Here’s an interview that I did with myself back in 2004. I found it in an old notebook. I guess I never finished it. At the time I was still interested in faking the timeline for the AAPR. I think that interviews are a great way to get out ideas without needing to follow a traditional way of writing about your work.
An Interview with the Associated Artists for Propaganda Research.
Q: When did the Associated Artists for Propaganda Research first get together?
A: 1984, 1985 I think. We were loose knit in ’84 but things really didn’t congeal until early 1985. That was when our first show was.
Q: Was that Corporate Utopia/Corporate Control?
A: Well, there was actually a show earlier that year which was quite successful at the time. Looking back on it I’m not so sure.
Q: How did the A.A.P.R. come about?
A: Well a few of us in art school were doing a lot of research into specific propaganda techniques utilized against the unknowing public. In an artistic practice this theme tends to become problematic. Our aim was to try and utilize this information in a somewhat cohesive manner, perhaps to try and make sense of it. It grew from there of course, but the beginning came out of a simple sort of pragmatism.
A: Well the Situationists and Fluxus of course made a great use of social politics. It seemed very anarchistic. Also Dada at its very roots was really fucking with the pre-established order of how we understand the world. I think Punk did the most though to bring change to the most amount of people. It basically popularized it and made it cool. And the aesthetics were outstanding.
Q: What about post-Punk?
A: What the hells that? I guess New Wave really followed but it was really just an extension of the Punk aesthetic. Don’t forget that New Wave and the Punks came out of the Mod culture.
Q: What religion do you practice if any?
A: Religion? I’m really more of an atheist/pessimist which requires no practice whatsoever. It’s probably what got me in this predicament to begin with. (laughs) Perhaps I should re-evaluate my position a little bit. I believe in a certain spirituality but no specific dogmas. It annoys me really (organized religion) because it only allows for growth under very specialized rules. It’s like saying I’m a Nietzschean, or a follower of Kafka. What does this mean? Philosophy doesn’t or shouldn’t follow such defined rules. What is religion but philosophy with a bit of spirituality thrown in. They used to go hand in hand. Why should I restrict myself?