‘The exploding plastic inevitable’: ‘Branding being’, brand Warhol & the factory years

+ Models

SCAMAN-826; No. of Pages 10

‘The exploding plastic inevitable’: ‘Branding being’,brand Warhol & the factory years

Paul Hewer a,*, Douglas Brownlie b, Finola Kerrigan c

a Strathclyde University, United Kingdomb Stirling University, United KingdomcKings College London, United Kingdom

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2013) xxx, xxx—xxx

KEYWORDSBranding being;Brand spaces;Brand Warhol;Sociocultural brands;Identity work

Summary This paper contributes to theories of brands as sites of identity work and conver-gence. It takes as its subject relations of belonging and participation as they shape communal‘scenes’ out of which spring intimations of spaces of cultural production as branding ecosystems.To illustrate ways in which this line of thought ignites discourses on branding as a mode ofrelational being, we explore the social environment fomented around Warhol’s court, ‘TheFactory’, that iconic symbol of the mediated logic of his oeuvre. Drawing on archival accounts ofFactory life, we explore cultural production as illustrative of brands and branding as socialtechnologies exciting the imaginary and its theater of possibility. And to understand howcollective consumption of relations of connectivity nurture conditions suggestive of new brandingforms, we consider the existential logic of ‘branding being’, of thinking ‘spaces’ made availablethrough branding as a mode of relational being.# 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

j ou rn al home pag e: http: / /w ww. e l se v ier. com/ loc ate /sc ama n

Introduction

‘‘Warhol is the most powerful contemporary art brand thatexists. Picasso is another’’. (Appleyard, 2011: 82).

Andy Warhol was a commercial artist, a fine artist; a film-maker, publisher and celebrity who lived and worked in NewYork from the 1950s until his death 25 years ago. His life andwork has been extensively mined by art critics (Hughes,1982), philosophers (Danto, 1992, 2009), sociologists (Currid,2007) and marketers alike (Fillis, 2000; Schroeder, 1997,2005, 2010). Jones (1990) travels back to Warhol’s childhoodin Pittsburgh to explore the Factory, that communal space ofcultural production within which Warhol conducted much of

Please cite this article in press as: Hewer, P., et al. ‘The exploding plastScandinavian Journal of Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.10

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Hewer).

0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.03.004

his creative work on prints, film, music production, painting,etc. Warhol’s father Ondrej Warhola had been employed formost of his life in a large steel mill, a factory where workingconditions were poor and poverty not far removed: ‘TheDepression had changed the factories’ image from being asource of employment to the source of smoke and disease’(Jones, 1990: 107). Jones contrasts the ‘dark satanic mills’ ofPittsburgh with the factories of New York that Warhol wouldhave encountered after graduating in 1949 and moving toNew York to pursue a career in advertising as a commercialillustrator. At that time these factories still housed ‘craftoriented’ workers all over the city.

In the 1960s Warhol chose to locate his ‘Factory’ in mid-town New York and Jones (1990: 109) describes this as aneighborhood that ‘signified modern business and contem-porary industry’. During his early years in advertising helearned the lessons of collaboration, his productivity havingbenefited from the use of assistants. When setting up The

ic inevitable’: ‘Branding being’, brand Warhol & the factory years.16/j.scaman.2013.03.004

d.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.03.004


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09565221


+ Models


2 P. Hewer et al.

Factory those lessons were to be utilized regarding the powerof organization, of people acting collectively to imbue asocial environment with the character of a hotbed: an idealsite for collaborative experimentation, creativity and inno-vation in a context of intense interaction and social relation-ships. He assembled a retinue of like-minded acolytes, hardworking, creative and bohemian artists, actors, musicians,writers in an alternative social milieu, not only capable oflegitimating and valorizing his art, but setting in train socialcontexts necessary to the networking that would cultivatepersonal relationships likely to advance his interests throughgenerating a taste for his work. In this sense The Factory wasalso a site of social innovation in that it experimented withthe connectivity that Becker would later view as the collec-tive activity of making ‘art worlds’ (Becker, 1982).

The Factory was a site of invention in another sense. Inseeking to situate Warhol’s ‘art worlding’ in relation to theemerging conditions of consumer society, De Duve and Krauss(1989) depict Warhol’s work as bringing forth the aesthetic ofa moment ushering in an explosive cultural mix of massmedia, brands, celebrity and consumption. Danto (1992)argues that Warhol’s work defines an era on the cusp of massconsumerism and media connectivity through capturing theaesthetic of mass markets at a point when a ‘certain narra-tive of art, that shapes the minds of those who make art, hascome to an end’ (Danto, 1992: 10). And so The Factory wasalso a scene of social innovation in that it took as its subjectthe making of social context, the ‘worlding’ in which mean-ing-making occurs and objects ‘‘derive their identity as worksof art’’ (Danto, 1992: 5). So, while finding an aesthetic inwhat then made a social context something in which some-thing else is considered meaningful as an artwork, Warhol’swork also comments on the making of markets, consumersand commodities, and the incursion of those practices intoeveryday life. This aesthetic anticipated an era of hyper-mediation and connectivity catalyzing the mass circulationand accessibility of all forms of visual culture. De Duve andKrauss (1989) state ‘‘In the art of the past twenty years, onlyJoseph Beuys equals Andy Warhol in the legend-value — thatis, media-value. . . But Beuys is a hero and Warhol a star. ForBeuys, capitalism remained the cultural horizon to leavebehind; for Warhol it was simply nature.’’(De Duve & Krauss,1989: 3).

De Duve and Krauss’s identification of Warhol as a ‘star’reflects upon the celebrity brand that Warhol has sincebecome. Indeed Schroeder’s work (1997, 2005, 2010) high-lights the insights into consumer research and branding that aturn to Warhol’s oeuvre offers by examining Warhol as an artbrand. In urging us to consider artists as brand managers,Schroeder (2005) builds on a holistic line of thought devel-oped by Kreutz (2003) in his prescient study of the Picassobrand. Kreutz interprets and distils the Picasso narrative intoa set of categories which derive from the architecture of atypical textbook representation of the elements of branding.Those categories include market analysis, product develop-ment, pricing, distribution, merchandizing, brand extension,brand awareness and, interestingly, network marketing,upon which he reflects that during his early poverty-strickenyears in Paris Picasso ‘‘invested systematically in his futurecareer. His capital was his remarkable gift for choosing theright friends, and he succeeded in establishing an effectivenetwork by making allies of collectors, art dealers, gallerists,


fellow artists, and critics. In return for their loyalty, hepainted their portraits.’’ (Kreutz, 2003: 17). Kreutz claimsthat the lasting power of the Picasso brand — evidenced mostrecently by the £28.6 m paid at Sotheby’s for Picasso’sWoman Sitting Near A Window — is not only explained bythe artist’s oeuvre, but by his artistic ethic. Indeed he writesthat ‘‘The following Picasso quotation printed in large lettershung on a wall in Andy Warhol’s Factory: ‘‘Success is a veryimportant thing! It has often been said that an artist shouldwork for himself, out of love for art, so to speak, and holdsuccess in contempt. But that is wrong! An artist needssuccess. Not only to live but to be able to create his art’’(Kreutz, 2003: 43).

