ideas are instantaneously conveyed in the movie without the show of actual illustration. While Blow Job cannot be considered a thirty-six minutes’ video of a guy receiving a blow job, its pop concept shock is profound in that it has some thirty-six minutes of a blow-job but which is not shown on screen. As stated by Angell, Blow Job was conceived as a crafty “catch me if you can” rejoinder. This is because the film undermined his title`s explicit come-on as well as his framing`s ridiculous prudery. Warhol subverted and parodied the high expectations of porn fans as well as those of film censors leaving these viewers with an experience of disappointment and frustration while implicating both viewer sets in a similar illicit desire (Crimp, 2012). This is supported by (Koch, cited in Crimp, 2012) who states that much of what has been written about the film regards what is not shown in the movie, the frustration of people`s desire to have a view of the actual action. As such, most of the Blow Job`s realm action takes place out of the film's frame. In the frame, however, a nice looking young man is shown who displays signs of sexual stimulation such as “play of tension and face relaxation, loosening and tightening of the muscle around the mouth as well as opening up and clamping shut of the eyes (Crimp, 2012, p. 14).

The sense of frustration that results from watching Blow Job does not derive from not having a view of the real sexual act but rather from the inability to truly see the man`s face at the point where, during the act, he tilts his head up and down while thrusting it back against a wall behind him in such a way that the viewers cannot see his face; only “his chin, straining neck and its protruding Adam`s apple” (Crimp, 2012, p. 16). The man repeatedly looks viewers' way directly, but they cannot see him looking at them. The camera does not capture the man`s face nor the sensation it records but rather concurrently withholds this from the viewers. In this case, the viewers cannot have eye contact with the man getting the blow job (Koch, 1973) thus preventing the detection of his vulnerability that comprises the submission he makes to being pleasured. Thus, viewers cannot have the man`s sexual possession as his face is not visible enough to allow this. This statement seems to contradict the two distinct views of Warhol`s films, as voyeuristic on one hand and as an exhibitionist on the other. From Koch`s viewpoint (cited in Crimp, 2012), the concept of voyeurism is dominant in all Warhol`s early works and expresses their aesthetic. Further, the idea of voyeurism in Warhol’s films is underpinned by the fact that the viewers are held back from the sexual scene not by the impulse of the voyeur to withdraw and hide but rather because what the audience sees as unreal is the film. Crimp (2012) is against Koch`s voyeuristic nature of Warhol`s camera as well as the claim that the subjects of Warhol are exhibitionists and instead asserts that the Blow Job can be closely associated with what he refers to as “an ethics of antivoyeuristic looking” (Crimp, 2012, p. 18).

Mario Banana

Mario Banana is a film that also contains a close-up of a face and has Mario Montez as the start in the movie. Mario is seen looking at the camera directly, then lowers his eyes but looks right back again before a banana appears in the frame and catches his eye. He knowingly looks at the camera and the banana moves centre screen toward his mouth. Mario is then seen holding the banana delicately while wearing a white pair of gloves. He peels the banana slowly while maintaining a close look at the camera`s lens. Mario holds it up and begins to lick it. He takes a bite of the banana and looks at the viewers chewing salaciously. Mario licks the banana ones more, looks at the viewers and takes a second bite. Then, Mario puts the banana into his mouth, thrusts it in and pulls it out a number of times before taking the last bite. This depicts Marion Banana as indisputably a piece of pornographic wit (Crimp, 2012). However, unlike in the case of Blow Job, where the face of the man getting the blow job was not visible, the facial expression of Mario is visible. He looks directly into the eyes of the viewer which is also in contrast with the man in Blow Job.

Warhol makes a suggestion regarding what makes the performance of Mario so touching. Mario adored a female mode of dressing “like a female glamour queen” (Crimp, 2012, p. 20), yet, he was “embarrassed about being in drag” (Crimp, 2012, p. 20). While Mario was chagrined and impudent the same time, he coyly executes his performing shame, of what he is performing and as what he is performing. Unlike in Blow job, Mario is accommodating whereby he eliminates any form of oscillation between awareness of the film context and the documented activity. In Blow Job, the man`s attention seems to be entirely taken by the perception that all that matters is what his face reveals. Unlike Mario, the man in Blow Job does not “do” at all, but rather someone performs upon him. Crimp (2012) argues that though the man is depicted as a “good-looking, innocent guy” (p. 21), it is rightful to think of him in the words of Koch, “a homosexual hustler.” He states that Warhol`s world is made up of a share of its interest, and with no doubt for the contemporary queer viewers who attempt to reconstruct histories.

3A. Therefore, it can be said that the unfortunate thing with the contemporary lesbian pride and gay politics is the fact that its working is exactly in the opposite way. As such, it pushes for a visibility grounded on homogeneity as well as on the exclusion of individuals who do not follow the norms considered to form the core of the very morality people should be content with and happily accept as the responsibility and obligation of the so-called maturity. Thus, the contemporary lesbian pride and gay politics consider shame as orthodox indignity instead of the real substrate crucial to an individual`s distinctiveness transformation into a queer type of dignity. This has an implication the 1960s queer culture, which has a profound manifestation in Warhol’s work, serves as an essential reminder of what the contemporary world today should know.

