Artist: Kim Jones

1. How does Mudman manifest?
2.Is Mudman ridiculous?
3.Is Mudman a successful way to express thought?

1.Well according to the article, he seems to only be present in performance. Walking around cities and also in gallery performances. Interacting with passersby while navigating urban terrain. Carrying around a burden seems to be important, as he lugs a heavy construction on his back. It reminds me of someone that used to drag a cross down US1 in Florida when I was young. The differences being subject matter of burden and that Mudman is artificial, comparatively. In both this struggle for life is foregrounded. Both also contain spiritual connotations though of diverging ideals. There is perhaps difference of conviction. The man carrying the cross was completely consumed by his actions and did not escape his actions(he was likely homeless); the Mudman is merely a show to be enacted when the moment is right, mostly for an art audience.

2. Yes, he is. He is seemingly trying to make art by the means of non-art actions. That is what I see as perhaps what the attraction is for some viewers. He is pulling the outside world into art by being someone that is not affected by the artworld. But, thats not the case; Jones' alter ego(which I don't believe is an alter ego) is a complete construct of the world of art. Jones states, "People talk about me being a shaman, but I'm not here to heal anybody. I don't associate with primitive cultures." Clearly that is what the character alludes to being at least in part. Why does he use mud from certain locations if not to conjure mystical connections to place.

3. The walks through the cities are devoid of any point except for Jones to meet people, and I said Jones because he answers questions in the persona of Jones not as Mudman even when dressed as Mudman. Attacking himself was more successful because the actions were independent of his supposed alter ego. There was an intrinsic quality in his actions instead of just wandering without aim. How does wandering relate to his other imagery of conflict?

I think I need to study some psychology because the use of this "alter ego" just seems artificial, or rather just a performance.

Three more:
1. What is the difference between his "alter ego" and performance of a character?
2. Does the artist considering Mudman a "alter ego" just constructing his reality to how he seems fit?
3. Conflict seems to be a strong content factor, so does any other performances of Mudman exploit this?