Category Archives: journalism

1st Interview with Norman Siegel as Candidate for Public Advocate, 2001

11 Sunday Feb 2001

Posted by in elections, journalism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Interview with Norman Siegel, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union Sunday, February 11, 2001. At an “Open House” for an office on 72nd street on the upper west side of Manhattan run by an organization called, Friends of Norman Siegel, where there are documents that read, in part, “Norman Siegel for Public Advocate 2001” and a petition for the same at the door.

NORMAN SIEGEL: … it’s exciting. I’ve never done this before. You read about people running for office. You see films about it … and the balloons, and the people, and here it is. I’m in the middle of it. So often I think, “How did I get here?” But I’m excited.

MTK: But this shouldn’t seem foreign to you insomuch as you deal with politicians all the time.

NS: I deal with politicians all the time but the implication here is now I’m becoming one and that kind of concerns me on one level because I’ve always been critical of politicians myself. The main thing is politicians generally don’t answer questions. They’re disingenuous. They’re delusional at times, and I just have to make sure that I remember who I am; what my roots are, what my principles are, and try to answer the questions even when they are difficult ones. Generally speaking I’ve done that all my life as an advocate and in fact I think I’ve been the private advocate and now I want to be the public advocate.

MTK: But couldn’t you be losing power in a way (given that the position is weak)? If not, do you think of yourself as a progressive candidate, and if so, how do you think you will evolve the office if elected Public Advocate?

NS: Well the first thing .. I don’t think I’m, quote, “losing any power.” I mean, I think that I had these yearnings to take what I did at the Civil Liberties Union in Legal Services for the last 23 years in New York and apply it in a larger setting. Perhaps a less supportive ideological setting and test to see whether or not what I’ve been successful at with the Civil Liberties Union and Legal Services can be applied in a larger setting. What that means is I can now take on issues like education, immigrant rights, health issues, housing issues. The number of issues is going to expand substantially. I mean at the Civil Liberties Union we always had to deal with constitutional rights and, “Is it a test case.”  Here, any issue is up for grabs. Which is the transition to the second part. I think Mark [Green, current and first elected public advocate] did a relatively good job. I think I would like to continue what he did but expand it. I’ve never been an “in the box” personality. And I don’t think I’ll be an “in the box” personality here–I’ll stretch it. I’m an activist. I am a progressive. I better be able to continue my activism and my progressive views. I’m assuming that that will happen. If it turns out that that doesn’t happen then I better take stock because that’s part of my assumption. I’m 57 years old now. I’m kind of silently proud of who I am, what I’ve done, the people I’ve represented. I’ve been tested a lot of times, and I’ve generally done OK. And that’s in a private way, when I go home at 11, 12 at night and I gotta look in the mirror, I gotta be OK with me and, generally speaking, I am. So knowing that, I want to enter this other arena which has a lot, a lot, of problems. When I watched what was happening in Florida and the betrayal of democracy in America, watching young people becoming more and more cynical, more and more alienated, it occurred to me that maybe I have to step into this arena and try to inspire and motivate young people. That it’s not all that way. In a lot of speeches I’ve been giving I’ve been telling people, “We need to dare to continue to dream about how it should be rather than how it is.”

MTK: I’m very fearful that this kind of a message is fading in importance. When you are out talking to people do you think there is a renewed feeling for public service there?

NS: Not yet. Not yet. And what I am hoping is that I can succeed in doing it in a nontraditional way–putting together the multiracial coalition of New Yorkers that I’m convinced want to come together across racial lines, but haven’t had the opportunity yet to do that because the failure of leadership to provide the climate, the atmosphere, the opportunity so that people from the black, the brown, the red, the yellow the white community can begin to learn about each other. We all stereotype each other because we don’t know each other. And we continue to do that because no one is prepared to take on this radioactive issue. One of the reasons I run? I want to begin a citywide dialogue on race. I want to begin to talk about it frankly. Racism in New York is not like it was in the deep South when I went there in the sixties. Racism in New York is subtle. It’s sophisticated. But it exists.

