 |
1. Last issue’s cover story featured a conversation between the cultural hyphenate James Franco and his (and New York’s) art critic Jerry Saltz (“In Conversation: James Franco,” April 18–May 1), who had previously reviewed Franco’s work as an artist and found some of it wanting. The conversation ranged from General Hospital to Instagram to critics’ biases in general. Commenters seemed split on whether Franco is a true artist or a dabbler. SpacemanSpiff, for one, wished Saltz would have asked him about “why reception is so important to him, when it doesn’t seem to be the impetus for so many artists. I’m all for Franco doing what he wants, but to expect — to the point of bringing up his disappointed expectations so many times … adulation across the board is not related to the desire to make art.” JGH felt that Franco is less an artist than a “parlayer” — someone who has “achieved fame/success in one field and is now able to waltz into the top strata of another field based on that initial success. You have Lenny Kravitz designing furniture or Kanye West designing clothes or Pharrell designing furniture or Brad Pitt also designing furniture … The question is always there: would their work be rated if they weren’t already famous for something else? How often is the answer to that question ‘yes’?” Artnet’s Brian Boucher responded to Franco’s assertion that in the world of art blogs, Artnet seems to be “particularly nasty.” “Maybe we are nasty,” he wrote. “Or, who knows, maybe the folks at Pace aren’t the only ones who are too thin-skinned.” (Pace being the gallery that got blowback for Franco’s photographic riff on Cindy Sherman’s “Untitled Film Stills” in 2014.) For others, the feature illuminated Franco’s hard work and legitimacy as an artist. “He’s a unique case,” wrote Andrew Simson, “where he has that wide and varied range. Most artists are particular and specific. And after being accepted into the mainstream as he has, it’s hard to win over the arty-intelligentsia. He’s a multi-dimensional artist and writer doing his own thing!” “I’ll admit preconceived notions but Franco in NYMag — ‘be beginners, try things, don’t shut down before investigating’ — gets a thumbs up,” tweeted Blaine McEvoy. “Such an interesting conversation on art/celebrity/THE FREEDOM OF MAKING SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T NEED TO ENTERTAIN,” tweeted @Elise3aum. Another commenter felt that the Saltz-Franco combination made sense. “Lots of James Franco in James Franco’s work,” K.I.A said. “Lots of Jerry Saltz in Jerry Saltz’s articles. Together they’re like mirrors for each other — creating a Droste effect.”
 |
2. “The city is in the midst of converting more than 250,000 streetlights to LEDs,” wrote Justin Davidson in his column on what New York will gain and lose from the shift away from the more romantic (but less efficient) sodium-vapor lights (“The Dark Side of Night Light,” April 18–May 1). Anti-nostalgia New York readers flocked to the comments section to express how pleased they are with the change. “In fact,” wrote commenter DrDaveNYC, “the yellow lights made city nights eerie … The new lights have better CRI (color rendering index), which make things seem more natural. It’s less disorienting. But people hate change and tend to romanticize the good old days. But for OGs like myself these LEDs are a return to those good old [pre-sulfur] days when city nights appeared more natural and less bizarre.” “You took the words out of my mouth!” responded robert.distefano. “I remember back in the ’70s, when they replaced mercury vapor lights with the sodium ones, people were complaining about how bright and ugly they were. Everything looked orange, even the sky! There was nothing romantic about them. Thankfully, they will soon be history!” “I prefer the LEDs over the old sodium lamps,” added cden4. “The streets actually feel safer and more welcoming at night with the white light. I can certainly see better.” At least one commenter reached even farther back. “Reminds me of how sad I was when they replaced out the beautiful romantic gaslights,” wrote commenter randrewm.
3. Gabriel Sherman’s column on the implications of Megyn Kelly’s meeting with Donald Trump at Trump Tower led readers to discuss Kelly’s new role as a feminist icon as well as the future of Fox News (“One-Woman Brand,” April 18–May 1). “Just because this woman had a feud with Trump in no way redeems” her, wrote extinctplanet. “Maybe she can have another episode on the ‘War on Christmas’ and proclaim Santa Claus is white. It’s unconscionable that people are now willing to give her a pass because of a brush up with Trump, when Trump’s leading in the primary is directly attributable to the nonsense she broadcasts day after day.” FlatbushFred agreed: “It’s a sad commentary that she is now being held up as a feminist heroine. She’s as right-wing as the rest of the ‘fair and balanced’ crew at Faux News.” “Fox seemed like an unstoppable juggernaut just a few months ago,” wrote CyEdmunds. “Now it looks very vulnerable.” “I’ve said all along,” tweeted @NYC118, “end game is Trump network.” In response to Sherman’s comparison of Kelly and Paula Zahn, who left Fox for CNN in 2001, @andrewjbutcher tweeted, “Not sure Zahn analogy is the right one. Paula didn’t rate. Better comparison is O’Reilly. O’Reilly’s giant ego and demands drove Roger [Ailes] nuts. But he had to tolerate it b/c of ratings. Not so with low-rating Zahn.” “The comparison was to illustrate that Roger does not like when talent and their agents play hardball,” responded Sherman. At least one reader felt that Megyn Kelly, who is scheduled to interview Trump on May 17, is getting what she deserves after a tough election season. “Biggest media star of 2016 so far, @megynkelly, is ready to claim her rewards,” tweeted @randalljudt. “Good for her.”