The paper seeks to further this conversation by focusing onhow social relations of ‘branding being’ unfurl through theorganizing character of social interaction, particularly withinWarhol’s Factory, situated as it was amidst the intensecommercial and cultural ferment of 1960s zeitgeist. Weexplore the notion of ‘branding being’ as a way to unpackrelations of participation and belonging that shape ‘artworlding’, with brand Warhol selected as an early exemplarof the convergence driving the aestheticization of everydaylife (Featherstone, 1991).

Brands, branding spaces & branding being

Brands feature large in the warp and weft of contemporary lifeand living. Arvidsson (2006) observes that since the 1980s theyhave been ‘‘spun into [the] social fabric as a ubiquitousmedium for the construction of a common social world’’(Arvidsson, 2006: 3). Brands have become an expressive com-ponent of consumer habitats, working hard to generate anddistribute resources for social formation, for understandingourselves through the relationships with others that brandsmake possible. The logic of brands circulates widely, excitingcultures of narcissism that inform our age (Lasch, 1978). Andours is an age in which brands communicate with sophisticatedease; an age in which brands, as organizing forms, offer upproxies for the communal; an age in which brands serve up newmasks, new imaginaries for being and personhood, unsettlingthe determinisms of yesterday. More prosaically put, we canconclude that branding is not merely a technology for capita-lizing connectivity, or negotiating sites of symbolic consump-tion: it also offers a means for extracting value through thestrategic interplay of narrative forms that speak, throughstories told and retold to various stakeholder groups, of cor-porate values and vision, of the work of corporate identity(Kornberger, 2010; Schultz, Hatch & Larsen, 2000).

Put to the service of the organization this technology isnot only understood as a strategic process for branding goodsand services in the marketplace; it is also a technology forbranding employees and service providers, persuading themin both attitude and skill toward management’s approvedvision, values and goals (Brannen, Parsons, & Priola, 2011).Wilmott’s (2010) concept of ‘brandization’ indicates howsuch value is leveraged for investors and recuperated throughbeing recycled as an ‘‘ethico-political complex’’ (2010: 534).In this sense branding is rendered a technology of commandand control, of servitude, of manipulation and exploitationwhich puts to work the ‘capacity of employees, consumers,service providers and other network actors to produce a



+ Models


‘Branding being’, brand Warhol & the factory years 3

common social world’ (Arvidsson, 2006). And although fromthe thin air of high-minded theorizing, branding may beconstrued as an oppressive instrument of labor process inthe service of capital, other perspectives are available: not


Table 1 Production resources.

Media type Date Title/author

Book 2007 Andy Warhol: CommercKlaus Honnef

3-Part filmdocumentary

2008 Andy Warhol’s Factory

Produced by Catherine

Book 1990/2000 Holy Terror, Andy WarhoBob Colacello

Video clip Andy Warhol interviewsSpielberg and Bianca Ja

Video clip Fifteen Minutes — Candand Andy Warhol (part 1

Film Poor Little Rich Girl/PrDirected by Andy Warh

Video clip 1965 Bob Dylan’s Screen Tesand Directed by Andy W

Video clip Unknown Edie Sedgwick’s ScreenProduced and DirectedWarhol

Film 2006 Factory Girl/Directed bHickenlooper

Video clip 1986 Andy Warhol and Jean-Basquiat from State of

Illuminations FilmsDocumentary

film2006 Andy Warhol/PBS

Video Clip 1985 Andy Warhol paints Debon an Amiga

Video clip Nico on Andy Warhol

Video clip 1993 Lou Reed about VelvetUnderground and Andy

Video clip 1967 Andy Warhol’s ExplodinInevitable (part 2)

Film 2007 Andy Warhol AuthenticFilms)

BBC archivefootage

Unknown Interview with Warhol,Darling and Jane Fonda

least of which are those emerging from the tradition ofethnographies of consumption which suggest that, whileeveryday life is extensively mediated by brands and com-merce, consumers work creatively with that mediation in the


Description

e into Art/ Book depicting the rise of Warhol withinthe art world. Focus on his visual art andfilm

People.Shorr

Biography of Warhol based on archivematerial and interviews with acolytes ofWarhol. Includes extensive commentaryand discussion of the Factory life and theworld which surrounded Warhol.

l Close Up/ Insider view on the life of Warhol by formereditor (from 1970 to 1983) of Warhol’sInterview magazine which focused on thelives of celebrities.

Stephengger

Warhol interviewing Stephen Spielberg andBianca Jagger-illustrating interaction withcelebrities

y Darling and part 2)

Factory figure Jeremiah Newton speaksabout Candy Darling and Andy Warhol,inside view to the world of the Factory, hisart collaborations and the superstars

oduced andol

Film starring Edie Sedgwick

t/Producedarhol

Example of the short films ‘screen tests’made by Warhol of many well knownunknown people

Test/ by Andy

Example of the short films ‘screen tests’made by Warhol of many well knownunknown people

y George Dramatization of the life of socialite EdieSedgwick and her relations with Warhol andthe Factory.

Michelthe Art,

From documentary about their art andlives, Basquiat talks about the level ofinterest in the private life of the artistTalking heads style documentary on Warholfocusing on Warhol’s work, the Factory andthe Superstars

bie Harry Clip of Warhol and Debbie Harrydemonstrating a new computer artpackage.Interview where Nico talks about Warhol’sinfluence on her career

WarholInterview with Lou Reed speaking aboutWarhol’s influence on their work

g Plastic An example of the visual nature of ‘TheExploding Plastic Inevitable’ spectacle

ation/(BBC Documentary examining this board whoauthenticate Warhol’s work, raisesinteresting issues about ‘authenticity’ andoriginality in his work

Candy Interview footage where Candy Darlingtalks about ‘cashing in’ by calling herselfCandy Warhol.


+ Models


4 P. Hewer et al.

service of the local mundane in ways which strongly suggestthe ‘weakness of capitalist command’ (Arvidsson, 2006: 136).