3. Case studies (Blow Job and Mario Banana)

Blow Job

conceived as a crafty “catch me if you can” rejoinder. This is because the film undermined his title`s explicit come-on as well as his framing`s ridiculous prudery. Warhol subverted and parodied the high expectations of porn fans as well as those of film censors leaving these viewers with an experience of disappointment and frustration while implicating both viewer sets in a similar illicit desire (Crimp, 2012). This is supported by (Koch, cited in Crimp, 2012) who states that much of what has been written about the film regards what is not shown in the movie, the frustration of people`s desire to have a view of the actual action. As such, most of the Blow Job`s realm action takes place out of the film's frame. In the frame, however, a nice looking young man is shown who displays signs of sexual stimulation such as “play of tension and face relaxation, loosening and tightening of the muscle around the mouth as well as opening up and clamping shut of the eyes (Crimp, 2012, p. 14).

neck and its protruding Adam`s apple” (Crimp, 2012, p. 16). The man repeatedly looks viewers' way directly, but they cannot see him looking at them. The camera does not capture the man`s face nor the sensation it records but rather concurrently withholds this from the viewers. In this case, the viewers cannot have eye contact with the man getting the blow job (Koch, 1973) thus preventing the detection of his vulnerability that comprises the submission he makes to being pleasured. Thus, viewers cannot have the man`s sexual possession as his face is not visible enough to allow this. This statement seems to contradict the two distinct views of Warhol`s films, as voyeuristic on one hand and as an exhibitionist on the other. From Koch`s viewpoint (cited in Crimp, 2012), the concept of voyeurism is dominant in all Warhol`s early works and expresses their aesthetic. Further, the idea of voyeurism in Warhol’s films is underpinned by the fact that the viewers are held back from the sexual scene not by the impulse of the voyeur to withdraw and hide but rather because what the audience sees as unreal is the film. Crimp (2012) is against Koch`s voyeuristic nature of Warhol`s camera as well as the claim that the subjects of Warhol are exhibitionists and instead asserts that the Blow Job can be closely associated with what he refers to as “an ethics of antivoyeuristic looking” (Crimp, 2012, p. 18).

Mario Banana

Further, by looking at the Blow Job, it has been shown that there are enough reasons why Warhol’s work can be considered as “antivoyeuristic.” The formal features present in

Warhol’s films, though distinct, serve to eliminate a knowingness with regard to the subjects presented in the movies. By use of the formal features, Warhol was able to paint a clear picture of the people of his time which is available today as presented in his films. Of much interest is the way Warhol was able to achieve this without converting his subjects, the people of his time, into objects of the modern people`s knowledge. His films give a world`s knowledge that can be described as not “of the other for the self” (Crimp, 2012). By looking at Mario, one can have a view of a performer who is about to be exposed hence trying as much as possible to be real. However, unlike Warhol, viewers do not leave room for reality but rather remain with their disquiet which entails an encounter with the obvious difference of another in terms of their “so-far-realness.” Also, disquiet among viewers arises from an encounter with the “shame of the other” which removes their so-for-realness from what is already “for-real” Warhol`s performance performativity as well as the shame that viewers accept as theirs. Therefore, though one may not be like Mario, the distinctiveness exposed in Mario might overrun an individual to use Sedgwick`s description resulting in their own distinctiveness being revealed simultaneously and making them feel exposed too. Sedgwick describes a shame-prone person as a person who has experienced shame and links shame

susceptibility to gender-dissonant powerlessness that is terrifying or a stigmatised childhood (Crimp, 2012). Additionally, if queer is a term that is politically potent, due to the fact that it can be detached from an individual`s scene of shame, then it cleaves to the site as a transformational energy source that is a near-inexhaustible. Furthermore, through her writing suggests that people are different and therefore there is an ethical need for the development of tools that are ever finer to help in encountering, valuing and upholding others differences.

References

Angell, C., 1994. Andy Warhol, Filmmaker. The Andy Warhol Museum, pp.125-26.
Angell, C., 1994. Something Secret: Portraiture in Warhol's Films: 18-21 February 1994, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, Australia. The Museum.

Benshoff, H.M. and Griffin, S., 2006. Queer images: A history of gay and lesbian film in America. Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc.
Benshoff, H.M., 2006. Queer images: A history of gay and lesbian film in America. Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc.
Carey, M., 2002. Senses of Cinema. [Online] Available at: http://sensesofcinema.com/2002/great-directors/warhol/[Accessed 23 3 2017].
Crimp, D. and Warhol, A., 2012. " Our kind of movie": the films of Andy Warhol. MIT Press.
Crimp, D., 1999. Getting the Warhol we deserve. Social Text, (59), pp.49-66.
De Villiers, N., 2012. Opacity and the Closet: Queer Tactics in Foucault, Barthes, and Warhol. U of Minnesota Press.
Doyle, J., Flatley, J. and Muñoz, J.E., 1996. Pop Out: Queer Warhol.
Koch, S., 1973. Blow-Job and Pornography. Stargazer: Andy Warhol's World and His Films, pp.47-51.

Mamber, S., 1974. Cinema verite in America: studies in uncontrolled documentary. MIT Press.
Nam, Y., 2015. Cinéma Vérité Vs. Direct Cinema: An Introduction. [Online] Available at: https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/cinema-verite-vs-direct-cinema-an-introduction/[Accessed 22 3 2017].
O'Pray, M., 1989. Andy Warhol film factory. British Film Inst.
Shaviro, S., 1994. The cinematic body (Vol. 2). U of Minnesota Press.
Uhlin, G., 2010. TV, time, and the films of Andy Warhol. Cinema Journal, 49(3), pp.1-23.
Verevis, C., 2002. Andy Warhol.

Continue your exploration of Revitalizing Art Galleries with our related content.

Looking for further insights on Enhancing Material Properties with Laser Surface Treatments:? Click here.