From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/17/00-04:33:51 PM Z
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Editor - P.O.V. Image Service wrote:
>
> But low-culture or popular art, like that of the "nudie magazines" etc. still
> sells..
Indeed... (or perhaps "exactly"). But here you at least grant the category
of "low culture" and "nudie magazines." As noted, I have no objections to
porn that's labelled porn. I simply ask for truth in labelling.
However, if you want to argue that there are no distinctions, as you seem
to here, that no judgements or critiques or analysis can be offered on
current matters... well, you'd certainly save a lot of trees, because such
commentary fills many/most of our press -- not just the art press, but
mainstream as well.(Can you imagine a film review without analysis of the
message?) Even more important, the "discourse" of art is crucial to all of
us, as both reflection and influence, not just of our art, but of our
time. (Quick: who said the unexamined life is not worth living? I'm
blanking on it.)
You seem to suggest that there are no distinctions -- making say John
Keane the equal of Alice Neel. Do you really mean that? I don't, as you
imply, valorize one art form above another. I think, for instance in the
1970s, record album covers (and other graphic art) were brilliant, and the
bulk of "high art" painting vapid. But the topic here is photography
*presented* as photo art, not nudie pics.
As for hip-hop, I don't know much about that, but I certainly believe pop
music and rock have been the major music forms of our time. That, however,
does NOT give a pass to the degradation of women in rap lyrics.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT