 |
| Photo By Shahram Farshadfar |
Ten
Questions For Uber-Artist Brother Andy
Illustrious luminary,
Brother Andy, answers ten questions most frequently posed to him. The
provocative film-maker, fine artist, photographer, interior designer,
outrageous fashionista and leading figure in the Intriguism Art Movement is
sure to shock and surprise. As always,
expect the unexpected…
1.
Why
are you referred to as “Brother”?
A.
A few years ago, several artists gathered
at a home for an informal salon. A woman
said to me, “Isn’t it a shame so many artists feel competitive toward one
another, when we really should be sharing our experiences as a group, which
would make the individuals of the union stronger?” I immediately remembered Marcel
Duchamp referring to “the religion of art” and the “group-think” he fought
against. I replied to the woman in a snarky manner, “Artists – Intriguists in
particular -- could call each other ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ as a reminder to
stay humble and to tag who is ‘in the know’.” The off-handed suggestion was a
way for artists to be separatists and elitists at once – a concept the art
world loves. From that moment on, the
nickname “Brother” stuck, especially to someone (me) who doesn’t have tattoos,
no piercings, doesn’t smoke, doesn’t drink alcohol, doesn’t take drugs, or even
eats red meat, although I do continually swear like a sex-obsessed sailor on
shore leave.
Shortly
thereafter, Lady Gaga came on to the world scene, billing herself as a performance
artist, which gave credibility in my choice of a “brand” name. I also loved the
nickname because of reverence for the legendary performance artist Brother
Theodore, who deserves homage for his ground-breaking contributions. The name made sense in context of other performed
fictional characters like Dame Edna, played by Barry Humphries, who is no lady
and who isn’t sanctified for the title, but who is an internationally
multi-media “star” on the character’s own terms, as is Pee Wee Herman or Elvira.
Comedian Roseann’s “Domestic Goddess” routine was of the same genre, as was
“Father Guido Sarducci”. Whoopi Goldberg’s real name is Karen Johnson. Creating
personas is primarily social commentary and social satire -- a joke -- and
either you get it or you don’t.
Characters are a specific high concept art form. Labeling helps streamline memorable packaging
which, in turn, helps get the message across.
There
are those who are now taking the notion further by referring to me as “Your
Grace”.
2. Aren’t you afraid of repercussions
from “devout followers of religious faith” who may be offended by the controversial
religious intonations of your personae and the provocative themes of your art?
A: I can’t second-guess who will be offended by
what. That’s not my job. If I weren’t offending someone, a majority of time, I’d
be more afraid I wasn’t saying anything of value. There’s an old adage: if you
don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. As an artist, I deal in fear, doubt, guilt
and shame – within myself and in others.
There would be something amiss if the reaction wasn’t repulsion to parts
of my work because a percentage of it is -- by definition and by intent --
revolting, particularly to anyone with any kind of normal sensitivity, even within
myself. In that vein, nervous laughter or an insult or anger is a valid
reaction, as are awe or fascination or intrigue in other situations. Francis Bacon made really beautiful ugly art.
Picasso and Mapplethorpe and Arbus and Allen Ginsberg -- all made gorgeous pornography.
Both Michelangelo and Da Vinci were considered heretics within their time.
Today’s “smut” is tomorrow’s “genius”. I
can’t pay any more attention to “hate” than to the disproportionate about of
“love” bestowed every day, every hour.
When
you push buttons, you’ll get responses.
The result is controversy, a discussion, risk-taking, living with the
consequences of an honest life, but hopefully in a dignified manner. Every great artist in history, with any
insight whatsoever, was considered anti-social, their work viewed as
pornographic or deranged, at one point or another, and the greatness comes from
rising above the fray, keeping an eye toward the commonality in human
experiences. Apathy is the kiss of death
to an artist and their work. I work too hard at revelation to be dismissed
or ignored as a fringe lunatic or a flashy wanna-be. I would hope to be just as sacrilegious,
strange, and dirty as the best of them, not simply contrary for the sake of
being contrary.