For as Hawkes suggests ‘‘in the twenty-first century,corporations such as Nike and McDonald’s do not sell materialproducts so much as ‘brands’, which is to say, mass circulatingimages. The sign, the simulacrum, the icon: these are thepostmodern currency of debate’’ (Hawkes, 2001: 4). Tribalapproaches, which speak of fragmentation and difference,underscore the importance of contemporary brands as theharbingers of new forms of displaced religiosity, new styles ofcommunion, new modes of participation, new economies ofaffect and attention within the evolving logics of new socialformations (cf. Cova & Cova, 2002; Maffesoli, 1996; Muniz &O’Guinn, 2001). Representing islands of narrative constancywithin the shifting currents of consumer sociability, brandsinsinuate themselves into everyday interaction and practice,their productive cultural logic informing and making possiblenew styles of personhood, new modes of aestheticization andnew styles of being. Moreover, the evolutionary flux and flowfrom which branding invention emerges is also to be foundamong those shifting currents of social formation. Andalthough the art of branding oneself, or others, is readilyunderstood as an act of labeling and self-presentation, ofimpression management, of appropriation and attribution ina particular social context, the ‘being’ of ‘branding being’ isnot understood as a ready-made state of mind to be calledupon at will to suitably adorn one’s conduct with necessarygestures. For after Sartre (2003), we understand this rela-tional mode of ‘being’ as a methodology for improvised self-representation; for playing with the conditions of existencein ‘order to realize them’, in order to make them available toourselves and others (Sartre, 2003: 82). Thus it is that publicdisplays of common purpose and other forms of culturalproduction can be seen to be illustrative of brands andbranding being put to work as social technologies capableof shaping the imaginary that drives affective investment. Tounderstand how collective consumption stylizes conduct andconvention we employ the existential logic of ‘brandingbeing’, of hyper-mediated social spaces made available tobranding. The mass connectivity of relational being distri-butes influence and interest so that principles of branding canbe found to be at work within social relations and the conductthat summons them forth. We argue that ‘branding being’,the branding of the conditions of connectivity that in turnshape belonging and participation, is a key signifier of thisemerging social order of personal identity branding.

At the same time the instrumental managerial rhetoricsurrounding brand management has become an all-embra-cing ideological device for seeding the organizational ima-ginary. At one level brands are promoted as devices forattracting recognition, status and renown through the stra-tegic management of identity; and at another level they arepromoted as narrative resources sustained by social practicesby means of which consumers curate their life experiencesvia identity work. Herein the brand, its dynamics and affects,heritage and organizational capabilities is unpacked as acultural construct capable of generating value and meaning.

Boje (1991, 1995) recognizes brands as collective story-telling devices through which discursive metaphors of pro-mise and possibility unfold. We consider the early emergenceof brand Warhol as a seminal moment in this shifting perfor-mative logic around brands, or as Grudin proposed ‘‘an


essential window onto the origins of our contemporary cul-tural environment’’ (2010: 232). After Lury (2004) we arguethat brands must be theorized as sites of connectivity andinteractivity, wherein ‘‘The ‘is’ of the brand is also its ‘may-be’; in its being — its objectivity — it has the potential to beotherwise, to become’’ (Lury, 2004: 151). This view informsthe evolutionary and dynamic notion of brand ecosystems,which Bergvall (2006: 186) describes as ‘‘mesh[es] of actors’’intersecting, within which brands are put to work to makemeaning. As Jenkins (2008) observes of the steps taken to tapthe affective force of audiences and brand communities,‘‘New models of marketing seek to expand consumers’ emo-tional, social and intellectual investments, with the goal ofshaping consumption patterns [and] understand how conver-gence may be reshaping the branding process’’(Jenkins,2008: 63).

So, although the narrow rationality of strategic brandingpretends to describe assemblies of ‘weak ties’ (Granovetter,1972) for achieving command and control over consumers,employees and other actors, the wider literature framesbrands as sites for social life, as socially embedded constructsfeeding off and into cultural imaginaries: imaginaries for thestaking of identity work and for reimagining the comings andgoings of everyday being (see Castoriadis, 2005; Diamondet al., 2009). Thus we argue that brand ecosystems are morethan mere material spaces conditioning connectivity, bal-ance and control: for we rather understand them as vestigialforms (Miller, 2005) for the generation and distribution ofaffect through network sociality (Wittel, 2001). In this way‘branding being’ is a technology of affect put to work withinemotional economies (Gobe, 2001).

Rendering reflexivity, context and method

At the core of the paper are steps taken to interrogate themythical status of narratives widely in circulation around thelegend of Andy Warhol springing from the ritualizing site ofThe Factory community. We build observations from docu-mentary accounts of the life and work of Warhol (see Table 1for an overview of these). These are typically set in thecontext of narratives seeking to capture the character ofevents, circumstances and interaction among participants invarious memorialized accounts of Factory life (Wilcock,2010). Those stories are set within a text first published inthe late 1960s by the co-founder (with Warhol) of InterviewMagazine, John Wilcock. Wilcock went on to interview aroster of Warhol acolytes, participants in a ‘scene’ experi-menting with value and culture in a community that becameknown as The Factory people (Schoor, 2008). We argue thatstories and storying are central to the act of branding beingthat is the focus of this paper and as such, stories are asignificant data source in understanding branding as a col-lective social process. In unpacking the stories offered by TheFactory people we gain insights into the processes of identitymanufacture and branding being at work. Our focus is not onthe artist as brand manager as Kreutz (2003) and Schroeder(2005) have considered, but on the artist’s studio (TheFactory) as an organizing site of intense cultural productionwithin which collective forms of branding being took place.

Wilcock’s book (2010) consists of transcripts of thoseinterviews recorded at the end of the 1960s. For our purposes



+ Models



we treat those transcripts as archival content generated byparticipants in the ‘art worlding’ of interest to us, as we seekto pursue an expanded understanding of the ecosystem thatseeded new forms, genres and gestures of cultural produc-tion. We view the brand ecosystem as not only as consisting ofthe physical space of ‘The Factory’, but the wider space ofsocial connectivity inhabited by The Factory people.

We also draw on film through Schoor’s (2008) documentaryand dramatized accounts of the characters and their lives,including The Factory Girl (Hickenlooper, 2006) with itscinematic rendering of the socialite Edie Sedgwick and herrelations of belonging to and participation in the constructedspace of The Factory (see Table 1). We combine these sourcesin an emergent narrative of historiography which positionsthe Wilcock (2010) text and the Schoor (2008) documentaryas central anchoring devices out of which spin lines of inquirythat weave ‘‘a plurality of stories, voices, and realitites’’ intowitness accounts (Boje, 1995).

