A few months ago (i.e. in August), Michael Kimball guest-edited Everyday Genius for a month (and, actually, he was kicking so much ass, it extended into much of, if not all, of September as well). For some reason, I was lucky enough to be included and, because I'm incredibly solipsistic, I checked the site every day (read, really: every half hour or so) to see when my short would go up. Thing is, this venn diagram went up the day before me and then, having a new writer/artist/word-thing" crush, I forgot about myself for a bit and then continued checking the site every half-hour, hoping for more Burrington, even though I knew Wednesdays were designated as "Ingrid Burrington day." I asked Michael if he'd interview Ingrid for me/Hobart, and they both agreed, and here is their awesome:
* * *
Michael Kimball: You make words do different things that most writers. There is a conceptual approach that makes me think of Kenneth Goldsmith, Vanessa Place, Carl Andre, Andy Devine. The first word-thing of yours that stopped me is the set of protest signs in "The Things Worth Fighting For." Can you talk about the appropriation of the form and maybe a protest sign or two, maybe especially I’LL PLAY MY BLACK SABBATH AS LOUD AS I WANT?
Ingrid Burrington: First of all, I like the term "word-thing"--it suggests that there's still ambiguity here, which I think means I'm doing something right.
I think people get the impression that "The Things Worth Fighting For" is a lighthearted work because of the adolescent nature of the protest in question. But in an art context, protest signs are almost elegiac. By placing something like a protest sign in a gallery the object can take on two equally mournful characteristics: the sign is read as an artifact, an abandoned tool of a lost cause, and/or as a prop, a parody and critique of the practice of protest itself.