I
believe many contemporary artists – like Baldasari and Banksy -- are
con-artists, perhaps clever at best but not intellectual whatsoever. Their work
seems to say, “You’re an idiot and I’m going to take advantage of your lacking
knowledge of art…” When I do comedy, I don’t work “blue” as much as I could because
crude vulgarity doesn’t spark the imagination and it is empty anger to no real
end. The effect wears thin quickly. Yet confrontation is a necessary tool of the
trade, especially to authority like politics and religion. Remember: ideas don’t kill people – ignorance
kills people. Knowing how far to go is always a matter of going too far. You know when you’ve pissed off the right
people when you find yourself in jail. George Carlin knew. Lenny Bruce knew.
We
also live in a time when any publicity is considered good publicity, principally
if negative in theme on “social media”.
Howard Stern has made a lucrative career of being hated, yet, he dares
to do what many in media do not do – chew on a kind of personal truth, which is
a respectful endeavor, no matter how difficult to digest. What he does is “anti-art performance art” –
an “unpopular populist”, so to speak, the opposite of Oprah and Ellen, who are
commercial artists telling people what they want to hear, what they already
know. There’s a place for both
approaches, opposite ends of a spectrum.
Media
regurgitates cultural mythology in an endless loop. Freedom of speech, expressions outside the
boundaries of “good taste”, is essential for evolution, yet “bad taste” is not
always easy to swallow. Accepting
diversity, which is necessary for adaptation, counters the core of natural
selection which eliminates what doesn’t work, meaning: the field of
conceptualists is self-regulating by timing and pragmatic application. There should be no shame in being disliked,
although most people intrinsically fear being shunned. I’ve experienced
standing ovations and being booed off stage by a thousand people. The struggle for acceptance and understanding
of the positive and negative reactions to being cast as an uncensored celebrity
is easier for me than for those who are the closest to me. It’s my job and not theirs’. Who wouldn’t be
concerned for their well-being?
Like
Stern, I wear the badges of “outsider” and “provocateur” with pride. The
pervasive irony of my personae is being iconoclastic while simultaneously
playing the role of an icon, reminiscent of the late David Bowie.
The
question is laced with an unspoken truth about religion: it’s irrational. “Faith” is antiquated and the sooner we move
on to ration and reason, the sooner we can deliver food, water and shelter to
everyone on the planet, move on to meaningful education, and stop hanging
responsibility of our destiny on an invisible fairy-tale being. Hoping, wishing,
dreaming and praying doesn’t make things happen. Action does.
The saying, “religion is Pablum for the masses”, pretty much sums it up.
People stupid enough to believe bull
crap “spirituality” mumbo-jumbo aren’t clever enough to stop me and killing me
will not stop the message. The obvious
example of how killing to stop ideas doesn’t work is the story of Jesus Himself,
not to mention Martin Luther King or even imprisoning the Marquis De Sade.
The
time to turn “political correctness” around on oppressors is long over-due, since
most cultural mythology is “tradition” which hinders growth as well. End empowering ignorance by turning a blind
eye, take responsibility, and no longer tolerate the intolerant, those who
insist religious belief has value, when, in fact, religion is bad for the
economy (cease tax exemptions), segregates communities, stands in the way of
much-needed intellectual progress, and is opposite in behavior everything it
pretends to be in principle (i.e. hypocritical, judgmental, exclusionary,
bigoted and vindictive, to name just a few). There is a difference between
amoral and immoral and organized religion (as is politics) is dangerous by
design by confusing the two. Nothing good has ever come from doing anything in
the name of the Lord.
The
current Pope has the right idea. Put
religion back into “The People Business” or, better yet, get out of the business
altogether. Just to be clear: yes, I am anti-religious and my agenda is to
promote the alternative to religion, which is common sense. If logic is
offensive, then color me obnoxious.
3.
Why
do you wear skirts and odd outfits?
