Time Out: Bondage is repulsive! (82)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

24 Jun 06, 8:15 AM
Forsaken1
UK, 4 yrs
I have it on good authority folks that Sarah Kent IS the visual arts editor for Time Out and has been for over 20 years.
Her E-mail is Sarahkent@timeout.com
She has the discretion on any thing that goes through her department.
I've had the nod that she has long nipples so feel free to tweak...............not that your gunna get her to submit!
And yes before I'm ridiculed, Wwe are pissed off as well but I've got a man on the inside, He'll start working on her Monday!
Damien x
"Vanilla is dangerous and should not be practiced at home. If anyone offers you vanilla sex, just say No. This has been a BDSM safety awareness announcement."
Leather & Lace

24 Jun 06, 8:31 AM
demolitionred
5 yrs
Esinem wrote:
I've done Feminists Against Censorship.
Rosalee and Zak are both members...

24 Jun 06, 8:42 AM
titchfield
UK(CF), 4 yrs
Y!
If you don't like the quality of the journalism, don't buy their product.

24 Jun 06, 8:47 AM
Noidea
VI, 6 yrs I remember Time Out doing a 6 page article on fetishism, everything from age play to clubs, in the mid 90s. As the article was mainly written by Jan from Forum magazine, it was pro BDSM...One wonders why the change of heart?
xxxPVC

Forsaken1 wrote:
I have it on good authority folks that Sarah Kent IS the visual arts editor for Time Out and has been for over 20 years.
Her E-mail is Sarahkent@timeout.com
She has the discretion on any thing that goes through her department.
I've had the nod that she has long nipples so feel free to tweak...............not that your gunna get her to submit!
And yes before I'm ridiculed, Wwe are pissed off as well but I've got a man on the inside, He'll start working on her Monday!
Damien x

www.alexcobra.co.uk

24 Jun 06, 12:51 PM
TheMarquise
UK, 4 yrs

Manniq wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:

Manniq wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:

demolition_red wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:
I would be happy to; I think the response was appalling.

Me too.
bigoted? fine. To be expected, to some extent. But what got me was the cultural ignorance and unprofessional tone.
Absolutely. If I am sending a letter or response from the agency I work for, I ensure its in line with the ethos of the organisation. The tone alone of her reply would not be acceptable if written on behalf of my agency.
The way she gave such short shrift to the request was so dismissive! It made her sound petulant and arrogant.
The historical and cultural ignorance she displayed was astonishing. The journalists I know check their facts and have enquiring minds.

But she ain't a journo.... she is a self-proclaimed feminist artist.
I would say that if we wanted publicity, she is a gift....because if you prod even lightly, she will come out fighting, quite happy to garner a few headlines for her corner. Basically, she would see articles about this episode as scoring points for HER team: and we would see any publicity as scoring for OUR team.
So a good target to pursue.
Regards,
M

But surely when she is writing for the magazine she is operating as a journalist in that context? Criticism is a branch of journalism.

Um. I don't want to fall out with you on this because its a bit of a picky point. I edit a journal (a tad academic) for a well-known publisher.
Its a bit of a spare time hobby (I get an honorarium and as many free press passes to events as I can manage): I would say that none of the people I commission to write are 'journalists' or even begin to know how to operate in such a way.
Basically, they have their views and they push them.
I agree that if she writes for TO she ought to be as responsible - or not - as a journalist. But the fact remains that although she holds an editorial rank, she is much more akin to a columnist (and as such subject to her own rules of conduct).
Regards,
M

A columnist is not a journalist, that is a surprise to me. If you write professionally for a magazine you are a journalist. You may not do it all the time but its a simple matter of definition.
Besides which this is slightly off my point which is that I would expected more from someone in a working environment. Even if Time Out reply that these are her own views and not representative of the magazine. I still think she could have made that clearer.
I don't see any danger of us falling out over this. I think you overestimate the importance I would attach to your comments.

24 Jun 06, 1:10 PM
Ms_Tytania
UK(E), 4 yrs

Manniq wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:
<snip>
A columnist is not a journalist, that is a surprise to me. If you write professionally for a magazine you are a journalist. You may not do it all the time but its a simple matter of definition.
Besides which this is slightly off my point which is that I would expected more from someone in a working environment. Even if Time Out reply that these are her own views and not representative of the magazine. I still think she could have made that clearer.
I don't see any danger of us falling out over this. I think you overestimate the importance I would attach to your comments.