The warrant for our framing of observational accounts isfound in the work of Kjellgaard et al., who argue that thebiographical method ‘involves tracing the emergence of agiven phenomenon through multiple sites’ (2006: 528). Weagree that the interpretation of events requires ideas whichoften must be situated within the sweep of wider events; andwe take the view that biographical method can, as part of abrand genealogy, not only improve the depth of understand-ing of context, but bring wider social and cultural considera-tions to bear upon subsequent analysis and interpretation.Arnould, Price, and Moisio (2006: 106) have previously high-lighted the importance of context in addressing what theyconsider to be ‘one of the most difficult tasks of any socialscientist’, namely linking abstract ideas to concreteinstances. Those authors recognize that deep context facil-itates comparative analysis.

In recycling some of the repertoire of Warhol narrativeswhich speak of social life within The Factory, we locate the‘‘teller’s story in the history that is presented’’ (Denzin,1997: 115), moving toward a more reflexive interpretivestance through exploring the ‘‘teller’s place in the story thatis told’’ (Denzin, 1997: 114). Those narratives are typicallyrendered through a voyeuristic gaze that seeks to achieveverisimilitude in framing recycled stories as witness state-ments taken to be capable of representing events and actorsas objects of study.

Although we draw on these various sources of informa-tion, we also bring with us a ‘‘material connection to themyth’’ (Holt, 2004: 286) that draws upon familiarity withvarious conversations in circulation among cultural produ-cers on the subject of the comings and goings of the rootideology informing and inflecting Warhol narratives (seeTable 1). In pursuing our interest in rereading identity mythsby means of which the Warhol brand performs its iconicstatus, we are continually thrown back upon biography aslife writing (Smith, 1994). We extend this notion to includeaccounts of the character of the social environment withinThe Factory as an apparent hothouse of experimentationwith various forms of content creation and an aesthetic setthat postured the obvious, the everyday, the arbitrary andthe anybody as art. The work of Silverman (2001) and Roberts(2002) informs how the paper frames observations stemmingfrom a close inspection of the available biographicalaccounts.


Some, like Danto (1992), view Warhol’s work as nudgingthe seat of artistic influence away from the powerful institu-tions of galleries and museums, toward the mundane comingsand goings of an everyday life extensively mediated bycommerce and cultural commodification. Ranciere (2004)shares with Danto and Becker an institutional theory of artwhich displaces the aesthetic character and quality of anartwork from the object itself, to the social context or‘sensorium’ that gives that object meaning as an artwork.Berrebi (2008) notes that this results in a ‘tension betweenbeing specifically art and merging with other forms of activityand being’, as Warhol encountered. We argue that TheFactory was a site where Warhol’s evolving aesthetic regimeplayed out, where such ‘other forms of activity and being’included the ‘worlding’ and imagining of ‘branding being’.This is seen as a process of democratization, the origins ofwhich are typically located in the impulse to what hasbecome known as the Pop Art movement or contemporaryart. It presages the democratized tools of content creationwidely available to all and sundry with access to social mediathrough which, as Appleyard (2011) recently observed, peo-ple can find out that through ‘‘publishing their own works onsocial networking sites, that making things that look like artisn’t at all hard and that is very demystifying and empower-ing’’ (Appleyard, 2011: 88). And although we do rely on thevarious biographical accounts located in the work of Wilcock(2010), we show that such data has an important role to playin generating the historical context for the genealogicalapproach that Holt employed (2004) in the study of iconicbrands such as Warhol.

Authority, proximity and glamor

Warhol was central to the processes of branding being withinthis context. In order to understand his influence we mustconsider how Warhol was presented through the stories ofThe Factory People. De Duve and Krauss (1989) have spokenat length of Warhol as narcissistic, but also as ‘magnetic’ interms of his authority. We find expressions and articulationsaround this theme within our archive of resources. We arguethat such a dynamic helps explain the logic of branding as atrope through which to alter, transform and innovate oneself.Indeed, we look to Lury (2004) in that we view The Factory asa site of connectivity and interactivity within which theimaginings of branding being become possible. While suchinteractivity is usually viewed as between those outside thebrand, between the consumers who collectively producemeaning, we argue that the study of Warhol offers us freshinsight into the internal mechanisms of the organizationwithin which the practices of branding being are likely toemerge.

As poet, writer and actor Taylor Mead (in Schoor, 2008)suggested: ‘‘He had extraordinary charisma, he was like amagnet’’. Central to the exercise of authority was the abilityof Warhol to select and elect the ‘chosen ones’ or as BillyName (in Schoor, 2008), Factory Manager and Photographerexpressed: ‘‘we wanted to make stars’’. Ivy Nicholson (inSchoor, 2008) expressed a similar viewpoint: ‘‘If he choseyou, you were immediately a star without going throughHollywood agents.’’ With the benefit of hindsight, The Fac-tory people express that time and place as one within which



+ Models


6 P. Hewer et al.

these people could invoke Warhol’s myth in both imaginingand developing their own. But, just as Warhol could invite youinto this space, he could exclude. As Gretchen Berg states (inWilcock, 2010: 31); ‘. . .he uses certain types of people forwhat he can get out of them. The idea of his getting rid ofthem later, which I’ve heard complaints about, may be true,but if they go in there, they know what they’re getting into’.A central element of the branding process in The Factory waspermission to be included in this social space of production.

Weber (1925/1968: 1117) stated that ‘the bearer of char-isma enjoys loyalty and authority by virtue of a missionbelieved to be embodied in him; this mission has not neces-sarily and not always been revolutionary, but in its mostcharismatic forms it has inverted all value hierarchies andoverthrown custom, law and tradition’. In the case of Warhol,we can see that value hierarchies in relation to distinctionsbetween social classes, between high and low art, betweenart and life have all been overthrown and this can be creditedas an abiding attraction of Warhol and The Factory for thosewho participated in it.

Weber also wrote about the need for the charismaticleader to have a mission, and that the followers’ adherenceto the mission secures the charismatic position of the leader.If the followers do not benefit from this mission, they will beabandoned. This can be seen as the case with Warhol. Theextreme form of ‘abandonment’ can be seen by ValerieSolanas’ shooting Warhol. Just as other organizations seetheir mission as central to the process of organizationalbranding, and such organizational brands are central to stafftraining programmes, we argue that Warhol’s charisma, hismission to seek fame and glamor, influenced the processes ofbranding being among The Factory People.

In this manner, the suggestion from the accounts emergesthat Warhol was ‘‘fantastically skillful at exploiting his mys-tique more than other people have’’ (Wilcock, 2010: 62).Central to this branding logic were the practices of glamor-making, or as Billy Name (in Schoor, 2008) indicates: ‘‘Hewanted to be a portrayer of glamour. . .we wanted to makestars.’’ This view is shared by De Duve and Krauss (1989) whocomment that:

‘‘To desire fame — not the glory of the hero but theglamour of the star — with the intensity and awarenessWarhol did, is to desire to be nothing, nothing of thehuman, the interior, the profound. It is to want to benothing but image, surface, a bit of light on a screen, amirror for the fantasies and a magnet for the desires ofothers — a thing of absolute narcissism’’ (De Duve &Krauss, 1989: 4).

The work of branding being thus takes the form of thepractice of glamor. Glamor here is intoxicating, beguiling, thestuff of promise and enchantment. Glamor moreover, muchthe same as the branding dynamic, operates through its trans-formative aspiration for status and attention. More so, glamorrests upon the staging and performance of one’s charismaticappeal. Therefore, drawing again on Lury (2004), we mayargue that glamor is reliant on connectivity and interactivityas glamor requires consensus but also proximity. For Weber,charisma refers to processes of intangible value formation:where ‘‘an extraordinary quality of a person, regardless ofwhether this quality is actual, alleged, or presumed’’ (1925/1968: 1119). Such authority as he continues always rests upon


unstable foundations: ‘‘The legitimacy of charismatic rule thusrests upon the belief in magical powers, revelations and heroworship. The source of these beliefs is the ‘proving’ of thecharismatic quality through miracles, through victories andother successes, that is, through the welfare of the governed’’(1925/1968: 1118). The rhythm and organization of Factorylife appeared to dance to a similar tune, where moments ofheroism were glamourised in the form of silk-screens, andmovie-star-making. In this cauldron, revelations took the formof transformations of the individual to mythic and heroic statusachieved through light, color and shading. In this sense thematerial practices of glamor are essential for unpacking thebases upon which such charismatic appeal and leadership maylie, borne of ‘kinetic energy’ wherein movement and trans-formation are central motifs in the logic of brand appeal. Whenasked what ultimate success meant to Warhol, Henri Fordreplied: ‘‘Publicity and glamour’’. Charles Henry Ford askedMalanga what Andy really wanted, Malanga simply replied:‘‘Glamour’’ (Wilcock, 2010: 61). To paraphrase Thrift we mightadd ‘‘So why are people attracted to [Andy]?’’ And in reply wemight simply offer that ‘‘glamour casts a secular spell’ (Thrift,2008: 9) especially for those who shelter under its munifi-cence.

Brand Warhol and its particular version of branding being,also expresses another pillar of glamor (Thrift, 2008) that ofits calculative ethos. In this sense, Warhol was, as theaccounts reveal, explicit about the philosophy at work withinsuch a collective organization: ‘‘I looked at him as a very, verybright businessman. I mean, I think he’s terrific at makingmoney. I think he’s very American, I think he’s a phenomenonof America, and I think he’s pro a lot of things that are veryAmerican and very destructive really. But I think it’s part ofthe whole money thing.’’ (Naomi Levine, in Wilcock, 2010:105).

Central to the labors of branding being the Warhol way liesin its endorsement of its own business ethic, advocating astrategic and calculated world of opportunity and profit.Ultra Violet in this manner suggests: ‘‘Doer, not a speakerhe was the General Motors of the Arts’’ (in Schoor, 2008). Inthis sense, brand Warhol demonstrates a highly effectiveorganizational logic, with its cultivation of business modelsfor fame and the establishment of renown. Warhol wasseduced by the logic of business practices, leveraging hissocial network to furnish success and fame. Jones (1990)speaks of Factory life as a ‘kinetic business’; and Warholhimself articulated his shrewd and calculative approach tothe convergence of art and business:

‘‘Business art is the step that comes after Art. I started as acommercial artist, and I want to finish as a business artist.After I did the thing called ‘‘art’’ or whatever it’s called, Iwent into business art. I wanted to be an Art Businessmanor a Business Artist. Being good in business is the mostfascinating kind of art. . .Business art. Art Business. TheBusiness Art Business’’ (Warhol cited by Jones, 1990: 117).

Or as Art Critic David Bourdon asserts: ‘‘He insists that heis in show business and that he is through with art; it is verydull, and show business is much more glamorous and exciting.But he’ll tire of show business too. Eventually he’ll take overMGM and sweep the Academy Awards and then what? He’llstill be left the same plain love-starved little boy he alwayswas.’’ (David Bourdon in Wilcock, 2010: 40).



+ Models


Table 2 The characters of factory life and brand Warhol.

Name Pathway to fame, glamorand brand appeal

1 John Wilcock Journalist, co-founder ofVillage Voice, co-founderof Interview Magazine

2 Mario Amaya Curator3 Gretchen Berg Photojournalist4 David Bourdon Art Critic5 Leo Castelli Art dealer6 Charles Henri Ford Poet, novelist, filmmaker,

artist7 Henry Geldzahler Curator8 Sam Green Curator9 Fred Hughes Manager of the Factory

10 Ivan Karp Gallery owner, formerassistant to Leo Castelli

11 Naomi Levine Filmmaker, artist andWarhol superstar

12 Gerard Malanga Poet, photographer,filmmaker, archivist

13 Marisol Escobar Sculptor14 Taylor Mead Poet, writer, actor15 Paul Morrissey Film director16 Ivy Nicholson Adornment17 Nico (Christa Paffgen) Actress and singer18 Brigid Polk (Brigid Berlin) Actress, artist19 Lou Reed Musician20 Ronnie Tavel Poet and playwright21 Ultra Violet Artist, author, superstar22 Viva Actor, superstar23 Eleanor Ward Gallery curator24 Buddy Wirtschafter Camera man


Branding being and its spaces of production

‘‘More sirens here, day and night. The cars are faster, theadvertisements more aggressive. This is wall-to-wall pros-titution. And total electric light too. And the game — allgames — get more intense. It’s always like this whenyou’re getting near the centre of the world. But thepeople smile. Actually they smile more and more, thoughnever to other people, always to themselves.’’ (Baudril-lard, 1988: 14)

Baudrillard’s invocation of New York life captures a senseof its magic and logic. Perhaps Warhol reckoned the same, orso we might glimpse from his own rendering of America(Warhol, 2011); That the rhythm of the street, the rhythmand technology of branding, demands a particular form ofaffective and enigmatic stylization that is central to thedesire and ethos of branding being.

Branding being thus emerges through particular sites ofsocial production and participation. Here we are reminded ofLefebvre’s (1991) assessment of social space and aestheticpractices, where he suggested that: ‘‘The Bauhaus did morethan locate space in its real context or supply a new per-spective on it; it developed a new conception, a globalconcept, of space. . .[wherein] an observer could movearound any object in social space — including such objectsas houses, public buildings and palaces — and in so doing gobeyond scrutinizing, or studying it under a single or specialaspect. Space opened up to perception, to conceptualiza-tion, just as it did to practical action.’’ (1991: 124—125).Brand Warhol operates we like to think in a similar fashion inheralding a new consciousness of space, the spaces of con-vergence of brand production and social participation. Wil-cock, is more direct on the particular qualities andpersonality offered up:

‘‘What the Warhol mystique provides, in fact, is excite-ment in its purest form. . . a mysterious hint of anarchyhangs over the proceedings, it is very difficult, once it is allover, to explain what exactly has taken place. . .Art, I say,is excitement. Art is something created that shocks, stuns,delights, overpowers the emotions in such a way thatone’s reactions and perceptions are altered by it, possiblyforever.’’ (Wilcock, 2010: 163—164).

