Indy wrote:maguis, Daniel Johnston is a seriously mentally ill person, its not because his music is poor that he's popular, its because it is different and interesting. The whole crazy person behind it all makes it very attractive to listen to because it is music from a completely different perspective. Sure his music sucks, his drawings are terrible and he is a creepy guy, but that is what America is all about. Breaking down the barriers of movies and music in the past.
My friends dad actually helped work on that movie, and so my friend had some drinks with Johnston at sundance, said he's just as crazy as in the movie.
EVERYONE GO SEE KNOCKED UP RIGHT NOW!! Funniest movie in a long time.
thats what i don't agree with though - making or liking something different for the sake of it being different first and foremost. Of course, like you say, that is what America (in general) is all about, but it just goes against what i think "art," hell, life should be about. The problem is, I understand that perhaps his music instigated or helped instigate the slightest of change, so in that sense I just don't know how to respond. Perhaps I'm just being close minded, akin to how some people would react to abstract expressionism, etc.. But then again change isn't always necessarily for the better.... questioning what is common is a great thing, but sometimes it is even more valuable to question the question.
i don't know though, there are just some things i can't bring myself to agree with. Things like people masturbating pumpkins and calling that art, things like filming a person sitting in a chair for 24 hours. Even art movements like dadaism, and outsider art. I understand the concept, I understand the philosophy and the inherent questioning in these pieces, that basic question of 'what is art' followed inevitably by 'what is,' but sometimes I just think there is something seriously wrong when an artist statement is more important than the art itself (If I wanted to read, I'd fucking read Foucalt or Lacan or Freud, etc. instead). Though again, that is obviously how American culture, in general, presently works, I personally prefer art that speaks for itself; I don't need to know the history of the artist, or the art, I only want to know it and see it and translate it at face value. I don't want to go to a gallery and see something that was absolutely made to be incoherent, and stare at it for an hour pretending to look somehow smart. As if somehow through staring at a used condom on a pedestal for an hour I am now somehow more knowledgeable. Please. Its like some artists say, nowadays, sometimes it is the gallery that makes the art - hold a show with nothing but bare walls, and you will be a guaranteed blast. imho a lot of the people who feed into that kind of modern art are pseudo intellectual, delatante, talentless shits looking for some kind of elitist self redemption.
also, the creators of the movie itself, did anything but agree that the music was poor. In fact, they themselves, in interviews, put him on par with some of the greatest musicians and songwriters EVER. and in that respect I just don't believe that everyones "entitled to their own opinion"... of course they can have one, but it doesn't mean the reasoning behind it is valid.
anyhow, yeah gonna see knocked up soon. Theres a lot of fun movies coming out.