Today's NY Times Article

[gina164]

GREAT article - and pics - I bought today's edition.

It really told  the whole story of Dan's current life, and also explained well 'the nonsense' that Dan's family has to put with from those that simply want to/expect to profit off of Dan -

It's very true that Dan will just give his drawings away -
but that doesn't mean it's OK to take them! When I visited him in August, he tried to give me many, for taking him to dinner, buying him DVDs, etc, but I insisted on only one, since he insisted that I take at least one...

It is of his dog, Queenie, a gentle collie, whom I also got to know. When I took it, I knew it would make Dan feel better about my having paid for everything we did together, and I also knew that I would never show nor sell it - since he also wrote a special message to me on the back...it would remain as a 'private' gift from him -

I expect that when I visit Dan for the fan-forum gifts presentation in March that he will try to give me more, but I will not take any - AND I will tell him to stop giving away his work...and to let only his family sell his future stuff.

I have purchased, to date, via various sources, at least 80 of Dan's pieces, but I no longer purchase from a 'certain person'...

Well - I just wanted to post mainly to tell those in Dan's family who might read the boards that I understand the situation, and do hope that it will improve, in time -

Wishing the Johnston's well with their legal efforts to protect Dan's property/his life,

Gina

 

[notdaniel]

GREAT article - and pics - I bought today's edition.

It really told the whole story of Dan's current life, and also explained well 'the nonsense' that Dan's family has to put with from those that simply want to/expect to profit off of Dan -

I have purchased, to date, via various sources, at least 80 of Dan's pieces, but I no longer purchase from a 'certain person'...

Gina

 

Just curious - I know which "certain person" you refer to, but as the article itself casts aspersions on TWO people specifically, what is your current attitude towards the other one?

BTW: I was a bit surprised that neither of the two aforementioned art dealers were allotted a quote in their defense, but then again the Times says that they interviewed Dan over two days, to the point where he all but tried to shove the reporter out the door - and HE only got about three lines quoted in the whole article!

PS: A more general question re: the reference to Dan's art and how it "veers into the pornographic" - does anyone here agree with this description? The closest thing I can think of is the comical "boner" (a cartoony rendition of a square, erect penis) shown in conjunction with "Joe the Boxer" in his seminal portrait of all his major characters.

Sure, the elder Johnstons might feel that the nude female torsos that populate many a drawing are "dirty", but the editors of the New York Times??? I don't think so! It seemed like an attempt to sensationlize the Daniel Johnston story - and those who have done THAT over the years are the real "wolves at the door" that most urgently need to kept at bay!

  - notdan

[mdboyd]

... for all those who don't have a NYT subscription, here's a link to the article.

mike


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/arts/design/19kenn.html?ex=1141016400&en=c6db5f09811326f0&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[gina164]

Just curious - I know which "certain person" you refer to, but as the article itself casts aspersions on TWO people specifically, what is your current attitude towards the other one?

BTW: I was a bit surprised that neither of the two aforementioned art dealers were allotted a quote in their defense, but then again the Times says that they interviewed Dan over two days, to the point where he all but tried to shove the reporter out the door - and HE only got about three lines quoted in the whole article!

PS: A more general question re: the reference to Dan's art and how it "veers into the pornographic" - does anyone here agree with this description? The closest thing I can think of is the comical "boner" (a cartoony rendition of a square, erect penis) shown in conjunction with "Joe the Boxer" in his seminal portrait of all his major characters.

Sure, the elder Johnstons might feel that the nude female torsos that populate many a drawing are "dirty", but the editors of the New York Times??? I don't think so! It seemed like an attempt to sensationlize the Daniel Johnston story - and those who have done THAT over the years are the real "wolves at the door" that most urgently need to kept at bay!

  - notdan

Hi there, notdan

Thanks for the questions -

About the second art dealer - I have not had any issues with him, on a personal basis, and was surprised to see him included in the list of two... so, no comment about him, other than I know he lives in Southern Cal, and so he cannot just go and 'take' drawings behind the family's back...

...which the first art dealer 'in question' has readily, and unashamedly, admitted to me doing on certain Sunday mornings, when Dan's family is at church... exactly as written in the article.

About your other questions...
scrolling up to re-read...

That 'certain person,' AKA 'the first art dealer' WAS interviewed in his home, which is described in the article and he is quoted as saying something like, "I hope to make the second half of my living off of Dan"...if you re-read it, you'll see that... unless the on-line article was truncated? - I bought the paper version...

About the images that may upset the Johnstons...I imagine it is some of the ones I've seen on first art dealer's web site ... "What a boner" comes to mind...

I do not believe that they have any problem with the female nudes that Dan draws...I think it is probably just 'explicit' sexual stuff...but, I have not asked them what they feel 'veers into the pornographic,' nor do I intend to...as, they have a right, as I imagine you will agree, to their own opinions/feelings...

I don't think the article writer, himself, indicated any problem with Dan's subjects, though...that was my take on it.

Hope that clarified a few things.

Gina

[Stress Records]

and so he cannot just go and 'take' drawings behind the family's back...

...which the first art dealer 'in question' has readily, and unashamedly, admitted to me doing on certain Sunday mornings, when Dan's family is at church... exactly as written in the article.

I wanted to stay out of this as people are perfectly capable of reading the article and drawing their own conclusions without being told what to think but the statement quoted above is complete crap. I've never "taken" anything from Daniel and upon rereading the article nowhere does it say that I have. It says "the family accuses..." which is not the same thing.

And yes Not Dan the writer clearly had an agenda before he ever came to Texas. Despite his attempt at creating controversy (I wasn't previously aware of the "tug of war" I'm supposedly a part of) the feedback has been completely positive on this end. 

Back to lurker mode.

[notdaniel]

[quote author=... unless the on-line article was truncated? - I bought the paper version...

About the images that may upset the Johnstons...I imagine it is some of the ones I've seen on first art dealer's web site ... "What a boner" comes to mind...I don't think the article writer, himself, indicated any problem with Dan's subjects, though...that was my take on it.

a) Re; quotes -- I read the syndicated version as linked to via rejectedunknown.com - and for the record, it does appear that I missed at least a very brief quote (and yes, it was clear that all parties were *contacted*, but there's a difference between that and adequate representation on the page. As a journalist by trade, I know only too well how easy it is to slant a story while keeping within supposedly ethical boundaries).

b) Re: porno -- Here's what the piece says verbatim:

> Occasionally, the work veers into the pornographic, though
> his parents - members of the Church of Christ - discourage
> this and fume...

The author of the piece is clearly stating as fact that Daniel's work is prone to venture into the realm of the prurient and obscene. He is *not* merely noting that Dan's parents are sensitive to such things, he is declaring this as objective truth. I don't see how the sentence can be read in any other way, and considering that tagging a work as pornographic in this day and age is comparable to accusing a person of being a stalker. These are not words that one should throw around irresponsibly.

Mind you, it's a defensible statement as long as Dan has even once in his life doodled a "dirty picture" (and who hasn't?) but it is nonetheless deceptive and misleading, a "vibe" which I felt echoing throughout the article.

Seriously, even if you caught "a certain person" taking a dump on your porch, wouldn't you still feel - as a Daniel Johnston fan first and foremost - that a piece celebrating Dan's artistic gifts and acceptance into the fine art community would've been more appropriate and welcome than this cloak & dagger "whodunit" muckraking?

Well, that's my pontification limit for tonight-- I gotta go try to "veer into" dreamland!

  - ndj

[gina164]

To "Stress Records"  -since you have called me a liar...I will defend myself...

Not only have you told me (before I dumped you as a friend) that you purposefully have gone to see Dan on Sundays to 'ask him' for drawings to sell on your site (which translates to "TAKING" in my book, since you have given him practically nothing in return... AND he is severely mentally ill, and SUCH a good soul that he HATES to disappoint ANYONE - AS YOU WELL KNOW!!!, yet you unquestionably take advantage of, nonetheless...), but - and this part makes me sick to recall -

...you ALSO actually asked me personally to ask Dan to mail drawings to you 'behind his family's back' (at your dining table, in the early afternnoon of August 6th, 2005, before I went to meet Dan for the first time, and when you knew that he was so unstable that he had to cancel his European tour)!   

And, you have never had anything nice to say about his parents and his brother, Dick, except constant put-downs ... these are the people who are Dan's guardians, and I am SO happy for Dan that he has SUCH a loving family.

THEY are giving big portions of their lives for Dan, because they love him...You, in my book, have 'taken' from Dan...and have not given back what he deserves...you OWE him, big time.

As you were quoted, you hope to make the second half of your living OFF Dan... 'despicable,' in my book...

Personally, having a sister with severe manic depression, and knowing how vulnerable it leaves a person, I would love to see some sort of restraining orders put into place, for Dan's protection... because,  you DO use him...AND because all the BS you talk about his family is not mentally healthy for him.

