"It’s a mistake to assume about any of my work
that it’s my own voice. Because that would be the most
simple-minded ineffective art that you can make."
"I don’t think there is subject matter to consider
too important to use humor with. A lot of times, people
wonder if any of this was intended—you know, like humor
is just by accident all the time..."
"Humor doesn't trivialize the real consequences, the
people that get hurt, for instance. I'm not making light
of that."
"Even though my work is usually just one drawing, it
is more of a narrative than it is a cartoon with a punch
line and a resolution and a laugh at the end."
There's an anger and a kind of
social criticism in your work? Can you talk about that? Where
does that anger come from?
PETTIBON:
Well, it just wells up from deep
inside me so watch out, it's likely to blow any time! [LAUGHS]
I can't really say that it doesn't somewhat come from me,
but my work is a lot more impersonal than most people give
it credit for. It's not that I'm not angry, it's that it's
not a really personal thing. Well, I don’t even know
about that... I think when anything is worth getting angry
about you want to hold back and look at it from a distance
and without this emotion, if possible.
ART:21:
Is the anger an undercurrent
in the work?
PETTIBON:
It’s a mistake to assume
about any of my work that it’s my own voice. Because
that would be the most simple-minded ineffective art that
you can make. That would really be talking down to people,
and if I had such a burning need to express my opinions or
whatever then I don’t think art would be where I’d
want to do it. It’s not a good area for that. But when
we’re talking about the schools and gangs and segregation
and so forth, those are very obvious problems and no one really
needs my weighing in on it. But there’s more underlying
problems or issues, and those will be the things I would want
to cover in my work.
And you know that's what I do all the time. There is a very
direct kind of anger in some of my work to figures like Ronald
Reagan or J. Edgar Hoover or whatever. You can have a million
artists sign petitions one side or another—and so what?
You’d really have to go back to the Greeks and the Romans
and to the satire or the very personal kind of rancor that
they wrote about people of the day to see what I'm doing.
The pretentious, the powerful, the decadent and the corrupt.
It's not done from analyzing their positions and correcting
them or weighing in your own solutions, because it's not the
kind of form that works.
It's like when we were talking about heroes and I brought
up that the usual person who is considered a hero is really
the opposite of what I would consider. And it's a way of trying
to break down this kind of natural awe and respect that comes
out of a fear or envy. There's this built-in respect that
shouldn't be there completely. I told you how much I consider
characters like Gumby with respect. And just on the face of
it anyone, I think, should compare cartoons to the president
of the United States. This one or anything of them really.
Those are the real cartoon figures and those are the real
ridiculous figures. I want to make works where someone like
Gumby or Vavoom or Felix the Cat or whatever comes out as
someone to respect and to listen to and you're glad you did
when you're given that opportunity.
I've never considered myself much of a political artist. And
most of my art doesn't really deal in explicitly political
issues. But I'm not going to apologize or shy away from it
any more than I would any other subject. But there is no area
where anyone is dealing with this in the way I am—which
is for once not to assume someone like the President automatically
has a claim on anyone’s respect, to follow him or to
take him seriously. We don't see that at all because the real
pathetic thing is this generation of journalists. Not that
it was any better really that much before, but it is really
incredible today because they probably pat themselves on the
back and say, "Well, we're responsible journalists,"
and really they’re just the punks of the political establishment
they cover. I'm not trying to encourage art to become political.
Just because you're artists doesn’t mean you should have
a platform. When Hollywood figures or artists decide to get
on their platform, often that is going to do much more harm.
ART:21:
Anger and humor. It's a delicate
line.
PETTIBON:
I don’t think humor is a
bad thing at any time really, or in these times. I make decisions
all the time in my work that I won't make fun of someone just
for the sake of going for some cheap laugh. I won't do that
if it hurts someone who I would feel bad about. If it's based
on things that people have no control over. That should be
condemned for any reason. We as humans still so often times
feel the need to have someone to pick on who is different.
I don’t think there is subject matter to consider too
important to use humor with. A lot of times, people wonder
if any of this was intended—you know, like humor is just
by accident all the time and maybe it’s not a good thing
to laugh, or maybe they’re not getting it, maybe they’re
seeing something in it that they shouldn’t. But that’s
not the case. I have no problems with my own attempts at humor.