MTK: Do you think it’s institutional?

NS: Oh, sure. Oh, yeah. There’s a legacy of racism in many of the…just take the NYPD, who I’ve been battling for years. That’s an institutional problem, it’s not just an individual problem. It’s systemic.

MTK: So don’t you think there’ll be a great deal of resistance to what you’re saying?

NS: Of course, but you see, I think post-Louima, -Diallo, and -Dorismond … and Bush. I’ve been at many, many community meetings … Staten Island, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx. I think there’s a majority of New Yorkers, across racial and geographical lines, that want to come together on racial lines to develop a common agenda to take on certain issues like at the Police Department, at the Board of Education, Housing … I mean, all of these–Housing, Education, Police–they all have enormous racial overtones. A lot of it stems from stereotyping. So if you begin to talk about it, if you begin to address it and identify people across racial lines who want to talk about it and want to realistically ameliorate it, I think we can do it. We haven’t had our civil rights movement here in New York, we had a southern civil rights movement but we haven’t had one here. So if I become the public advocate, I have an enormous bully pulpit, and as a white guy, I can be talking about race issues. It shouldn’t only be blacks or Latinos talking about race. White folks, it’s our problem too. So I want to use the position as a vehicle, to kind of shake it up. I was kidding when we just cut the ribbon out there that I got the “Shake it Up” party endorsement this afternoon. We want to try to excite young people, yet we also want to reach everybody so that people begin to realize that we don’t have to accept the status quo. Even on the most transient issue, which is race, in my opinion. I think we can make progress. And I think there are so many people in New York who want to come together, but when you’ve got a mayor like Rudy Giuliani, you can’t come together. In fact, he divides people. Here’s a guy who doesn’t even feel comfortable with blacks and Latinos in the room. Well, I’ve had many African-American, Latino, and Asian clients and I have become educated and sensitized for 35 years of being with people of color and white folks. And I like when there’s a mix. If it’s all homogenous, I’m not comfortable. New York is not homogenous. It has diversity and we should build upon that and realize the pluses out of that. Now, is it hard? You bet, it’s hard. It’s hard, first, because people have already given up. But I’m young, I’m energetic. There’s a lot of other people. I’ve got the black and Latino police officers with me. I’ve got the cab drivers who are with me. Those are powerful people.

MTK: I think the census results in April are going to show us remarkable numbers in the electorate.

NS: Sixty percent are people of color, at a minimum, maybe a third. Well, on the police, two thirds of the cops are white. And I’ve got statistics from a couple of years ago: 5.7% of the captains were people of color. And that says it in a nutshell. Three percent of the fire department is African-American. People don’t even know this kind of stuff. It’s gotten to the point in New York where people don’t even know what to do about race. I think the reality is we’re all prejudiced. We have to acknowledge that and then begin to deal with it. What equality is about is that you treat people equally. And we don’t know how to do that in New York. And so I want to try to do that. How are we going to do it? We’re going to try to create independent neighborhood councils where people will come together and they will begin to talk to each other, learn from each other. What their cultures are, what their mores are. We have cab drivers who are Sikhs, and people don’t know why they wear a turban. If you explain to people why they wear a turban, then they will understand what that is. If people understand what people’s customs and religious practices are, they might be more tolerant and respectful of that. But if there’s no one who’s trying to create that dialogue, is it any wonder that we continue to stereotype each other? So one of the most important things I want to do is exactly that. I can’t do that from the ACLU. So I take the risk. I leave something that I love, that I do very well at and take this plunge to kind of see whether or not this can work. What I think–and so far it’s only been five weeks that I’ve been doing this–but people are receptive to it. But I don’t want to be delusional or misleading myself. This is hard. This is a cynical town. This is a tough town. But being the public advocate, in my mind, is being the people’s lawyer. I’ve been doing that all my life. A lot of people—thank God–trust me, and I think if I can take that and parlay it into this new arena, it could be special and it could be exciting and, most important, we might make a difference. If I can do it, then maybe other people will step up to the plate and do it as well. You shouldn’t have to be rich to run for office and you shouldn’t have to know all the people in power to run for office. I’m still the outsider. I’m running against five people, four of whom are kind of insiders. Three who are career politicians. But the Office of Public Advocate, it seems to me, is unique, and it seems to me I’m a perfect fit for it. So I try it, and if we win it’s great. We’re gonna have fun. We’re gonna be witty, we’re gonna be irreverent. We’re gonna be very activist, and if we raise enough money we’ll be able to get our message out and if we get our message out I think we’ll win.