To unpack such a mystique it is necessary to return to thespaces of its production; to operate in other words with aspatial orientation. Crang and Thrift are more specific on thisnotion of ‘thinking space’, when they suggest that ‘‘Geogra-phy has. . .mov[ed] away from a sense of space as a practico-inert container of action toward space as a socially producedset of manifolds’’ (2000: 2). Jones (1990) notes that Warhol’sFactory rejected the Taylorism that prevailed in the postWWII factories, with production lines, time and motionstudies and so on. Instead, work in The Factory followed acollective model, this work undertaken ‘under the directionof their superior; but they are free of the numbing regimen-tation of the assembly line.’ This physical space, where everysurface was covered in silver foil (Jones, 1990), or paintedsilver and windows painted black, blocking all natural lightwas blocked in favor of strobe lighting was where the work ofbrand Warhol was forged. De Duve and Krauss (1989: 4) referto Warhol, who wished for factory inhabitants to call him


Boss, as making ‘a point of honor never to seem to have theslightest individuality, never to be anything but the mirror ofhis entourage, the Xerox of what his courtiers wanted him tobe’. Just as the physical space was filled with reflectivesurfaces, Warhol himself wished to reflect those around him.

Understanding The Factory and its organizational logic inspatial terms is essential to unpacking the brand Warhol as acollective storytelling project with its own manifesto con-structed through the working practices and ethics adopted.Although we foreground Warhol as an iconic brand, we con-sider The Factory community as a ‘scene’ (Currid, 2007)within which grassroots practices were improvised and setin play movements which would in time seed the emergenceand articulation of a brand culture around Warhol. However,work on employer brands and leadership, such as that byEdwards (2010) and Edwards and Kelan (2011) does notresonate with the stories of Factory life and accounts ofWarhol’s role within it. While contemporary corporationsseek to ‘brand’ their employees, have them embody theorganizational culture, we argue that The Factory commu-nity provided a space within which individual brands and theorganizational brand intersected. For Charles Henry Ford,this highly social form of organization was emblematic ofsuch spaces of production: ‘‘He feeds off other people, andhe is a product of what he eats. You are what you eat’’



+ Models


8 P. Hewer et al.

(Wilcock, 2010: 62). Table 2 presents a roll call of the cast ofcharacters essential to the production of day-to-day life inThe Factory.

The Factory must thus be understood as a site for theproduction and reproduction of the brand mythology and itsmystique, operating with its own system of classifications,divisions and distinctions. Central to its dynamic was thedesire for renown, the desire to cultivate brand appeal, or asWilcock suggests: ‘‘Do you think that he gets a lot of amuse-ment out of the vying for attention that The Factory Crowd isalways doing?’’ (Wilcock, 2010: 59). In such a system thedesire to be ‘the favorite around there’ was crucial. More so,within such a Crowd we have ‘Andy’, but also the ‘superstars’and ‘freaks’ which added vitality to the scene. Naomi Levine(Filmmaker, artist and Warhol ‘superstar’) is more explicitabout this organizational logic:

‘‘He exploits that, their need to be freaks. . .I startedseeing how, with his passiveness, he provoked people intobecoming sort of freaky. . .I think he uses all this freakystuff to make his business.’’ (Naomi Levine, cited byWilcock, 2010: 107).

Those in the know, speak of the unspoken regulation ofThe Factory life, central to this is the fact that payment isreceived in kind. The facade of cool objectivity, only works ifpersonnel are obedient to whims and desires of the charis-matic leader:

‘‘Some of these people are so extraordinarily beautifulthat he doesn’t ask them to do a thing, but after Andy getsbored, which is very fast, he puts the broom in their handsand tells them to sweep up the floor and clean up. Most ofthese beauties can’t take this kind of treatment, so theyleave. . .and they’re all sent to work there. You’re notreally welcome unless you’re contributing something,doing some work.’’ (David Bourdon cited by Wilcock,2010: 40).

Such a sentiment was echoed by John Wilcock, suggestingthat crucial to his system of aesthetic production was asystem of work relations:

‘‘Somebody said that his membrane was thin enough toallow him to have all those freaks around him without itdisturbing him, that he was able to get his art out of that.’’(p. 35)

More so, within this system not only were the ‘freaks’ and‘beauties’ crucial, but also the tragic femme fatale to addspice to the mix of characters:

‘‘Edie [Sedgewick] was a precocious puppet. . .Edie wasburning alive. Andy did like to watch that.’’ (Ultra Violetin Wilcock, 2010: 28).

As an organizational brand community then it was amotley collection, which was rife with frictions and thepowerful dynamics of personal interactions:

John Wilcock: It became more complicated with morepeople around?

Gerard Malanga: Yes. Everybody was trying to create inter-nal tension, rivalries.

John Wilcock: Andy thrives on that, though.


Gerard Malanga: Mmm, oh yeah. It’s a power thing, becauseit’s like he can look down and watch it allhappening. Like a chess game, he canmove the people around.’’ (Wilcock,2010: 112).

Factory Life can thus be understood as a collective of‘nonconformist conformity’ (Thrift, 2008); a rich palette ofpersonalities, egos, tensions and contradictions. We couldcontrast this view of Factory life with contemporary dis-cussions of creative labor such as those discussed in McKin-lay and Smith’s (2009) edited collection where the legalcontract is seen as central to the negotiation of relation-ships (Thompson, Jones, & Warhurst, 2009). Interpersonalbonds resulting from interaction between Warhol and TheFactory People governed relationships in the Factory. Andout of such an organizational system, there were inevitablycasualties as we see with the case of Edie Sedgewick, butalso those who benefitted from the cultural production ofbrand appeal, which functioned in such a ‘hothouse’ ofinnovation and change, or as Victor Bockris (Schoor, 2008)remembers:

‘‘Lou [Reed] was a very good example of someone whoselife was changed just like that after meeting Andy.’’

