Hang on. So no single work by an artist can be advanced? The works, considered collectively, are the yardstick by which an artist is deemed advanced or not? B-b-but how can you say that making a buddy cop movie with Ted Danson would be advanced? Maybe you’re arguing that such an endeavor–which I’m certain the critics would dismiss as “Val and Ted’s Bogus Journey,” so I’d caution you against pursuing it–is just the latest iteration of your madcap Advanced-ness. In which case, you’re only further proving your Overtness, yes?

You’re correct that I made an error in stating that Overt-ness “demands a lack of guile on the part of the artist.” I of course understand that the exact opposite was true. The mistake wasn’t a product of my being “excited,” I can assure you. I was just tired, Val. So very, very tired.

If I did believe in Advancement? My early discussions with City Paper advancement advocates led me to float the idea that the most Advanced band ever was the Housemartins. They were Christian Marxists! Playing folk-pop-R & B hybrids! And if there was any “guile” about that, I wasn’t detecting it. Paul Heaton sure as hell sounded sincere about how capitalism was wrecking Britain and that collective love could fix it–lord knows the Beautiful South is so sincere it hurts. (But I wouldn’t consider the Jam, a band with a similar lyrical sensibility, Advanced. I’m not sure why, but I think it has something to do with Paul Weller’s hair.) And the bassist later became Fatboy Slim, which should earn the Housemartins some posthumous Advancement status, right?

I believe I was told at the time that, no, the Housemartins weren’t advanced. But I don’t recall why. Just between you and me, I think the folks I talked to didn’t know who the Housemartins were. They were a little wussy (the Housemartins, I mean), but I still think it’s a shame they were forgotten.

Trying,

mark.

I have not seen any episodes of Tanner 88. I have read Doonesbury and seen Mash so I think I get the gist of it. Trudeau and Altman how can you go wrong? You are very Mark-centric, but I am geocentric so we both have room to grow. It is not unexpected that Harry Anderson does a turn on an HBO series and I will take your word for his good work on that episode, I always admired his ability to defuse tense court situations with slight-of-hand. And only the most able of actors could share the stage with John Larrouquette. Also, if I had walking around music it just might be the Night Court theme which, by your account, sounds superior to the Tanner ‘88 theme. To repeat previous statements, Anderson’s role in Tanner ‘88 cannot be considered advanced since he is not advanced. His role as Harry the Hat in cheers is not advanced either. Me doing a buddy cop movie with Ted Danson would be advanced though. (But you are right if I did it in order to be advanced, it wouldn’t be. Also, if he was in blackface it would not be advanced either. These examples I give you are hypotheticals obviously. I do these things without any idea of their ramifications.) One of the main tenets of advancement is that you make choices that nobody else would make or that you would wouldn’t expect from them. The White Stripes doing an album of old blues covers, not advanced. The White Stripes doing a straightforward cover of Last Christmas by Wham! might start them on the road to advancement. They would have to follow it up with other great choices and an opus of advancement. (Bjork really likes the song Club Tropicana by Wham! She also likes Hot Blooded by Foreigner. She is still overt. Side Note: Claudia Schiffer’s favorite band is Foreigner. She is neither advanced nor overt. It just makes sense.)

You do (almost) make a good point in saying that “advancement requires an almost complete unawareness of how your work might be perceived by the public.” But I disagree that unawareness is a requirement. More so, the artist doesn’t care what the public thinks and makes their decision based on their own innate weirdness. If in fact I did not know who Corbin Bernson was, then my decision was not advanced as I did not make one, but the movie still might be for having us both in it. I still am advanced for appearing in it, if not by choice, by the fact that my advanced nature mystically attracts me to advanced projects. Perhaps it is a life force in me of some sort. That is for the scholars to debate though.

For someone who claims to have read the Klosterman essay 12 times you are having a tough time, perhaps it is due to poor reading comprehension. You say “Overt-ness, if I understand correctly, demands a lack of guile on the part of the artist.” You do not understand correctly. Directly from Klosterman’s essay “If a band is overt, they appear Advanced. However, they are actually the opposite of Advanced, because their seemingly inexplicable decisions are driven by guile.” Those who are overt are guileful. Not guileless. (I do not believe that Klosterman understands it perfectly either (see his Advanced Irritant section. He correctly gives an Advanced Irritant work, but not the correct reason), nor would he claim to, nor would I.) I just think you got really excited and meant to say I was not Advanced because I have guile. I am just trying to educate you. I, in fact, don’t care about being advanced or not, but I do have a grasp of the theory. I do love repeating the word “advanced” over and over though.

It is obvious that you don’t like the theory nor do you think it applies to me. If you did believe in the theory though, who would you say is advanced?