A:
It’s a graphic statement, a visual warning sign to others that I am most
assuredly not “traditional”. I don’t
waste time with people who don’t “get me”, trying to communicate when the
discussion is over before it begins. The skirts service to instantly weed out
those who are profound haters. The affront from those who “protest too much” has
more to do with them than it does with me, as a person or as an artist. My “act” is not for everyone and I’m okay with
that. You don’t like me? Fine. Ignore me. Assume whatever you’d like about
me and it’s probably at least partially true.
I’ll own it. As far as I know, a
skirt has never hurt anyone. Get a sense of humor, already. Guess what?
Any minute I might choose to wear nothing at all. Deal with it. I’m an
educator but, ultimately, I’m an entertainer and dress the part.
As
an educator, I push through cultural resistance to reconfirm what wise Martin
Luther King suggested: judging people on their character -- not race, gender, age,
sexual orientation, financial accomplishments or lack thereof. My identity
isn’t contingent on one hair style or one hair color, fashion trends, as sundry
success or failure models. I am myself – rich or poor, clothed or naked,
popular or not, and, contrary to the opinion of some, I’m perfectly happy not
having expectations of being happy.
Righteous indignation works best for me, not passive contentment with
life as an “as is” proposition.
I
am offended as a feminist when someone suggests that a man being “woman-like”
or womanly or effeminate is somehow a detriment or anti-man or anti-Creationism
or “gay-ish”. Clothing does not make the man, at least, not in this case, yet,
pants on a woman certainly brought women into the fold. We should rejoice in diversity and
full-spectrum expression of self as part of human evolution, casting off the
tyranny of prejudice. An article of
clothing – or lack of clothing – shouldn’t represent anything other than minor,
minimal face value.
The
on-going, absurd, repressive, Victorian fear of “debauchery” leading to another
fall of the Roman Empire is groundless, not to mention historically inaccurate. Machismo, sexism, and misogyny aren’t fun
and, furthermore, they are impractical attitudes in a global economy wherein codifying
diversity is a coveted asset. Sticking
to rigid gender roles is simply too boring to be taken seriously. Life is too
short.
If
only a man putting on a dress could have the power to change the course of
human events…
4.
Why
is there so much nudity and sexuality in your work?
A:
I resent the intonation of the question, as if there is something WRONG with
being sexual or naked. The question
should be: why is what I do, say, feel, want, or need so damned important to
others for others to care – whether sexual or naked?
From
what I know of life, the conclusion I’ve made: you can’t express yourself until
you have self-actualized your own body, meaning stripping away the social
confines of clothing which imply restrictive gender roles and ludicrous social
status and understand humans are sexual beings.
The hippies knew this. Nudists
prove it. Look no further than women who
are made to wear burkas in Third World countries. Forced clothing subjugates the person,
objectifies them. School uniforms negate what school is for – to teach how to
think as an individual. “Clothing
optional” is about choice and choice is the very essence of freedom.
I’ll
go further: until women question why they wear the makeup they do, in that
fashion, they will not make the same money as men or be treated with the respect
they should inherently have. Why would
anyone want glossy blood-red lips – especially in a work place where being
“pretty” isn’t in the job description?
Simply put: you can’t exemplify self-loathing under the guise of
“beauty” (i.e. “breeding material”) and expect to be seen as “who you really
are” as an equal to someone else who doesn’t have to spend one second of
thought on their appearance. Cast aside double-messages and perhaps your
message will be heard clearly. Throw away high-heeled shoes and put your feet
on the ground where they belong.
We
are sexual beings, each and every person, designed to reproduce. Sexuality is the core to the “human
condition” and all cultures (sexual politics) and all philosophy (morality) and
all dynamics in all relationships and in all the traditional labels of self
which start in the womb with gender assignment.
The culture is moving away from sexuality and reproduction being one and
the same because technology has separated them, which leads to a paradigm shift
in philosophical purpose/meaning. The Farming
Age and Industrial Age needed workers – quantity for life. The Information Age requires less people –
quality of life.
