From: Zev Robinson (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 04 2006 - 01:25:32 PST
who is john q public? I've heard about him (or is he really a she?) a lot,
but nobody I've met fits the description. everyone I have met, in or out of
the artworld, has varying degrees of sensitivity, experience and knowledge
about the arts, and the various forms art takes.
"Art is not for John Q Public (whoever that is) and historically never was."
is incorrect. A lot of art was specifically made with the public in mind and
for public consumption, and on top of that, some specifically with powerful,
unsavory patrons in mind.
that AG or experimental film is more "art" than *some* of the things that
have come out of hollywood is highly contentious and based on a lot of
assumptions. that's not to knock the best of the former, just that I, and I
think some others on the list, like other things as well, and see culture as
a more complex entity.
one of the positive aspects of digital technology is the possibilities of
democratizing art. All sorts things become available to a lot of people who
would not have access to them. I'm aware of the negative aspects too, but
that's the world we live in.
using an argument about the inferiority of the general public is not one I
like for a lot of reasons.
john q public, like the hollywood movie, is an urban (art world) myth.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.