ART:21:
A recurring subject in your work
is Patty Hearst and the SLA. Can you talk about that in relation
to your use of humor?
PETTIBON:
Patty Hearst and the SLA would
really be impossible not to treat with some broad comic aspect
to it because the SLA and the whole situation was such a broad
burlesque. A lot of the best humor, whether it's the Three
Stooges or Molière, is about someone who is really
strident or pretentious. The SLA and a lot of political groups
from the ’60s and ’70s—to any time period—are
so strident and they're so full of their own righteousness
for the moment. Inevitably a year later, like in Patty's case,
she went from being a debutante to an urban guerilla and then
back again where she married her own bodyguard.
Any one from groups such as that who have gravitated to the
other extreme—such as the current radical right, the
reigning power of now, the neo-conservatives—that all
comes from a very left wing position. Almost all those guys
were at one time the opposite. And so it's hard to take that
sort of thing seriously if you can see it from any historical
distance. If you look at the Hearst case from the beginning
to the end it's like the Keystone Cops. That can happen by
chance or by the kind of ideas behind it as well.
Humor doesn't trivialize the real consequences, the people
that get hurt, for instance. I'm not making light of that.
If I'm going to be condemned for broaching that subject from
a comic angle, that is completely absurd. I'm not a fan of
the underground or the SLA. Personally or their politics.
But to demonize them in particular when you had a war going
on that was killing millions—the Vietnamese people and
all people who should be allowed to live—it's a way for
me to objectify the lines there. To even the playing field
a little bit rather than picking one enemy and demonizing
them to basically cover your own ass. It's a way of making
nothing sacrosanct and above comedy, and at the same time
not taking away all their humanity by completely objectifying
a whole group of people in a way that makes them totally disposable
either. I'm not doing that with any of those groups.
ART:21:
Portraying people is always tricky.
For instance, some viewers might think the way you depict
women is misogynist. How would you respond to that?
PETTIBON:
When you get asked something
like that you almost expect someone to be disingenuous about
it. In my personal life, of course, you can’t read my
mind... My work really isn't coming from a very personal point
so to psychoanalyze my work really isn't going to reveal anything.
But then again that becomes a very circular kind of thing
because you could say, "Well, maybe it's hidden under
the surface and he just doesn’t realize it," or
whatever. But specifically, like with Gumby, I never had a
doll phase or an action figure phase and certainly not now.
So that wasn't an obsession for me or a very personal thing.
It came out of a certain subject matter used in a certain
way. I think a lot of the work that would be considered misogynist
comes from a strain in my work that is usually described as
a film noir type. Most of my work that would be considered
the most misogynist would be work where the women character
is like a caricature in comic books, like the Dragon Lady
in Melton Kaniff, or a girl usually named Velma or Velvalee
or whatever.
I've been asked a few times of my work that all the characters,
almost without exception, are white. That's a legitimate question.
But there still is an element of caricature to my work and
I'm not representing this kind of multi-cultural melting pot
in my work just for appearances sake. If you looked at my
work based on race, the work would call attention to itself
in ways that would make it a completely different kind of
work. I don't make any apologies for not doing that because
it's for what purpose?
This is not autobiographical work, by any means. Even the
emotions involved. If someone thinks they understand me and
disagree, then okay. But there's something in the nature of
comedy and especially in the element of caricature and cartoons
that my work retains. An editorial cartoon is trying to be
positive. It's usually really very cloying and sappy and there's
no hook to it at all. I also don't like my humor to be in
the service of making fun of people based on superficialities.
People get picked on or looked down at. I'm conscious about
that as a problem.
ART:21:
Do you think there are elements
of failure and longing in your work?
PETTIBON:
Longing yes, because I think
it's work that is best when there isn’t any final resolution.
When you don’t finally arrive. And failure...I have to
say that maybe that's because this sort of work tends to have
more of a negative edge to it. There probably is more failure
depicted in my work then there is success.
ART:21:
Is there sadness in the work?
PETTIBON:
Yeah. I think maybe it's as much
as humor. It's just more latent. I think the life of the drawing
is that you're always kept in suspense. It's like a serial
which goes on from day to day in the paper. There's always
something from the sky just about to fall on you. Even though
my work is usually just one drawing, it is more of a narrative
than it is a cartoon with a punch line and a resolution and
a laugh at the end.