Fair enough. I only intended to say that as so many foolish squabbles seem to start for less, I wasn't trying to have a go, or any such.
The reason I describe Sarah Kent as a big beast - and perhaps my reason for making the distinction - is that of power relationship.
She is an established artist, writer, etc. and if TO got fed up with her tomorrow, her name would guarantee her employment somewhere else.
That is quite different from some humble scribe who, if sacked by the Murdoch group, might find it difficult to find employment elsewhere for a while.
Some individuals (Richard Littlejohn, for one: maybe Brian Sewell) are employed on the basis of their obnoxiousness.
Regards,
M
Just a short note to add that Sarah Kent is a very well regarded art critic and art writer in Artyfartyland ( a world I have close ties with because of my education and my background). I find her response not at all surprising. Most art critics and curators are the driest people I know. Dry, anorgasmic people with power and not one single idea thathey can claim as their own. Total intelectual and aesthetic vampires. They live only through other people's experiences, as seen on their art or writings of more daring individuals. Sarah Kent's response, which sounds like a gut response, is typical: they only approve of what has been approved of by someone else before, someone they consider "superior". The art world is derivative and very hierarchical. They run galleries, museums and art colleges. Oh, do I know them (for my sins!). Funny enough, that woman has seen my performative work -and I only tie up men!
[/quote]
�To want sex with another (...) is not exactly a credential for political radicalism.� (Leo Bersani)
Edited 24 Jun 06, 1:11 PM by Ms_Tytania

24 Jun 06, 2:52 PM
Noidea
VI, 6 yrs To be a journalist requires being published and vague knowledge of law - that's about it.
Why don't you writers, send a feature into Girl about Town, they've done fetish related articles........Don't look at me however, I've done more than my fair share of pro BDSM articles over the last 10 years...
I'm doing scripts these days.
xxxPVC

Manniq wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:

Manniq wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:

demolition_red wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:
I would be happy to; I think the response was appalling.

Me too.
bigoted? fine. To be expected, to some extent. But what got me was the cultural ignorance and unprofessional tone.
Absolutely. If I am sending a letter or response from the agency I work for, I ensure its in line with the ethos of the organisation. The tone alone of her reply would not be acceptable if written on behalf of my agency.
The way she gave such short shrift to the request was so dismissive! It made her sound petulant and arrogant.
The historical and cultural ignorance she displayed was astonishing. The journalists I know check their facts and have enquiring minds.

But she ain't a journo.... she is a self-proclaimed feminist artist.
I would say that if we wanted publicity, she is a gift....because if you prod even lightly, she will come out fighting, quite happy to garner a few headlines for her corner. Basically, she would see articles about this episode as scoring points for HER team: and we would see any publicity as scoring for OUR team.
So a good target to pursue.
Regards,
M

But surely when she is writing for the magazine she is operating as a journalist in that context? Criticism is a branch of journalism.

Um. I don't want to fall out with you on this because its a bit of a picky point. I edit a journal (a tad academic) for a well-known publisher.
Its a bit of a spare time hobby (I get an honorarium and as many free press passes to events as I can manage): I would say that none of the people I commission to write are 'journalists' or even begin to know how to operate in such a way.
Basically, they have their views and they push them.
I agree that if she writes for TO she ought to be as responsible - or not - as a journalist. But the fact remains that although she holds an editorial rank, she is much more akin to a columnist (and as such subject to her own rules of conduct).
Regards,
M

www.alexcobra.co.uk

24 Jun 06, 5:18 PM
Ms_Tytania
UK(E), 4 yrs

Manniq wrote:

Ms_Tytania wrote:

Manniq wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:
<snip>
A columnist is not a journalist, that is a surprise to me. If you write professionally for a magazine you are a journalist. You may not do it all the time but its a simple matter of definition.
Besides which this is slightly off my point which is that I would expected more from someone in a working environment. Even if Time Out reply that these are her own views and not representative of the magazine. I still think she could have made that clearer.
I don't see any danger of us falling out over this. I think you overestimate the importance I would attach to your comments.