MTK: And what about the mayor’s office? A progressively minded candidate relies on a person being in the mayor’s seat that is at least not opposed to that and, at best, welcomes it. Who among the candidates do you think you’d work well with and, conversely, who would you say might create a problem like the one we’ve had, if we do have a problem between the offices of Mayor and Public Advocate?

NS: Well, it’s a no-brainer: Any one of the four Democrats–Ferrer, Hevesi, Green, and Vallone. No one will be as bad as Giuliani was. So that’s a no-brainer. I think that any one of those four could win and–in an ironic way–I’ve gone after a lot of politicians, been very critical of them, and for whatever reason, all these four, I get along well with. So from my perspective I can work with any one of them. Assuming they want to work with the public advocate. And obviously that would be the ideal situation. But I also think the public advocate should be independent of the mayor. For example, I will not endorse any of them. Because I think the public advocate should be the monitor of the mayor. If you have a cozy relationship, and you endorse one of them to win, I’m not sure you can have that independence. If you know the person and you’re friendly with the person and you work with the person, generally it’s hard to be critical of the person. And I think the public advocate has to have good working relationships but has to be separate and independent. I believe independence is the key issue in this. So I will not endorse any of them. I will be friendly with all of them. I will encourage them to do progressive, inclusionary things, but I won’t endorse any one of them at this point.

MTK: It’s very early.

NS: It’s very early. I haven’t even declared yet.

MTK: When I rang, I was calling to find out if you were going to.

NS: We opened this storefront because we want a visible place. We want it accessible; people have been coming in all week. And then, I have to figure out … I’m on leave from the Civil Liberties Union so between now and March I’ll have to decide whether or not I’m going to resign and then, if I do that, then I’ll declare and then I’ll get out there and start the campaigning and I’m looking forward to the campaigning because it’s basically interacting with people and that could be fun. I’m aware that some people see me as someone who could be different than any other politician. And I like that perception, but being realistic and thoughtful about this, I gotta make sure that I can be different. I don’t know exactly what that means. I’ve been at a few events so far and, for example, a lot of the candidates get up and they talk about, “I did this, I did this. I’m on this committee, I’m on that committee.” I get up and I just talk about the issues, and the message I’ve been mainly telling people is that no one, no one should ever accept anything short of full and complete equality, justice, and freedom. And this is a town that hasn’t done that for a lot of people: racial, gender, sexual-orientation, economics. So I can be a vehicle and a symbol and a catalyst to try to address the inequalities that exist in the city and not just, you know, about a pothole or a streetlight, although that’s important to people, but we’re talking about institutional racism. We’re talking about institutional discrimination based on socioeconomic status. And I want to take that on.

MTK: With term limits there are lots of seats available; something like 46 seats are coming up. Are you encouraging other people who are, as you say, outsiders, to participate?