This idea of change is central to understanding the prac-tices of branding being. What we see from our analysis ofbrand Warhol is that his imaginings evolved through a seriesof creative enterprises: Warhol the painter, Warhol the film-maker, Warhol the art business, Warhol the ringmaster allcombined to coalesce in the iconic brand Warhol became. In asimilar fashion, the Warhol brand was energized through suchcontradictions, tragedies and expressions of personal influ-ence:

‘‘One of his constant themes has been boredom, ennui,stagnation. It is a subject he has endlessly explored,exploited, exploded. The painter became lithographerthen filmmaker then sculptor (helium filled silver pillowsare his next gallery project), and he has always been adesigner and a natural-born director. Next will comecomic strips, books, maybe an opera. There seems tobe no end to the talent or ideas that constantly flock tohis banner.’’ (Wilcock, 2010: 165)

This constant search for new forms of expressions, newarticulations, stages and stagings for the work of aestheticsspeaks of the power of branding being: its constant search forinnovations, new technological devices and novel content tostage anew its visual rhetoric of enigmatic style and brandappeal. But also, that such energies, strategies and tacticswere produced within a particular locale, a particular spatialconfiguration of social relations, a particular moment of timefulsome with hope and possibility, with energy and vitality,with aspiration and the prospecting for brand personality andequity.

Discussion

This paper takes as its focus the unpacking of the Warholbrand for what it might reveal about the processes of brand-ing being. And following in the early footsteps of Dale



+ Models



Carnegie’s classic ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’(1953), a new genre of self-promotion texts has recentlyemerged with alluring titles such as ‘The brand called You’(Montoya & Vandehey, 2008); ‘Authentic Personal Branding: Anew Blueprint for Building and Aligning a Powerful LeadershipBrand’ (Rampersad, 2009); or ‘Me 2.0: build a powerful brandto achieve career success’ (Schawbel, 2009). Such titlesand others in this burgeoning genre take notions of self-branding to the heart of mainstream consumer societywhere the planned career pathways of brand assets arefought over and won in an ecosystem of impression man-agement and social validation. Through branding them-selves as charismatic gurus, such authors offercredentialized claims to knowledge and impact throughoffering ‘tried and tested’ self-help formulas for the crea-tion and manipulation of identity resources for those insearch of career advantage, esteem and influence, simi-larly to the business coaches discussed by Kornberger(2010). Such books promise transformative branded oppor-tunity through the careful management of identity work,demonstrating the extent to which the ethos of personalbranding (Shepherd, 2005) has street credibility within thebecause you’re worth it context of contemporary times.Authors typically assert that ‘branding’ yields rich materialand social rewards for ‘careered’ people, just as it does forgoods, services, ideas, celebrity assets, media product andorganizations. Such texts speak of the pervasive and acces-sible nature of marketing technology, of brands being partof our cultural imaginary, inserting themselves into thestories we tell ourselves about ourselves through affor-dances of story-making platforms. The immersive andtransformative qualities of brands help us start conversationsthrough which the ebb and flow of meaning is negotiated,structured and reassembled as strategic opportunities forbranding.

Branding being thus speaks to the contemporary char-acter of the sociocultural processes of branding. And in thisfashion, our return to the heady days of the 1960s and thelogic of Warholian aesthetics is not borne of nostalgia orwhim; rather we see in this moment a crucial juncture inwhich the notion of branding and the image culture that itferments started to emerge and take center-stage. Amoment where branding being started to emerge as apathway to success, a route to stardom and fame throughthe strategies of storytelling and myth production. BrandWarhol now exists as a cultural imaginary which transcendsthe darkened spaces of Factory Life; rather the Warholaesthetic with its characteristic stylization of lifeand being speaks of emergent processes of public perfor-mance constructed around the cultivation of one’s publicpersona. Image here is everything. Thus brands can beunderstood as contexts where the immaterial labor (Laz-zarato, 1996) of allure and affiliation, participation andbelonging serve to excite the imaginary and its theater ofpossibilities.

Conclusion

‘‘Space is all one space and thought is all one thought, butmy mind divides its spaces into spaces and thoughts intothoughts into thoughts. Like a large condominium. Occa-sionally I think about one Space and the one Thought, but


usually I don’t. Usually I think about my condominium.’’(Warhol, 2007: 143)

Seeking to nudge the discussion of brands and their man-agement we sought to consider branding as a social ontologyof community formation, which structures social life andsocial phenomena. As such, social life as negotiated throughbranding is revealed as a nexus of practices and materialarrangements. Examination of Warhol and life in The Factoryas perceived by and spoken about by the eyewitnesses of thetime, allows us to consider such practices and materialarrangements and explore this as a site of brand formation.Just as space can be seen as an important element of thebranding process, temporality is also relevant. The histori-cally imaginative shift in the 1960s—70s, must be understoodas the product of the rapid growth of western capitalism andthe reemergence of new institutions for public performanceand re-enchantment, at the moment when older institutionsbecame the subject of critical interrogation and disillusion-ment. At such a moment, new institutional masks and tech-nologies of enchantment emerged; youth, pop art, rockmusic, protest, mass media, etc. Warhol’s brand ecosystemillustrates that this created space offered an answer to thevacuum of the art institutional control of the market foraesthetic space. In order to explore this, we have drawn on arange of archival data to understand the historiography ofAndy Warhol and The Factory as an early instance of brandingbeing — the emergence of new forms and masks for thecoming of early late capitalism. Early insights into the soci-ality of branding being are found as enacted relations in thehot house of The Factory and we offer by way of interpreta-tion that this was a Movement with its own Manifesto, muchlike older art movements of yesteryear such as the Futurists,the Impressionist, the Surrealists, a collective bannerthrough which social relations could unfurl. And, just asthese movements speak to us about branding, Warhol’s Fac-tory provides a rich site for the understanding of brandingbeing, and the processes of branding oneself through inter-actions with others.

References

Appleyard, B. (2011). Andy Warhol: A One-Man Market. IntelligentLife Magazine. November/December. http://moreintelligentli-fe.com/content/arts/a-one-man-market?page=full. Accessed14.01.13.

Arnould, E., Price, P., & Moisio, R. (2006). Making contexts matter:Selecting research contexts for theoretical insights. In R. W. Belk(Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing(pp. 106—128). Oxford: Edward Elgar.

Arvidsson, A. (2006). Brands: Meaning and value in media culture.London: Routledge.

Baudrillard, J. (1988). America. London: Verso.Becker, H. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkely: University of California Press.Bergvall, S. (2006). Brand ecosystems: Multilevel brand interaction.

In J. Schroeder & M. Salzer-Morling (Eds.), Brand Culture (pp.186—197). London: Routledge.

Berrebi, S. (2008). Jacques Ranciere: Aesthetics is politics. Art &research. Journal of Ideas, Contexts and Methods,2(1) http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v2n1/berrebirev.html#_ftn1.Accessed 17.06.12.

