From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.madonna
Subject: Re: I wanna do her over...
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:43:20 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <BxE7vM.BLA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> J.B. NicholsonOwens,
jeffo@uiuc.edu writes:

>So, an "Artform" (why the capital 'A'?) means being able to sell over
1,000,000  
>copies of your work worldwide in one week?  If that's what art is,
then you may  
>wish to inform people who use this same word to describe things such
as what  
>you would find in Chicago's Art Institute that they are improperly
using this  
>word.  

By trying to define it so narrowly it is *you* who are misusing the
word.  It was obvious from the original message that the writer had no
such intent.  At best, sales can only be used as one way to gauge the
"success" of a work of art in book form.

>But I don't care whether anyone labels her book art or not.  What I
want  
>to know is, exactly, what is so unique about Madonna's book SEX that
it is  
>worthy of any more praise than pictures found in magazines like
Penthouse and  
>Playboy? 

Perhaps it is the fact that this book makes a political statement
(sexual, not governmental politics, of course).  Incidentally, it's
been my observation that the book has received nearly as much
criticism as praise.

>What amazes me about this whole issue regarding this book is how it
is flaunted  
>about when the only difference between this book and the content of
the two  
>aforementioned (as well as other) magazines is that Madonna's book
SEX has  
>recent pictures of Madonna, the aforementioned magazines older
pictures of  
>Madonna.  

The two books have almost nothing in common.  The photos in Penthouse
(and another book, recently rereleased), were simply rather amateurish
(in my professional opinion) photos of an art school student.  The new
book contains much more "artfully" (again, my opinion) produced images
designed to invoke a response, especially from those people who might
be inclined to find them offensive.  Such is the nature of political
statements, even artistic ones... they are intended to stimulate
thought and/or discussion.  To that end "Sex" has been an enormous
success, politically as well as financially.

>Since people don't wish to see similarities between this book and
other  
>photos of naked women commonly available at the same places (a.k.a.,
Penthouse  
>and Playboy magazines among others) it should be interesting to see
how people  
>defend her if she makes an movie, the sole purpose of which is to
watch her  
>have sex with someone; "It's not porn, it's just more ART" 

If, in fact, Madonna actually made a porno film, I have no doubt that
it would end her career, at least as a major figure in the
entertainment industry.  The public (at least those with any degree of
appreciation of "art") would likely reject such a compromise of
principles.

On the other hand, there might be some so narrowminded as to think
that *any* film which showed Madonna having sex with someone was, by
definition, pornography.  It wouldn't surprise me much if it were the
same people who could find no difference between the book "Sex" and
Penthouse magazine.

Greg Bradt  aka  ()The Lensman()