NS: I am doing that. There’s a guy, Hiram Montserrat, who is the first elected Latino official in Queens. And he got elected as a district leader recently and he is running for city council. I have personally given him a check, and I’ve gone to a couple of events, and I’ve endorsed him. Friday night, Adonis Rodriguez, who is from the Dominican Students Union, whom I represented.  He’s decided to run for city council. I went up there, gave him a check, and made a speech for him. There were 300 people Friday night in a church in Washington Heights. I bet you two-thirds of those folks have never participated in electoral politics. And we were talking about a progressive coalition of people who are going to run and are going to try to make history in New York. So that’s starting to happen right now. My criteria is: Are people social justice people? Are they people that I’ve worked with before and can I trust them? And finally, are they the only one in the race that meet those criteria? If there are two people I won’t choose one over the other. But I will try to help and encourage people not only to run but to help some of the people win. And finally, in the Democratic party–there’s no reason why a Democratic party where the registration is like five to one, should ever have someone like a Rudy Giuliani ever get elected in the city of New York again. So what happened to the Democratic party? I would like if it all works with new people, new blood, new vision … rejuvenate the Democratic party. On the other hand, as I say, I have to be respectful of my elders, people who are experienced, to make sure they don’t think I’ve been disrespecting them.  Now it seems to me and I’ve said to some of the Democratic leaders, “You should open the doors and welcome us in.” Now if they don’t open the doors and welcome us in, then you have to figure out alternative structures. But I would like to work with people rather than have to create alternative structures, but if you have to create alternative structures in order to deal with social justice issues, as we’ve done before in movements, we’ll do that within electoral politics as well. And the last thing, as I mentioned before, is the young people. We’ve got to make sure that we don’t lose because of cynicism.

With this storefront, on Sundays at 3 o’clock we’re going to have speakers come in. And we’re going to try to attract young people so that they learn about issues–and that they can make a difference. Young people have made a difference historically. We’re going to have a lot of young people–high school students, college students–working with us, and trying to encourage them to be involved, and then maybe there’s a new generation of leaders to come … And–we gotta make sure–black, brown, red, yellow, and white, together. That’s my battle cry. We gotta include everybody. This has to be inclusionary. New York is great, but there are a lot of people who have been left out. And what we have to do, the people of my generation, now, is to make sure that we can assure people that they will be included more and that this city–it’s theirs as well as other people’s city. We don’t want to be excluding anyone, we want to include everybody.

MTK: That’s really exciting to me. That’s really exciting, what you’re saying, but—

NS: Well, we hope we can pull it off!

MTK: –I fear you’re being idealistic, but I think it’s really exciting..

NS: There’s nothing wrong with being idealistic.

MTK: There’s nothing wrong with it, but I think you need to be careful.

NS: This is the people’s arena. What politics is about is interacting with people, all kinds of people. Everyone has a vote. So if you’re a skilled pol, you make sure that in fact you listen to everyone, you touch everybody. That hasn’t happened a lot. Too much of politics today is on the TV ads and there’s no direct contact, there’s no street contact, there’s no grassroots development. We’re gonna do that. We’re gonna do it with passion, we’re gonna do it with excitement, and I think that by the time the primary rolls around on September 11, if we succeed, this could be the start of something very exciting.

MTK: Last question. If you don’t succeed, would you run as an independent?

NS: Oh, I haven’t even thought about that yet. I think that since this is all new to me, I’ll just take one step at a time and see what happens. And obviously the answer will be: Hopefully, I won’t have to get to that hypothetical because we’ll win. This is not quixotic. This is to win.

[in 2001, during the primaries, I began interviewing all the candidates for Public Attorney because it was a historic shift in power for the position, but, exactly seven months after this interview, on September 11th, election day was cancelled because two planes were flown into the two tallest buildings in NYC, contravening democracy at its most basic level.

In the aftermath, Norman Siegel and Scott Stringer was crushed by Betsy Gotbaum for the position of PA and Michael Bloomberg became Mayor, stealing the election from either Fernando Ferrer or Mark Green]

digital film festival at the kitchen before the 12th Annual Anti-Gentrification Festival, Harlem, 1997

20 Saturday Sep 1997

Posted by in essay, journal entries, journalism, NYC

≈ Leave a comment

95 Claremont Ave. #12, NY,NY, noon, 09/29/1997ce

The 12th annual Anti-Gentrification Festival will begin here in a minute.  There are tables being set up all through the intersection and the first crackly, then tinny, over-trebled and finally thuddy-bass-ed, and slightly more balanced sound of a PA of some kind kicks through the residential buildings at this corner.  The kids are all setting up different stands and tables outside as I write.

I want to do some straight chronicling of the events of yesterday because the day was so full of activity and information. Let me get my coffee and a little more comfortable for the direct reportage process.