I will address notdan in another post...

[Stress Records]

To "Stress Records"  -since you have called me a liar...I will defend myself...



As you were quoted, you hope to make the second half of your living OFF Dan... 'despicable,' in my book...

I just read the article yet again and it does NOT say that. You are adding words that change the meaning of the sentence.

I have no desire to get into a message board feud with you or anyone else. All I ask is that you let people read the article for themselves instead of trying to tell people what it says.

[gina164]

NOTDAN wrote:
"b) Re: porno -- Here's what the piece says verbatim:

> Occasionally, the work veers into the pornographic, though
> his parents - members of the Church of Christ - discourage
> this and fume...

The author of the piece is clearly stating as fact that Daniel's work is prone to venture into the realm of the prurient and obscene. He is *not* merely noting that Dan's parents are sensitive to such things, he is declaring this as objective truth. I don't see how the sentence can be read in any other way, and considering that tagging a work as pornographic in this day and age is comparable to accusing a person of being a stalker. These are not words that one should throw around irresponsibly.

Mind you, it's a defensible statement as long as Dan has even once in his life doodled a "dirty picture" (and who hasn't?) but it is nonetheless deceptive and misleading, a "vibe" which I felt echoing throughout the article. "

MY REPLY:
What you see as 'a clear statement' I see as the author simply describing Dan's work realistically, based on mainstream culture...boners DO 'veer off into the pornographic' in mainstream culture... I do not agree that labelling some of Dan's artwork as 'veering into the pornographic' is akin, in any way, to 'stalking'...  ??

BUT, I can see how you, as perhaps a less editorial-type journalist, can think that the author made a value statement.






NOTDAN wrote:
"Seriously, even if you caught "a certain person" taking a dump on your porch, wouldn't you still feel - as a Daniel Johnston fan first and foremost - that a piece celebrating Dan's artistic gifts and acceptance into the fine art community would've been more appropriate and welcome than this cloak & dagger "whodunit" muckraking?"

MY REPLY:
NOPE, I don't agree...the journalist has a right to his/her own view. This piece had an editorial flavor...one that I agree with - based on my knowledge...he/she? (Randy) is free to write what he/she wants...freedom of speech...

Besides, notdan, this is a very important moral question...

WHO shold profit off of Dan?

I cannot think of a more important thing to address, and I was VERY glad to see it addressed, and in the fashion Randy Kennedy chose.

[gina164]

Randy Kennedy, NYTimes journalist, wrote:

Published: February 19, 2006

(Page 2 of 3)



"Mr. Tartakov, sitting recently in his modest Austin apartment surrounded by Mr. Johnston's drawings and cassette tapes, shook his head as he surveyed his life's work. "I've always joked that I've made half a living from this," he said. "Now I'm hopeful that maybe I'm going to make the other half."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, what I KNOW:

Jeff Tartakov, aka Stress Records, has TOLD ME that he goes behind the family's back ON PURPOSE to 'get' drawings from Dan, to sell for sale on his site.

ALSO...as stated above, Jeff Tartakov, AKA Stress Records, personally asked me to ask Dan to mail drawings to him 'behind his family's back,' all while knowing that Dan was not stable, AND he did NOT give me money to give to Dan.

No further board comments about him.

The Johnston's lawyer can feel free to contact me, if need be.

[Gammon Records]

It's nice to see the truth come out. 

I'm sure over time we'll see more and more of this.

[Henry Long]

Yay for Dan!

His work is getting into the world, one way or another.

Nobody remembers the art reviews, or the reviewers. Or the owners or the sellers or the users or the cheaters.

Truth endures.

I celebrate the fulfillment of your own prophecies, Mr. Daniel Johnston! If we were all in the movies, maybe then we wouldn't be so bored...

[Gammon Records]

HA!

As always well said!

Why do I always forget you're a poet!

Hope you're well Mr. Long

[missmacbeth]

I'm a new convert, having caught Daniel when I went down for SXSW last year

I have two pieces of Daniel's art and, even though this article has probably priced future pieces out of my range, I for one am thrilled for him

I couldn't find a proper forum for this, but if anyone can help me out with some of the regular figures in the art and what they might mean, I'd love to hear from you


Deb

[wickedwill]

I finally got my copy! Got a call from the local music store......seems someone cut it out for me and left it up there with one of the guys who knows me! I must say it does not shine a very good light on some folks!