From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 04 2006 - 12:35:11 PST
glad ur world has no john q public (sheep)
sad mine does (but glad i am in reality)
ever been 2 the midwest?
ever heard of religion
ya know the opiate of the masses?
for u 2 not understand/acknowledge these really problematic 'spaces' of culture
is perhaps naive
On 3/4/06, Zev Robinson <email suppressed> wrote:
> 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.
> Zev Robinson
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.