<Break>  There is a relationship between B. and I as colleagues.  He is a writer of the daily.  He is a reporter.  He is a member of the press and he attempts to work within that structure.  I am a writer, too.  The type of writing I do is at a different tempo, set at wide, broad strokes over years.  Instead of the daily or the column-oriented construction of events into a format for a daily deadline, I create my own deadlines and parameters for describing and reporting on my world, at long-term estimation periods.

Yet we have so many things in common.  We take coffee and read the paper.  We are regular in our approach to the machine.  We keep orderly notations and structures.  Writers are a funny lot, but it is easy to pick one out when you’ve got one in your sights.  B. understands I’m a writer and so he provides a vantage point, coffee, the paper, simple things.  And a complex thing, too, for with the capacity to switch media like this I can capture much more than with just the field notes.

Here in the United States where so many things (everything?) are about money and its exchange, here in a capitalized society it is difficult to explain why I am able to use B.’s gear or coffee or he, mine.  In the world of the arts this question does not arise.  As an artist, we are communist by definition.  We have to commune in order to create in a meaningful way.  And so we try to order our efforts so the least amount of the fabric of the lives of others is required to allow us to participate to create the highest degree of impact or affect the highest degree of contact with others.

If a pen is the only thing I can afford, what is the most powerful thing I can make with it?  What is the most powerful thing I can say?  If I have access to a computer?  Or a video outfit?

The tools are merely media. One of the most stupid things to do is to glorify the tools themselves.

The issue of how to use them is the decision of the artist who takes his task seriously and approaches with an organized effort.  Right now I am in New York.  This aspect of the process requires me to be here, now and to wait.  So I’m trying to get what I can of the time.

I chronicle and report and keep the process going in whatever way possible.  I attempt to get to places and see things and try to document to the best of my abilities what I experience.  I am also trying to do something very different from journalists like Bob who participate in a language upon which his colleagues attempt to agree.

I am participating in a way in which I want to make language into a tool as well.  I want to bend and angle and break it if I have to in order to present what I feel is an accurate portrayal (in metaphor) of the me I was when I was experiencing the things I describe.

This includes an attempt to completely embrace subjective-ism.  It is to turn subject into object.  And collect with language.  This is the tempo of the kind of writing which I do.

For B., the writing itself and the perspectives represented take a back seat to the deadline and the result is the beauty of having a regular, ordered, ouevre of work over a long period of time (so beautiful) which requires, patience, discipline and dedication, not to mention the ability to tolerate editors, publishers and untold other interveners on a daily basis (no small thing – I CANNOT DO IT RIGHT NOW).  He embraces and accepts the natural limitations of the form.  I admire him his ability to do this, but I do not wish it for the world.

Well, let us begin shall we?

Yesterday morning I awoke to the beautiful sounds of South Indian music and singing as H., the Indian woman with whom I am staying, (who has been so kind and good to me since my arrival by accident in her lap in the street unknown, by “accident,” three weeks ago … see previous entries) awoke, showered and readied herself for her job to which she must go every morning at 8:30.

We chatted briefly about meeting up later in the day for a reading by two authors at a space downtown.  She had the directions at the office and so I told her I’d call her there later and she left.  I arose, drew a hot bath and took up a few of the fashion magazines which the woman from whom H. is subletting the apartment keeps on her windowsill.  It’s the first time I’d ever read any of these magazines which are such a huge part of the literature in this country.

There I was, 30, bearded, shaved head, in a hot bath, listening to music, reading Marie Clare, Harper’s Bazaar, and Vanity Fair.  The perspectives are on pop cultural issues and generally from a woman’s point of view, though not exclusively.  It was amusing to spend a morning on the upper-east side this way, despite being broke and unemployed. I am truly blessed and fortunate to have good friends and help with this process.

<Break>

So yesterday, I arose and read in the tub and sat about thinking for a while.  Went to the Scoop and Grind Cafe for a coffee and a bagel.  I have taken to the place.  I am able to sit outside and enjoy the people passing and have a tall hazelnut coffee with two shots of espresso and an “everything” bagel with cream cheese all for $3.50.