Boje, D. M. (1991). The Storytelling Organization: A study of story-telling performance in an office supply firm. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 36(1), 106—126.


http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/arts/a-one-man-market?page=full

http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/arts/a-one-man-market?page=full

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-5221(13)00031-6/sbref0010











http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v2n1/berrebirev.html#_ftn1

http://www.artandresearch.org.uk/v2n1/berrebirev.html#_ftn1





+ Models


10 P. Hewer et al.

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A post-modern analysis of disney as ‘‘Tamara-Land’’. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 38(4), 997—1035.

Brannen, M., Parsons, E., & Priola, V. (2011). Branded Lives: TheProduction and Consumption of Meaning at Work. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.

Carnegie, D. (1953). How to Win Friends and Influence People.Oxford: Hutchinson.

Castoriadis, C. (2005, orig. 1975). The Imaginary Institution ofSociety. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Cova, B., & Cova, V. (2002). Tribal marketing: The tribalisation ofsociety and its impact on the conduct of marketing. EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 595—620.

Crang, M., & Thrift, N. (2000). Introduction. In M. Crang & N. Thrift(Eds.), Thinking space (pp. 1—30). London: Routledge.

Currid, E. (2007). The Warhol economy. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Danto, A. C. (1992). Beyond the brillo box: The visual arts in post-historical perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Danto, A. C. (2009). Andy Warhol. London: Yale University Press.De Duve, T., & Krauss, R. (1989). Andy Warhol, or the machine

perfected. October Art Journal, 48(Spring), 3—14.Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.Diamond, N., Sherry, J., Muniz, A., McGrath, M., Kozinets, R., &

Borghini, S. (2009). American girl and the brand gestalt: Closingthe loop on sociocultural branding research. Journal of Market-ing, 73(May), 118—134.

Edwards, M. R. (2010). An integrative review of employer brandingand OB theory. Personnel Review, 39(1—2), 5—23.

Edwards, M. R., & Kelan, E. K. (2011). Employer branding anddiversity: Foes or friends? In M. Brannan, E. Parsons, & V. Priola(Eds.), Branded lives: The production and consumption of mean-ing at work (pp. 168—184). London: Edward Elgar.

Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture & postmodernism. Lon-don: Sage.

Fillis, I. (2000). Being creative at the marketing/entrepreneurshipinterface: Lessons from the art industry. Journal of Research inMarketing & Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 125—137.

Gobe, M. (2001). Emotional branding. Oxford: Windsor.Granovetter, M. (1972). The strength of weak ties. The American

Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360—1380.Grudin, A. E. (2010). ‘A Sign of Good Taste’: Andy Warhol and the

rise of brand image advertising. Oxford Art Journal, 33(2),211—232.

Hawkes, D. (2001). Idols of the marketplace: Idolatry and commodityfetishism in English literature, 1580—1680. London: PalgraveMacmillan.

Hickenlooper, G. (2006). Factory Girl. The Weinstein Company/L.I.F.T. Production/Holly Wiersma Productions.

Holt, D. (2004). How brands become icons: The principal of culturalbranding. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hughes, R. (1982). The rise of Andy Warhol. The New York Review ofBooks, 29(2), 3—14.

Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new mediacollide. New York: New York University Press.

Jones, C. A. (1990). Andy Warhol’s factory: The production site, itscontext and its impact on the work of art. Science in Context,4(1), 101—131.

Kornberger, M. (2010). Brand society, how brands transform man-agement and lifestyle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kreutz, B. (2003). The art of branding. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.Lasch, C. (1978). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of

diminishing expectations. New York: WW Norton.


Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial labour. In P. Virno & M. Hardt (Eds.),Radical thought in Italy (pp. 132—146). Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell: Oxford.Lury, C. (2004). Brands: The logos of the global cultural economy.

London: Psychology Press.Maffesoli, M. (1996). The time of the tribes: The decline of individu-

alism in mass society. London: Sage.McKinlay, A., & Smith, C. (2009). Creative labour; working in the

creative industries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Miller, D. (2005). Immateriality. London: Duke University Press.Montoya, P., & Vandehey, T. (2008). The brand called you. New York:

McGraw-Hill Press.Muniz, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001, March). Brand Community.

Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412—431.Rampersad, H. K. (2009). Authentic personal branding: A new blue-

print for building and aligning a powerful leadership brand.Lancaster: Gazelle Distribution.

Ranciere, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics. London: ContinuumInternational Publishing Group.

Roberts, B. (2002). Biographical research. Buckingham: Open Uni-versity Press.

Sartre, J.-P. (2003). Being and nothingness. London: Routledge.Schawbel, D. (2009). Me 2.0: Build a powerful brand to achieve

career success. New York: Kaplan Publishing.Schoor, C. (2008). Andy Warhol’s factory people. New York: Planet

Group Entertainment.Schroeder, J. E. (1997). Andy Warhol: Consumer researcher. Advances

in Consumer Research, 24, 476—482.Schroeder, J. E. (2005). The artist and the brand. European Journal of

Marketing, 39(11/12), 1291—1305.Schroeder, J. E. (2010). The artist in brand culture. In D. O’Reilly & F.

Kerrigan (Eds.), Marketing the arts: A fresh approach (pp. 18—30). London: Routledge.

Schultz, M., Hatch, M., & Larsen, M. (2000). The expressive organi-zation: Linking identity, reputation and the corporate brand.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shepherd, I. (2005). From cattle to coke to Charlie: Meeting thechallenge of self marketing and personal branding. Journal ofMarketing Management, 21(5—6), 589—606.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods foranalysing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.

Smith, L. M. (1994). Biographical method. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 286—305).Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Thompson, P., Jones, M., & Warhurst, C. (2009). From conception toconsumption: Creativity and the missing managerial link. In A.McKinlay & C. Smith (Eds.), Creative labour; working in thecreative industries (pp. 51—71). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thrift, N. (2008). The material practices of glamour. Journal ofCultural Economy, 1(1), 9—23.

Warhol, A. (2007, orig. 1975). The philosophy of Andy Warhol ( f romA to B and back again). London: Penguin.

Warhol, A. (2011, orig. 1985). America. London: Penguin.Weber, M. (1968, orig. 1925). In G. Roth & C. Widditch (Eds.),

Economy & society, Volume 3: An outline of interpretive sociolo-gy. New York: Bedminster Press.

Wilcock, J. (2010). The autobiography and sex life of Andy Warhol.New York: Trela.

Wilmott, H. (2010). Creating ‘value’ beyond the point of production:Branding, financializing and market capitalization. Organization,17(5), 517—542.

Wittel, A. (2001). Toward a network sociality. Theory, Culture andSociety, 18(6), 51—76.
























































































































Documents

‘The exploding plastic inevitable’: ‘Branding being’, brand Warhol & the factory years