« NY Post has strange, confusing, | Home | Interview with Jennifer Coolidge in »
July 30, 2003
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/03921/03921afd814d8cb243bccb87c6add960e7bf490a" alt="robot"
I mentioned a few weeks
I mentioned a few weeks ago how sick I am of pretentious, mainstream artists and writers discussing pornography like it's high art or an undiscovered country. Now comes word of a new book, XXX: 30 Portraits of Pornstars, put together by almost-a-big-deal photographer Timothy Greenfield-Sanders (who is in the Lou Reed/Laurie Anderson gang). [nyt]
Not terrible in itself, but: "The pictures will be accompanied by essays on pornography by John Malkovich, Nancy Friday and Karen Finley, among others."
Yawn. Puke.
The article is filled with stupid posturing quotes from the photographer, such as "Whatever you say about it has so many meanings. If you say, `I watch porn,' or `I don't watch porn,' it's a much more complicated remark than saying, `I go to museums,' or `I don't go to museums.' It's very personal." and "I found with porn stars that they're much more comfortable nude than they are clothed."
categories:
posted by adm at 10:55 AM | #