I spend the time reading the papers and so on.  Ted Turner, the billionaire entertainment and communications mogul has given the United Nations (the UN), one billion dollars.  The amount is the largest contribution of its kind anywhere, ever.  It’s absolutely phenomenal, and people seem to take it with hardly a thought.  It’s as if a billion has become meaningless.  But it isn’t.

The trouble is, what will the distribution of that billion dollars yield?  Political power for the unempowered worker in Bangladesh?  Ted Turner gives $1 billion to the UN and the next day a worker in India who is fifty times brighter than a worker in a McDonald’s in Biloxi, Mississippi, makes $3 a day in kind, not in cash and is able to eat a decent meal and feed his family.

Meanwhile the wages here in the US are spent on Tazmanian devil t-shirts and plastic toys.

Waste.  Consumption.  The false value of stupid objects designed by others to appear valuable but which are in fact cheap, and non-lasting.  Will Ted Turner’s money fix that?  It’s a problem which has gone on for fifty years untended and is, in some cases, worsening, more waste, more consumption.

New York is about money … I have heard people talk about how much they like making it, spending it, earning it, working for it, cheating others out of it, having it.  It is honestly at the heart of many of the discussions here.  It is the American, capitalized sensibility at its oldest and most evolved – New York, where people have come from every god-damn place and hacked out an existence. By using money.  By attributing value to money.

But what a life.  Is it a valuable life?  Or is it devoid of meaning?  (As one New York lifer told to me, “I cannot sleep where it is quiet, in the country, I have been around this noise all my life.  My fear is that … I don’t know if it is a good thing.  I don’t know if I don’t want it to be different.   I am afraid that it is unhealthy.”)

And another have actually said, “I live to make money.  I’m like a pit-bull when it comes to money.”  What meaning is there in the earning of money for its own sake?  Ted Turner gives away a billion and says it was like he gave away the earnings for the nine months of the year.  “I’m no worse off than last year,” he suggests.  It’s crazy.  The inequity of wealth in this society as a function of the value of money-  No. …  the subjective value of money.

If you choose to care about money, if you choose to value it and you work your ass off and you are lucky and you have certain advantages like a good family or connections, it STILL isn’t a guarantee you will have money, security or satisfaction or happiness.  It is something a person could spend a whole lifetime doing and have wasted a life.  True contentment comes from within.  Money is a manufactured construct, made to sate our desire for material happiness, security and contentment … but it requires enslavement.

Freedom is worth more than money.

Real freedom.  The freedom to be unencumbered by society’s groping need for your expenditure.  To participate as an individual for the collective good of the whole as you please, to reduce waste and participate.  Does Ted Turner do this?  His behavior night before last at the United Nations Awards dinner in his honor speaks to it.  His gift is an enormously powerful and important one.  Now to see if capitalists will learn from this the importance of supporting those in our society who do not accept money or capitalism.

The paper also reviewed the new exhibit at the Solomon Guggenheim Museums here in New York which opened to private reception night before last and was opened to the public yesterday.  The exhibit is an enormously encompassing retrospective of the works of Robert Rauschenberg, now 71 year-old artist who was born in Port Arthur, Texas in 1925 and moved to New York in 1949.

He was educated at the Black Mountain school in the late 40’s and early 50’s and this yields some thought about his cohort and his own work.  He was a student of Albers and participated with the encouragement of John Cage and Jasper Johns.  The influence of both is very much present in his work and self-referentialism of the era – in literature as well as arts and music – must be addressed.

It is at this time that Charles Olson and Robert Creeley began the correspondence of which so much has been written, collected, and discussed.  It has been posited that the Black Mountain School produced this movement of thought and idea which was named by its writers and energized by its artists and musicians.  In order for it to be valid a a movement, however, the artists and so on must produce at length with comparative relationships.  This seems to have happened.

The first use of the term “post-modern,” is attributed to the Creeley-Olson relationship.  Surrounded by such artists as Johns, Rauschenberg and Cage it is no wonder the naming took this path.  The Black Mountain School of thought can it be called?  How do we go past it?

