Fascinating, our world today. With technology man now knows more about his fellow man, and the world he lives in than ever before, yet we still know very little. We knew very little, for example, about the topic of this edition’s Spotlight artist, John Lurie.

But having discovered him after a mild mannered argument between NAICA assistant editor, Torry Mendoza and myself, Maria Colòn, we now know more than we ever wanted to know about him.

You see, there was some question as to the ‘greatness’ of director Jim Jarmusch, and his “friendliness” toward the Indian what with that “Indian Movie” of his, Dead Man. Having attempted to watch it twice and falling asleep both times, it’s safe to say I thought this movie was boring, but Torry offered a few thought-provoking remarks that lead me to believe I was being too hard on Jarmusch. So I Netflixed his films thinking I’d throw a few in the queue. You know, take another stab at Mystery Train when I noticed one name came up over and over again – John Lurie.

I thought, Who’s this guy?

Curious I clicked on his name in the cast list of one of those films he was in that Jarmusch directed and there before me was a whole host of stuff he’d acted in, some I’d seen, and some I hadn’t. There were even music credits, and some T.V. too. He was on Oz, which was for a short time one of my favorite cable shows, but I had never seen the guy before! Possibly I’m blind?

There is nothing like discovering something or someone new, especially an artist. In these modern times the next logical step to discovering everything the artist in question has done, besides Netflix, is to Google - Wikipedia turned out to be of no use to me. But Google yielded plenty! Lo he had a Myspace profile and his own website. On this website there was art, music, more art in the form of a pseudo-fishing program, and a place where you can purchase some of his art.

I did not purchase any of his art but the art was what got me.

There, amidst the colorful tableaus depicting a menagerie of sexually curious animals and silly people, were two dogs fucking. Now, I ask you, who wouldn’t think that reference, to an otherwise culturally offensive joke, wasn’t a friendly nod to the lives of contemporary Indians? Especially those that travel the pow wow trail during summer? I’ve never done it, but they don’t call it snagging for nothing, and I imagine it must look a lot like two dogs fucking. Brilliant. John Lurie is the true friend of the Indian, not that Jarmusch guy with his ham-fisted “stupid fucking white man” credo. I also discovered he had a book of drawings for sale and another featuring his watercolors on the way. I bought both the second I had some money to burn, which is not often, but they were worth every penny, and a lot less expensive than his prints. That first month in which I discovered his work I spent more time at my day job subjecting my office mates to the likes of White People, Harry Hated His Job As a Naked Pig Farmer, First You Blow Us, Then We’ll Let You Go, and many others, than I did working. I harvested their responses for future reference. There was everything from the shocked and appalled to the giggling so appreciatively. The general consensus was that he was strange, but I pointed out that his website is called “Strange and Beautiful,” surmising he already knew people think that of him. Moving past strange most agreed he had a talent for pushing buttons, making well timed and well placed wise cracks, and that he was an astute observer of human peccadilloes. Plus, he had fun with watercolor, and seemed to apply it somewhat decently to paper.

I decided he had to know what we thought about his work. He had to know I thought he was the better friend to the Indian, if not the whole world. A few Myspace emails later and here you have what is probably the best Lurie art and music interview ever.

(I predict that you will not be snagged at the next pow wow if you disagree.)

Interview Part I - Art

John: I really like Indians.

Maria: You do? Do you know any personally?

J: Yeah-my girlfriend is a quarter Indian.

M: Really, what tribe is she?

J: I don’t know.

M: Mmm, I see. You’re work has been situated in the 80’s art movement here in New York. Particularly it has been compared to that of Jean Michel Basquiat. I’ve even read that you’ve been influenced by him, do you object to that?

J: Yeah.

M: Because…you’re not?

J: I’ve been painting since the early 70’s as much as doing anything else. But then the music got serious, and somewhere in the 80’s I stopped (painting) and would only do it on vacations. But I was painting a lot back then and Basquiat was this kid sleeping on my floor and we would paint together.

M: How much younger was he?

J: He was eight years younger than me. He was just this kid, you know? I already was painting in this style. It was this already (gestures to his book A Fine Example of Art). So if it looks like Basquiat then he got it from me and not the other way around. I mean, if you know anything about me you know everything I have done is original. But I don’t think it looks anything like Basquiat, to tell you the truth.