Even
The Bible retreads the tired “Boy Meets Girl” scenario. Nothing is new. The current variation is: “Boy Meets Girl Who
Was Born A Boy But Always Knew He/She Was Really A Girl Inside”. That’s progress for ya.
I’ve
been a nudist since birth. It’s what I
know, as comfortable with nudity and sexuality in my work as Woody Allen is
with representations of New York City in his work. I like sex and I like to watch people having sex. Sue me.
5. You are known to be highly-opinionated. Is that a fair description?
A:
“Opinionated” is just the beginning.
“Opinionated” connotes you are closed off to opposing ideas, that you
are dogmatic, obstinate, suffer from a hindering negative personality trait. The word imbues a not-so-hidden distaste for
others, as though being judgmental and opinionated are synonymous. The
assumption is that being opinionated means you tell others how to live outside
your authority (yet, you best teach by example). As an artist of forty-plus
years, I will espouse as much authority as one is willing to give me to
influence thinking, but, again, to share and inspire is a long way from being a
megalomaniac monster.
However,
to be a writer, director, actor or artist, one has to start with a committed idea which the artist deduces will achieve envisioned goals, which is then
invested with time, money, materials, effort and so forth. If you don’t value your ideas, how can you motivate
others into action (and develop trust), specifically when you are alone in your
vision unless through the enforcement of sheer will? Good ideas are a
statistical phenomenon. Sometimes an
idea has to be implemented before discovering it is “bad”. Failure, as Edison said, is as valuable as
success in many instances, because you’re developing a criteria. Far better to
try and fail, than to keep cycling through what you know and getting the same
poor results.
Film
is a collaborative effort which requires a division of tasks. Ultimately,
someone has to make the decisions, take the bottom-line responsibility, and I
am extremely comfortable taking on that role. My opinions are the key to
planning and execution. Self-doubt is
the enemy. Being labeled “opinionated”
is the criticism of those who do not comprehend the thousands of problem-solving
edicts which go into making art. Artists
do not turn on opinions in the studio and leave them turned off at the entrance
before venturing into the world, any more than non-artists would go into a
studio and suddenly become open-minded to processes beyond their normal sphere
of knowledge.
My
world-view comes from decades of self-reflection and study, a life-time of trial-and-error
experience. You can’t have it both ways – keeping it to yourself and giving it
away to the world. Yet, all of this doesn’t damper the expectation of angry villagers
with torches storming through the door at any minute.
6.
You’ve
done a wide range of projects – interior design, photography, writing, make-up,
acting – to name a few. What are you
most proud of?
A:
“Jesus Chimp” combines both concepts of evolution and Creationism in a historically
new digital media format -- a pretty significant accomplish for a simple
image. The intense music video “The
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” gives an insight into what someone with
Asperberger’s Syndrome might experience -- how people with cognitive conditions
might see the world. “The Invisibles” conceptual art outlines everything that
is both good and bad about the nature of “art” – in quotes -- as we presently
understand it. “The Social” short film exemplifies the
Intriguism retro-futurism methodology pretty well. Knowing lives have been
effected in a positive way by the Intriguism projects, from the work as a whole
and from the process of creating the work is an accomplishment of merit.
Sometimes asking the right question is more enlightening than assuming/accepting
which answer is correct. I’m proud to be a unique critical-thinker, despite the
culture I live in, the education system I was subjected to and the up-bring
I’ve experienced. I’m most proud of the love given to me from someone who sees
me as worthy of that love.
7. What’s your process as an auteur film-maker?
A:
My films are experiments. Each project has
a goal – whether lighting, dialogue, toying with narrative or concentrating on
acting techniques. Most are satires,
overtly or subtly. The films tend to be
a diary of where I was at as a person and as an artist at the time. Frankly, I’ve been making films for so long,
the process has become a lifestyle, second-nature, and, despite the massive
amounts of man-hours, not as much thought goes into it as one might imagine.