The Guggenheim has taken an amazing step toward solidifying the reputation of this school of thought.

Mr. Rauschenberg’s stuff is everywhere, six floors of the main space uptown at 5th and 89th and also in the downtown gallery and at another site.  I have only seen three floors of the main hall’s dedication to R’s work.

fantastically broad usage of mixed-media and the incredible productivity of this fellow!  He made so much art between 1949, when he arrived in New York at the age of 24 to 1965, still in New York but with many many many overseas trips and attempts to his credit by 40 years of age.  16 years and an amazing amount of work.

It is an impressive and vast collection.  The use of mixed-media of such a wide variety (from gold leaf to photocopied images to photography to paints and drawings and blown glass and worked metal and text-and-image based stuff and lithographs and sculpture – taxidermified animals for God’s sake!) filled me with thoughts of Warhol, Johns, Cage and others a lot, but they were all contemporaries.

His use of the Mona Lisa as a photocopied image incorporated into another piece in 1952!  That impressed me as important with regard to image appropriation and manipulation.  It was so long ago.  Photography was in its middle years.  Rauschenberg was at least incredibly productive.  And he was innovative, and he had a wonderful sense of taste, especially for texture  (I’m using past tense and he’s not dead, but I haven’t really seen the stuff past 1971 or so … BTW, The De Kooning Retrospective in 1996-autumn was a much different type of show.  This thing can’t possibly travel this way, I think, but it will.  This is New York City.  Here you can do anything.)

The generation of artists who precede my arrival in New York with movements (before Arthur Danto’s  “Death of Art”) have huge institutions in their favor now.  But they didn’t when they were my age.  How can I make progress in this process now?  What is the key to understanding how to make a relationship with my community which allows me to create for a living?  Join the communities’ institutions?  Should I become a member of the Guggenheim?  Of the Met?  Of the monied?  Can’t. I’m broke.  All I do is write.  Hmmmmmmm.

After the Guggenheim (there are field notes in the New York Black Journal #1 – dated, 9/17/97ce) I walked down to H.’s place and had a couple of glasses of Yago (a cheap Sangria that’s tolerable when poured over ice) and sat down to roll three joints for the evening.  My joint-rolling skills are terrible, but here in New York, the common practice for pot-smoking is the joint and no paraphernalia. I have learned this from a number of sources – it is considered west-coasty and read wimpy to use pipes and bongs … joints are the NYC way … how funny to learn these things at 30 …

I got a call from D. who wanted to get together for a drink.  Kate is in town and I have blown her off pretty hard by not participating for the sake of my own vulnerability and so on.  D. had arranged for us to meet her late tonight at an event.

D. and I agreed to meet at the sushi/bar at the corner of my block and so I finished rolling three joints, smoked half of one, and made my way down to the corner.  D. was late and so I sat at the bar and had some sushi and a gin and tonic and wrote for a while (Field Notes Available – not important, some notes, “New York City:  It’s a distrac- … (beat) … It’s god-damned all a big-ass distraction.”  and others)

<Break> For a phone call from S. <Break>

That said let me return to last night …

After sushi, D. and I caught the 6 to the Drawing Center for the readings to be held there.  The Drawing Center is at 35 Wooster Avenue and houses a gallery space (I had heard of it before because, Glenn Seator, whom I met through Sebastian, who constructed his piece at the Capp Street Gallery in San Francisco, has shown his work at the Drawing Center – Seator was in the last Whitney Biennial).  The space is long and rectangular and well lit.  It has good, large windows in the front of the shop, and a nice-sized space within which to show.

The readings were by Anita Desai, someone else, and Amitav Ghosh.  D. and I arrived late and so we missed Desai and came in the middle of the second reader whose name I didn’t get and caught all of Amitav Ghosh who read from his new novel, “The Calcutta Chromosome,” reviewed positively by the New York Times as a complex, spiritual thriller-detective-type thing (NYTBR, two weeks ago when I first arrived).

