From: jeffo@uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens)
Subject: Re: I wanna do her over...
Reply-To: jeffo@uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:30:57 GMT

Sysop writes
> Yes, she uses sex as an image, but she also is doing something
> that hasn't been done since the days of Marilyn Monroe... She is
> using Sex as an Artform.  How many women can produce a book of
> sexual photos and have it sell over 1,000,000 copies worldwide
> in ONE WEEK? 

As if what Marilyn Monroe did for women was a good thing.  But since this  
newsgroup deals primarily with Madonna, I'll keep my post to her.

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.  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? 

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.  Don't forget this is the same woman whose photos were printed by some  
magazine (I forget which one, Penthouse or Playboy, but I don't care which one  
it was) and none of this same stir (over whether it's the same stuff sold on  
newsstands in the 'adult' racks or something worth looking at because there is  
something relevant to someone besides Madonna) was caused.

I don't consider art to be something that brings up or discusses issues that  
are relevant to more than the artist.  I think art is just another term that  
anyone can apply to whatever they do thereby making them an artist.  No magic.   
No mystery.  No implicit or explicit goodness or increase in quality.  I think  
that people who bicker over exactly what art is have either nothing better to  
do with their time or have a problem making something that might be oppressive  
to a large group of people look like something better; something that we should  
somehow cherish or hold up as an example (a large portion of what is commonly  
labeled 'art' is just this because the whole point of photos and paintings, to  
focus on one type of "art" is objectification).

> Of course, it will be interesting to see what she does when her
> sex appeaal fades awaay to old age.... Then she'll have to rely
> strictly on her voice. 

The only interesting thing here is how you think that older women (older than  
Madonna, I would guess) cannot have sex appeal.  If Madonna had to rely only on  
her voice starting tomorrow she'd still make lots of money.  Over time interest  
in her would fade, but there would be some people who adore her, like with any  
number of other fads.  If she had to rely only on her voice back when she was  
starting out, she would never have gotten to anywhere near the economic  
position where she is today.  Her singing doesn't separate her from anyone  
else.  Her body doesn't either.  I claim that the thing that separates her from  
a lot of other famous women is that she's willing to do increasingly risque  
publicity stunts (like this book) to keep her name from not being mentioned in  
the news.  This, by no coincidence, is what most men enjoy and since men  
control most of the money with which things Madonna-related are bought (money  
for the kids so they can see Madonna, money for her book, money for seeing her  
movie to name three), she will remain famous for quite a while.  She is smart  
about her exposure in that she doesn't reveal too much in too short a time  
(probably to avoid being labeled a slut by too many people right away) however  
the next step she'll have to go to to keep as many people interested in her  
after interest in this book dies, will probably have to involve motion pictures  
+ sex.  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" (as if what is art  
cannot be degrading; to draw a parallel in social awareness to illustrate my  
point: just as alcohol has become a socially accepted drug, the term 'art' has  
become the socially accepted term to relay a good connotation to anything  
without regard to potential harm).

To keep the stupid rebuttals from using net bandwidth right off the bat, I  
would never advocate removing her book from the shelves.  I think the most  
powerful lesson and reward for the seller and the public, respectively, is for  
anyone to be able to sell anything they like and the public to think they have  
better things to spend their money on and not buy it.  And finally, as I blame  
the public in allowing actors in tv shows to get very high salaries (for  
instance $400,000) for doing a mere 4-7 weeks of work a year, I blame the  
public for Madonna's success.  After all, if the public didn't spend the money  
on the item, the people who make the item wouldn't be able to afford to pay the  
people who star in the item the salaries they now get.  I stand firm on that  
some things are only worth a dollar or two, however this book has contributed  
to the total cost incurred by me for the time it took me to write this note,  
which is all I will spend on crap like it (as it applies to you reading this,  
if you don't like what you just read, don't email me about it).
-- 
-- Jeff (jeffo@uiuc.edu)