M: I don’t either. But the reference has been made so I thought I’d ask. What about situating your work within the 80’s art movement, the aesthetic…(cutting in)

J: But it kind of is part of that because that’s when my style got developed. But since I got sick it’s become more refined but really the germ of it was developed in the late 70s and early 80s and this (his current work) is just a continuation of that. Besides I was friends with all those guys who are a big deal now. I was part of that whole scene but, basically, I didn’t show…there’s something in the sensibility more than anything.

M: Well, let’s talk about a couple of the paintings. Can you tell me about Hittites Attacking the Schnabel. Is this a dig on him?

J: I did a paper on the Battle of Kadesh, which is about the Hittites. The folklore is that they won the war. Historians based this off a poem or song that was written about the battle (in which it was said the Hittites won) but it was true that the other people won - I forget who they were – but the painting is about re-writing history to your own benefit, which is what I felt Schnabel did with the Basquiat film.

[Side note: The “other people” in the Battle of Kadesh were the Egyptians under the rule of Ramses II. Thanks Wikipedia!]

M: People really love that movie (Basquiat). Everyone that I know who has seen it unequivocally loves it. They think it is the most beautiful film…

J: (cutting in) I’ve never seen it.

M: You have never seen this film? Never?

J: No, and I won’t see any of his films either.

M: Why not? Do you just not like him?

J: No…actually there is something that I quite like, but there’s something about him that is offensive to me too.

M: In what sense – not to get on a Schnabel kick - but he was a major player in the 80’s art boom, no?

J: I thought those plate paintings were amazing, but I don’t think he knows what he’s doing.

M: O.k. let’s move on to another painting, Japan is for Murders, this offended a Japanese woman I know because she didn’t get the intended irony. She said this painting makes no sense. But it is a joke, right?

J: But it doesn’t make any sense! Japan is the safest place I ever was in my entire life. That’s the point. But I’m sort of influenced by Japanese watercolors. I don’t know how that happened because I’ve never been a particular fan of them but a lot of my watercolors have a sort of Japanese lilt to them, but I did that watercolor (pauses)…it was kind of too pretty for my…

M: (cutting in) So when you make something that you feel is too refined or too pretty you make it intentionally ugly by giving it a ridiculous title?

J: Or I’ll just add something ugly, you know?

M: There’s nothing really ugly about it but the title and this ridiculous nonsensical scribbling. Besides that it’s really quite beautiful.

J: (gesturing to scribbling on painting) Oh yeah…this one is one of the few times that I actually laughed out loud when I did that. I laughed, I really laughed.

M: It doesn’t mean anything, obviously, but she tried to read it, and then called you an idiot because you couldn’t even write properly in Japanese. She took the whole thing to be literal. I told her the point was that you were spoofing the tradition. That was the point?

J: That was the point.

M: (points to new painting) Who’s the man in the white sweater?

J: What? What do you mean?

M: Well did you base him off someone you know?

J: No.

M: So these characters and creatures just appear in your mind and you put them on paper?

J: I try to not use my mind.

M: So you try to move out of…

J: (cutting in) It’s the same as when you’re playing music at it’s best. You’re not thinking, “Now I’m gonna play B-flat.” You’re just doing it.

M: I mean to say that some artists spend time thinking about what they are going to paint while others have visions that they try to re-create, and others…

J: (cutting in) But those always come out contrived.

M: (turns the page) What’s “The Joe Show”?

J: What! What do you mean?

M: I’m trying to get a sense for which ones are…

J: (cutting in) That’s for the viewer to figure out!

M: Well I’ve read that your work has a narrative structure so I’m just…

J: (cutting in) Yeah there’s a story there (gestures to The Joe Show).
M: Yeah but what is…

J: (cutting in) I don’t know what it is but there is one there.

M: Now wait a minute you just said that you try to get out of your head and not think (about the painting); that’s counter intuitive to constructing a narrative.

J: No it’s not. I do get out of my head. I go into a hypnotic state. Do you know what I mean?

M: (laughs) No actually.

J: No seriously. What I probably did first was make that mucky background. That’s what I did first. I just went blech on the page. Because usually I’ll start with three colors, but judging by how mucky that background is I probably didn’t like it and slushed it all out.