The second-reader had a younger, faster-paced, style with pops and whistles.  He had all the elements of Indo-Anglian writers of the day, exotic settings (to english ears) and rhythmic approaches to the blending of languages and so on.  I wasn’t able to follow his reading so well, it lulled me because he had such little variation in his tone of voice as he read.  He was listless.  The audience, was polite and laughed when led to laughter.  I think oral presentations are supposed to be different experiences from reading the book itself.  I mean, here they are in front of a group and all.

They feel as if they are written to fit into a pre-defined structure ordained by the industry for Indo-Anglian writers.  I know that’s terrible to say, especially about my contemporaries, but what are we building that’s original?  I ask knowing the answer … little and everything.  We are original.  We are the new Indians.  We can’t help but be contemporary and original.  It’s never happened before, this thing.

Amitav Ghosh read from his novel which was available at the front of the gallery, beautiful jacket, case-bound, lovely job, by Avon Books … I was able to follow along in the text as he read which was a great benefit to the experience.

His work is slower-paced and more even.  It is much more traditional.  I mean in style, but not in content.  In content he has woven and toyed with ideas.  But the style is long and drawn and traditional.  I think his use of adjectives and adjectival phrases (much like the younger fellow before him) relies too much on Indian-ness … but perhaps this is because I am an Indian … (am I?  Only there, then … where?  when?)

Marvelously developed thoughts, though, and ideas.

H. and her brother and others went for food afterward and D. and I went on to the D-film festival at the Kitchen (by cab).

The Kitchen is a performance art space on 19th at 10th streets … past chelsea in the middle of noplace.  It was cool.  I mean a good, black, dark-ass space with lighting available.  But not so many people were there.  Still what a weird event, to see K. in NYC and to be at a film festival from SF touring the US and here in NYC first.

Most of the high-tech digital filmmaking is SF, LA, California … this year’s festival had several New York entrants and two of the guys were present.  It was good to see.  Content was limited.  I mean most of it was cutes-y and damn near vaudevillian.  But there were one or two which took interestng approaches.  There was one called, “Amend,” no plot, all image and spyrographic crazy beautiful trip through music … lovely and well-done.

Others of interest … but lots of cartoony-type stuff … what’s the point?  That isn’t content … one guy did Dreamboy and it was because as he put it, “I saw the South Park stuff and figured I could do that … so I did …”… it’s good, it’s funny, its impressive, but it’s got obscene jokes and silly content … mass-market … cool, whatever … you know?

There was 120 minutes of shorts and then a last extra … it was long and the chairs were hard and uncomfortable and all … but I mean it was cool to see the “cutting edge,” of computer-based technology utilized by its makers.  Give me content anyday though!!!!  Not even necessarily linear.

So afterward we went to a bar, had a drink, K. and I smoked out before and after the gig and in the street and wherever we pleased.

After D-film we went to Mark Summer’s place and saw a few of his films and saw K. in one … it was good to do.  Afterward D. and I had food and caught the 1 to his place.  I got here at 4:00 a.m.

Now it’s Saturday and the Anti-Gentrification fest is rolling loud outside D.’s place!!!

Gotta go.  That wraps up my description of my yesterday … 8:30 a.m. to 4:11 a.m. … damn near 20 hours on my third weekend in New York.

Rigo 95: More Marlboro Men Than Maos in China …, *surface,1995

15 Wednesday Nov 1995

Posted by in clips, conceptual art, journalism, press clips, reviews, S.F.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This was a very disappointing edit and when it appeared, I was enraged. My name was spelled wrong – and it’s the third typo on the page!

The first is in the image where the images of his work are labelled, “(Rigo)” – which isn’t his name, and shows the overactive hand of the newly minted fashion magazine’s editors –

whose next immediate typo is in the HEADLINE – an extra apostrophe where it should be “Maos”. The piece is also edited considerably from what I submitted and the editors took liberties adding and removing text that changed the meaning of full paragraphs. But anyway here is how it ran:

I began a friendship and apprenticeship with Rigo after this November interview, in the year 1996, which lasted ten years.