Comments on: Distress Cruft (my fellow americans)

By: Daniel P. Johnston

Daniel P. Johnston — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:07:23 +0000

Whew! I think I’m getting dizzy. I’m enjoying it nonetheless.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:58:01 +0000

> First of all, any assertions that Crufts are not art are ridiculous,
> and your agreement with these sentiments is even more
> ridiculous, but I’m sure you are aware of this, which makes the
> whole thing absurdly ridiculous, but, ironically, it also
> might solidify the entire process as art.

I agree the whole thing is ridiculous.

> Said process reminds me very much of Warhol (we can all
> agree he was an artist, right?).

An artist is anybody who does something well, like if you cook
well. I think Andy Warhol is terrific.

> From the re-purposing of pop / political culture (showing
> “everyday” images removed from “everyday” context and
> thereby elevating its impact and questioning its meaning)
> to the automated processes (proving that the value in
> contemporary art is in ideas, revelation, and provocation -
> not technical skill), all the way to the denial of the work
> as art (further challenging the viewer to reconcile their
> understanding of what it is, then). Art is no longer
> about the image, but the perception of the image.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

> Additionally, despite your denial, you clearly have
> political viewpoints that you express in your work. This
> particular Cruft is the most overtly confrontational, but
> there is a clear statement being made in every Cruft you
> program. If they weren’t supposed to be political, there
> would be no reason to take images from CNN or especially
> Al Jazeera, or Whitehous.gov (or porn sites); you could
> just mine Google Images or Flickr or something. These are
> clearly not “chance” decisions.

We don’t get to choose which images are on the Internet and
television. They are all terrific, and everyday there are new ones.
It can be hard picking one image over another.

> Perhaps these are all obvious points, but you seem to deny
> them so vigorously. Why?

(Laughs) I don’t know. I like this idea that you can say the opposite.

By: Daniel P. Johnston

Daniel P. Johnston — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:58:41 +0000

Rob,

I wanted to respond to your interview specifically, but, since that is not an option on the site, I’ll use this post as a springboard, as it seems like a perfect illustration of my thoughts.

First of all, any assertions that Crufts are not art are ridiculous, and your agreement with these sentiments is even more ridiculous, but I’m sure you are aware of this, which makes the whole thing absurdly ridiculous, but, ironically, it also might solidify the entire process as art.

Said process reminds me very much of Warhol (we can all agree he was an artist, right?). From the re-purposing of pop / political culture (showing “everyday” images removed from “everyday” context and thereby elevating its impact and questioning its meaning) to the automated processes (proving that the value in contemporary art is in ideas, revelation, and provocation — not technical skill), all the way to the denial of the work as art (further challenging the viewer to reconcile their understanding of what it is, then). Art is no longer about the image, but the perception of the image.

Additionally, despite your denial, you clearly have political viewpoints that you express in your work. This particular Cruft is the most overtly confrontational, but there is a clear statement being made in every Cruft you program. If they weren’t supposed to be political, there would be no reason to take images from CNN or especially Al Jazeera, or Whitehous.gov (or porn sites); you could just mine Google Images or Flickr or something. These are clearly not “chance” decisions.

Perhaps these are all obvious points, but you seem to deny them so vigorously. Why?