Your Friend,

Val

I found your mention of Harry Anderson interesting. Just a couple of weeks ago I was watching “Tanner ‘88” on DVD. Have you seen it? It’s not bad, even though it has a little too much of Garry Trudeau’s sanctimony. Also, the theme song sucks. But it’s got Harry Anderson in one episode, doing a pretty good turn as a hotshot political fixer. “That’s unexpected,” I said to myself. I don’t want to make a case that he (or that role) is advanced, though. I just want to point out that, by your thinking, the advanced-ness of making a film with Harry Anderson is contingent on perceiving him as the wacky “Night Court” judge or the grifter on “Cheers.” But here’s the thing. Imagine if I were a talented actor of stage and screen—-I’m talking Val Kilmer-grade chops, now—-and I choose to make a movie with Anderson. Not the nyuk-nyuk “Night Court” Anderson, but the not-bad “Tanner ’88” Anderson. Is that still advanced? Is advancement conditional on what I know about who I work with, and the saneness of that choice?

That can’t be, and you know it. Working with Harry Anderson can’t be advanced in those cases, because, as you tell me, advancement requires an almost complete unawareness of how your work might be perceived by the public. (Working with Harry Anderson could only conceivably be advanced if I have no idea who Harry Anderson is, which, in that case, so what?) If I read you right, the perfect advanced artist exists without the capability of intent. Bands like the White Stripes that know exactly what they’re doing, are, by definition, not advanced. But no artist lacks intent, even if the intent is, “My name is Thom Yorke, and I shall make a difficult solo album.” This is where the whole advanced-theory argument loses me. Advancement seems to presume head wounds, or retardation, or some blissful unawareness of how the world functions. But Brian Wilson made fucked-up albums with and without the drugs, so how does advancement help me understand them?

One last point. Overt-ness, if I understand correctly, demands a lack of guile on the part of the artist. And I have to say, Val, that there’s a boatload of guile in your whole “look at me I’m a yogi pot dealer and I’m gonna make a movie with the guy who had the hots for Markie Post!” posture. Indeed, the posturing itself calls you out as pretty non-advanced.

Should I get in touch with Mr. Klosterman about running a retraction of his Esquire feature about you, you Overt fraud, or would you like to do it?

All best,

Mark.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is in fact not advanced. It got decent reviews but didn’t do great at the box office. Not everyone thought it was bad either so no advanced status for the movie. The role I played in the move, that was advanced. Not because I played a gay P.I., but because I chose to be in a movie that Corbin Bernsen. Who would choose to be in a movie with the guy from L.A. Law. Nobody! That is advanced. Stay tuned for my next movie where I star with Harry Anderson from Night Court. Advanced.

You are relating advanced theory to you. It doesn’t matter what you think. It is society in general. Just because you didn’t think. I don’t base what I do on what you would do, my choices are so crazy that nobody would think of making them. I played a yogi pot dealer on an episode of Entourage. Why would I, Val Kilmer, do that? Would you have guessed that I would do that? No. But more importantly would anyone else have done that? No! Maybe I’ll get a part in the next episode of Trapped in the Closet. That is how I roll.

As far as your difficulty with my Whites Stripes label goes. (Disregarding the fact that they are not advanced.) They went out there with a plan to play only one note, they told people they could come see them play one note. And they did. They did it so they could say they played every province in Canada. Definitely not advanced. See, you had information available to you. You could have found out that they were going to do that. You would have thought (correctly) that it was in fact lame (or overt). It seems like something an edgy band might do, but the Stripes didn’t want to offend. And again, you can’t relate it to you personally. Rush’s last concert setlist was unexpected to you too. That does not make them advanced.

Telling people of your intentions does not keep you from being advanced. It is the choice that is advanced or not. Again, the White Stripes are not advanced to begin with. Even if they would have kept it a secret it would not have been advanced because they are not and trying to play every Canadian province is not nor is trying to play every state. If they were advanced and did it to make their audience mad, it would have been an Advanced Irritant.

Anyway, I hope this helped. And if you have any more questions feel free to ask. I am here to help.

Yours Truly,

Val

P.S. You may be Advanced as liking or referencing any song off of Mighty Like A Rose is a choice that almost nobody would make. Not even Diana Krall.

I see a problem with your assertion that the White Stripes show wasn’t advanced simply because they told people beforehand. I mean, I wasn’t there–it was unexpected to *me*, so I couldn’t call it unexpected. (Elvis Costello reference in a blog comment–advanced?) Does simply telling people of your intentions keep you from being advanced? By that logic, there’s no way Lou Reed could ever be advanced, because he’s *gotta* be letting Laurie Anderson in on his bullshit. No? Yes?

http://www.stevenkasher.com/html/artistresults.asp?artist=218&testing=true&offset=0