Blue Period
Was it just me, or was the world of The New Yorker briefly, but intensely sexual a few weeks back?
There was Carolita's saucy and excellent rejection which was smart, timely and had a political edge - and is both like and unlike a similar cartoon in this week's magazine. Carolita voicing the cynicism of the woman on the street, Cheney suggesting the irresponsibility at the top.
Regular reader, Lagusta, blushed over another suggestive cartoon, by Roz Chast, less explicit, but that was the joke.
Lagusta mentions too, that the same issue included "fascinating women artists being fascinating artists, no modifier necessary!" Could she really mean Judith Thurman's biographical essay on photog and girl-about-town, Lee Miller? Which seemed to me was all about how Miller's work, and life, were entirely circumscribed, and, as it so often happens, enriched, by her dark and complicated gender identity and sexuality.
Whether or not Thurman's article treats these issues with the gravity and insight they call for is for each reader to decide.
Also in the eye of the beholder - Emdashes' response to the Currin images. I swear I had no idea what she was was talking about. Oh, that. I think I buy into that whole if it isn't a photograph it isn't pornography thing. Which is a total lie, in so many ways, but there it is.
And then there were the bodies that Lauren Collins offered us. Safe to enjoy - in their literary form - without, perhaps, attracting leers from commuters or questions from small children.
There was Carolita's saucy and excellent rejection which was smart, timely and had a political edge - and is both like and unlike a similar cartoon in this week's magazine. Carolita voicing the cynicism of the woman on the street, Cheney suggesting the irresponsibility at the top.
Regular reader, Lagusta, blushed over another suggestive cartoon, by Roz Chast, less explicit, but that was the joke.
Lagusta mentions too, that the same issue included "fascinating women artists being fascinating artists, no modifier necessary!" Could she really mean Judith Thurman's biographical essay on photog and girl-about-town, Lee Miller? Which seemed to me was all about how Miller's work, and life, were entirely circumscribed, and, as it so often happens, enriched, by her dark and complicated gender identity and sexuality.
Whether or not Thurman's article treats these issues with the gravity and insight they call for is for each reader to decide.
Also in the eye of the beholder - Emdashes' response to the Currin images. I swear I had no idea what she was was talking about. Oh, that. I think I buy into that whole if it isn't a photograph it isn't pornography thing. Which is a total lie, in so many ways, but there it is.
And then there were the bodies that Lauren Collins offered us. Safe to enjoy - in their literary form - without, perhaps, attracting leers from commuters or questions from small children.
posted by zoe p. at 5:14 PM
1 Comments:
OK, throwing a little love in the direction of a New Yorker writer never hurts -- they need it. But enough already: Isn't this acknowledgement thing sort of getting out of hand? Acknowledging one's debt for certain turns of phrase? Were lawyers involved?
Post a Comment
<< Home