COMMENT NUMBER: 24

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 23:21:21 -0400 (EDT)

From: Scott Brodie 

rodies@rosnet.strose.edu

To: galligan@sprynet.com



Subject: Re: que necissicito?

        Composers, writers, physicists, philosophers, and  artists work within specialized fields, and it is within those  fields that their work is, now, and again later, judged. A lot  of things made by so-called (self-called) artists simply don't  rise to the challenge. Some things are deemed to be art, not  because a so-called artist made them, but because the work  has merit as considered by other artists, art critics, and art  historians (despite the fact that once an artist has made a  reputation their work is sometimes more quickly, and with a less critical eye, considered of merit). Call me a philistine or  an ostrich, if you like, but I will beg out of the democratization of art that you suggest, and continue to believe in a few people with really unruly brains.  It's obvious that art is not determined by subject matter,  whether it be a stupid apple on a table or an egregious fuck scene. Its equally obvious that an apple is not art and neither  is pornography.                 

Pornography needs the money shot, but art has balls.