M: (pointing to The Joe Show) Is this chalk on top of watercolor?

J: No, that’s probably oil pastel.

M: I will be asking you about the sexual content of the images but I just wanted to talk about a few more that don’t…
J: (cutting in) There is no sexual content.

M: (laughs) Right. I like Fun Fun, Fun, Fun, Fun with the cat. Is this a cat?

J: I guess so. He’s in a couple so yeah I guess he’s a cat.

M: (gesturing to woman in painting) She looks nervous.

J: You know at one point I bought a ton of art and photo books and found that exact thing.

M: This room with this woman?

J: Yeah. So, I, you know…

M: Recreated it?

J: Sure.

M: Where did you come up with the title for God Watched Betsy? This one is my favorites.
[Side note: Almost every image in both of Lurie’s books is one of Maria’s “favorites.”]
My room at home looks very much like this, but I don’t dance around naked for fear god is watching me. (It’s a frightening thought)

J: I don’t know. Talking about it cheapens it.

M: I don’t think so. It gives the audience a sense of your thought process. And besides I’ve read reviews that claim you are spiritual.

J: No, truly creative people don’t need to talk about it, and when you are doing it, really doing it, god is in it, you know? Like when the painting is going well and the music is going well how can god not be a part of it?

M: (I don’t ask but I think, “What does this have to do with god judging Betsy?”)

Mmm-hmmm. Don’t you think you should be able to talk about your work?

J: No. I know it really helps your career if you can. Like, “This is the theory behind it…” But, No! The work should stand absolutely all by it’s self without you explaining what’s good about it.

M: Well, anyway, let’s talk about another one of my favorites, The Indians Didn’t Like the Looks of This. If I may say so, what is brilliant about it is the perspective. You’ve placed the viewer in the point of view of the Indian looking out at the approaching pilgrims. Is the fact they’re standing on water a quasi-historical religious reference to the coming of Christianity?

[Side note: the brilliance of this painting cannot be understated even if Lurie does a good job of doing just that.]

J: They’re just supposed to be creepy annoying creatures about to visit your land and ruin it.

M: So how did this idea come to you?

J: (in exasperated tone) To be completely honest with you I wanted to see if I could make a painting of the ocean breaking on the sand, which didn’t seem like it was going to be an easy thing to do. So I spent a lot of time on that part, and then I wasn’t so happy with it. So I did these fucked up figures on top of it and what to call it came last (chuckles to himself). It’s never the idea that comes first. I was just fucking around, and added to it and added to it. You know, a lot of them hang out here for ages and then I go, “I know what to do with it!”

M: Let’s talk about my next favorite, A Fine Example of Chinese and Native American Art. Why did you put these two together?

J: There used to be this store on the corner of Broome and Broadway. It was this western store with cowboy and Indian stuff in it.

M: (gasps) Western Spirit!

J: (ignoring gasp) There was never anybody in that place. They never sold anything. I assumed it must have been a front for something. I was checking in there to see if there were customers. So I was always looking in the window, and I sort of picked up that thing on the left (Navajo style rug/blanket thing) from that store. It was those kind of colors (turquoise, warm yellows).

M: The stereotypical Southwestern palette…but what about the Chinese guy?

J: Well I thought the thing was too pretty so then I drew him.

M: He looks like a guy I passed on the way over here from Canal Street.

J: He looks like I drew him with my left hand.

M: Do you do this on purpose? Draw as crudely as possible?

J: You’ll notice there are some things in here that are quite painterly and a lot of things that look like a ten year old did it or a six year old….

M: Or a three year old who is not very talented.

J: Yeah which seems to really annoy some people. I read this art blog where they really hated me.

M: Yeah that was the one I was referencing. He said you painted like an untalented three year old. But some other people followed it up by saying you did brilliant things with watercolor.

J: I just remember that one (chuckles).

M: Well we always remember the negative. So let’s talk about the sexual content in your paintings and drawings. First you Blow Us, Then We Let You Go-bunnies as rapists and murders? An irony because they’re supposed to be cute and harmless?

J: (bemused) I thought people were going to be outraged by this one but everyone loves it. It’s basically a rape drawing, but no one seems to mind.

M: Then there is Bunny- I’ll Kill You and When Alice Got Off Her Cellphone which feature more psychopathic bunnies. So you use them as foils to create abuse tableaus?

J: Yeah.

M: Lots of women on all fours.

J: That’s just not true.

M: Yes, there are a lot. It’s a consistent theme, sex on all fours, is this a jokey foil or are you trying to make a commentary on male/female relations or it is merely your favorite position?

J: Yeah I guess it is.

M: What is?

J: I guess it is is what I’m trying to say.

M: Mmm-hmm…there has been a feminist critique that your work objectifies the female body and is misogynistic. What are your thoughts on this critique?

[Side note: This “feminist critique” came from a few women to whom I showed Lurie’s Learn to Draw and A Fine Example of Art. While I do not disagree with them, I also find the drawings amusing and titillating. I am not not a feminist, but I'm not really one either. However, I am sure that if Andrea Dworkin ever gets a hold of either one of his books she will freak the fuck out.]

J: It’s the wrong reading, I guess, maybe, there are a few that can be read that way in the drawing book and maybe The Joe Show, but for the most part it’s more S&M type stuff.

M: You can’t have it both ways John. You can’t say it’s up to the viewers to figure out the meaning of your work, or to make their own conclusions about it, and then say that their reading is wrong.

J: Yes I can if the reading is wrong which this misogynistic overtones reading is, but I do have a sexual lilt that can be rough…(shrugs)

M: What does this mean?

J: It means it can be a little rough. Listen, anyway, misogyny is in the eye of the beholder and a wrong interpretation is just that. (pauses) I like women more than men, but sure, in the drawing book there are some that lean toward that…roughness. But that doesn’t make me a misogynist.

M: That’s why I asked whether this trope, women on all fours, isolated body parts, etc., wasn’t simply a foil or commentary on male/female relations.

J: Well no because I don’t really think about them that much. I just do them and then they’re done.

M: What about the drawing Some Women Are More Attractive Than Others? That’s not a little mean spirited?

J: No. It’s simply the truth. I’m only saying what people think. I’m just, saying it.

M: Fine. What’s going on in Unity Squirrel? You have a series of seemingly related elements in one drawing-are we supposed to read them together to get an answer or message? Or, are you just fucking with people?

J: No. I’m not fucking with people. I do them in this state…I’ll do a ton of black and whites, and then I’ll see them later and go, “My god! You’re insane!”

M: Aspersions With Toast? Who is casting aspersions on whom?

J: I had this assistant who was just hopeless. She kinda looks like her.

M: (gesturing to man in drawing) So this is supposed to be you?

J: Not necessarily. Does it look like me?

M: Yes it does.

J: She just really fucked everything up.

M: And she looked like this? Her boobs looked like this?

J: No-just her face.

M: mm-hmm.

J: Anyway, Unity Squirrel is just a hodge-podge of things. I don’t know what it’s supposed to mean. Probably nothing.

M: Do you like looking at your own work?

J: (long pause) Some times it does it for me and some times I’m disappointed.

M: (pauses) Do you think good art challenges people to think through their preconceived notions? Because you clearly don’t agree that you work can be read as sexist or mean spirited yet that has been the critique from people who have seen your work, but then the question falls on their reaction to the work you put out for public consumption: If your intention was not to be sexist or mean spirited then why in the hell does it elicit that reaction from some people?

J: How would I know? That falls on them.

M: Exactly!

J: (agitated) You know you’re really bizarre to me.

M: (laughing) What? Really? I’m asking you about audience response to your work and criticisms that have arose and that’s bizarre to you?
J: Yeah because there are as many sexually degrading images of men in this book as there are of women.

M: I don’t know about that. The men just seem absurd whereas the images of the women are classic tropes in graphic art…(at this point Maria begins to wonder, ”why aren’t we talking about the Indians?”)…Clearly the book is a spoof on fine art. I mean the title and it’s “instructions” page point to its intended humor…

J: (cutting in) I can’t do anything for these people. It’s on them. Actually it’s a shrewish mentality to think the drawings are sexist towards women or mean spirited. (Pauses) I don’t really like men to tell you the truth I like women more than men, as human beings.

M: Good to know. Let’s talk about music.

J: (shrugs) O.k.