Like
all artists, I am constantly on the prowl for materials to use, whether it’s a
snippet of dialogue from a conversation, the way light plays off leaves on a
tree on a windy day, or acquiring equipment which will affect the outcome of
the film overall such as when to implement a dolly. My films are an amalgamation of every damned
movie I’ve ever seen and I’ve literally seen thousands of them. Bad artists steal and fake invention. Great artists are blatant about their thefts
and will give credit to those they have robbed by calling it a “homage” so they
don’t get sued.
The
bottom line is I play dress-up. Anything
to that end is what I will do. The films
are just an expensive, complicated, lame excuse.
8. You have so many facets to your
character. How would you describe
yourself?
A:
A paradox… A high-energy visionary conceptualist… An extroverted introvert… I can put on a show in front of thousands or
talk one-on-one, but put me in front of seven people at a party and I’ve got
nothing to contribute. Small talk is a
talent I just don’t have, along with math and window cleaning.
Most
people see their identity through what they do, what they have, their friends
and family, their appearance. Most
people have a self-image which reflects how they feel about themselves, like a
fixed place on a map. I don’t have that.
My free-form identity isn’t predicated on gender, race, age, appearance. I am
more of a psychic vibration that fills spaces, rather than a set of predictable
personality traits or physical attributes.
Imagine
having a life in which every time you showed up the reaction from others was,
“Oh, I didn’t recognize you…” Imagine starring in a movie, being in ninety
percent of the scenes, and even your own mother can’t pick you out of the film.
Imagine having a photographic mind in which you were the camera, looking out at
the world, and not being part of the subject of the image, always once removed.
It
took me until I was twenty-five years old to realize the difference between
having a sense of humor and sense of humus. I kept looking for collective
moisture when I should have been memorizing jokes.
9. What is the biggest misconception
others have about you?
Similar
to the common myths of most artists – that I’m some kind of “mad genius”, crazy
and moody… That I intentionally seek negative attention and feed off of it… That
without a striking financial gain (i.e. rich and famous), my work is not
valuable.
Artists
are often thought of as “childish”, when, in fact, they are more likely to be “child-like”.
Maturity is over-rated. …That all this
pretty isn’t necessarily natural. That
I’m a flagrant, flamboyant cross-dresser. Okay, that one might be true. That I’m a hypocrite and a bigot and
self-centered and a chronic liar and… This is why I have a therapist on
speed-dial.
10. What is your ultimate goal?
To
complete the multi-million dollar multi-media Brother Andy’s Goldshield Castle resident/commercial
project in San Diego, California, which will be a historically accurate
depiction of life from 1350 to 1550. To build an extensive library of work with
some artistic merit and financial value, which can be used as raw materials for
future generations. To portray women, gays, blacks and artists in my work in a
way that inspires acceptance and compassion. To teach critical thinking,
problem-solving. To redefine how we see ourselves, starting with self-actualization
(the awareness of the experience we are having) and address the fear, doubt,
guilt and shame that enslaves us. The goal of every artist, just as with every
human being, is purpose, meaning and relevance.
To
make world history is possible and needed as a tool. Again, Mother Teresa,
Gandhi, Jesus are celebrities, no different than Elvis or Madonna. Santa Clause
is treated as though real because the culture needs role models to emulate,
even if conceptualized, just as children play with dolls to act out
role-playing. By using me as a social experiment, fundamentals can be
discovered and worked out in a safe way, then applied to the real-world
situations. The goal is to be more like my idol, Marcel Duchamp, who, in my
estimation, was more influential on the human race than was Jesus Christ
because he changed the way people thought, how people thought, without
dictating the subject of what to think about – and he not only did this once,
he did it multiple times in multiple ways.
Selfishly,
I want to live in a world that is free and peaceful, to seek what there is, and
to participate wholly without reservation. The objective is to release the
anger of what man has done to himself (the past), forgive myself for the human frailties
I have (the present), and pause to think before doing more of the same (the
future). I am grateful for the opportunity to know others, to be part of their
story, satisfied in having been known.
Another
irony: I kind of need to be left alone, steeped in solitary down-time, in order
to talk to the whole of the world, to the generations yet to be, and I need
staffs of dedicated people to accomplish this.