Fair enough. I only intended to say that as so many foolish squabbles seem to start for less, I wasn't trying to have a go, or any such.
The reason I describe Sarah Kent as a big beast - and perhaps my reason for making the distinction - is that of power relationship.
She is an established artist, writer, etc. and if TO got fed up with her tomorrow, her name would guarantee her employment somewhere else.
That is quite different from some humble scribe who, if sacked by the Murdoch group, might find it difficult to find employment elsewhere for a while.
Some individuals (Richard Littlejohn, for one: maybe Brian Sewell) are employed on the basis of their obnoxiousness.
Regards,
M
Just a short note to add that Sarah Kent is a very well regarded art critic and art writer in Artyfartyland ( a world I have close ties with because of my education and my background). I find her response not at all surprising. Most art critics and curators are the driest people I know. Dry, anorgasmic people with power and not one single idea thathey can claim as their own. Total intelectual and aesthetic vampires. They live only through other people's experiences, as seen on their art or writings of more daring individuals. Sarah Kent's response, which sounds like a gut response, is typical: they only approve of what has been approved of by someone else before, someone they consider "superior". The art world is derivative and very hierarchical. They run galleries, museums and art colleges. Oh, do I know them (for my sins!). Funny enough, that woman has seen my performative work -and I only tie up men!

You ARE Brian Sewell in drag...and I claim my fiver!
Regards,
M
[/quote]
Jesus, Brian Sewell, nooooo! He's even worse, if that's humanly possible (or perhaps just as bad as SK, but for different reasons)
I demand you buy me a drink with that fiver, as an apology
�To want sex with another (...) is not exactly a credential for political radicalism.� (Leo Bersani)
Edited 24 Jun 06, 5:20 PM by Ms_Tytania

24 Jun 06, 6:20 PM
Tovarich
UK, 4 yrs
Y!

Ms_Tytania wrote:

Manniq wrote:

TheMarquise wrote:
<snip>
A columnist is not a journalist, that is a surprise to me. If you write professionally for a magazine you are a journalist. You may not do it all the time but its a simple matter of definition.
Besides which this is slightly off my point which is that I would expected more from someone in a working environment. Even if Time Out reply that these are her own views and not representative of the magazine. I still think she could have made that clearer.
I don't see any danger of us falling out over this. I think you overestimate the importance I would attach to your comments.

Fair enough. I only intended to say that as so many foolish squabbles seem to start for less, I wasn't trying to have a go, or any such.
The reason I describe Sarah Kent as a big beast - and perhaps my reason for making the distinction - is that of power relationship.
She is an established artist, writer, etc. and if TO got fed up with her tomorrow, her name would guarantee her employment somewhere else.
That is quite different from some humble scribe who, if sacked by the Murdoch group, might find it difficult to find employment elsewhere for a while.
Some individuals (Richard Littlejohn, for one: maybe Brian Sewell) are employed on the basis of their obnoxiousness.
Regards,
M
Just a short note to add that Sarah Kent is a very well regarded art critic and art writer in Artyfartyland ( a world I have close ties with because of my education and my background). I find her response not at all surprising. Most art critics and curators are the driest people I know. Dry, anorgasmic people with power and not one single idea thathey can claim as their own. Total intelectual and aesthetic vampires. They live only through other people's experiences, as seen on their art or writings of more daring individuals. Sarah Kent's response, which sounds like a gut response, is typical: they only approve of what has been approved of by someone else before, someone they consider "superior". The art world is derivative and very hierarchical. They run galleries, museums and art colleges. Oh, do I know them (for my sins!). Funny enough, that woman has seen my performative work -and I only tie up men!

Is there a named fetish for being made to feel thick? If so, I wish I had it, because there's times reading the three above just leaves me feeling sooooo stoopid it beggars belief
(Not knocking any of you brainiacs there, btw )
He's just a ball of attitude and opinion........
Edited 24 Jun 06, 6:21 PM by Tovarich

24 Jun 06, 6:45 PM
RachelP
4 yrs I think that the respondent to the OP's letter just made a prize prat of herself; everything from her factual incorrectness to her closed mind speaks volumes about her suitability for a career in journalism.
Edited 24 Jun 06, 6:46 PM by RachelP

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent