Quote:
So aside from perhaps inferring that the writer is advocating the polling of more postal customers in the post office, I guess I didn't understand the rest of the article.
I thought the point was pretty obvious: in the author's experience the CSAC is becoming (if not already) "unbalanced" in its approach to selecting stamp subjects. What is so hard to understand about:
Quote:
Do I object to the marketers positioning pop culture on stamps?
Heck no! I well understand and support the notion that there has to be a creative and artsy balance in stamp subjects.
I don't object to the Janis Joplin-style subjects, but I fear a creeping momentum to give back-seat treatment to traditional stamps that educate by telling the rest of the American story.
There is certainly room for beautiful art, pop culture and timely subjects, as well as the traditional subjects and those expected by the philatelic community.
To my disappointment, I watched many eyes roll when some educational, patriotic or historic subject was presented to the committee. Themes from the world of science and technology, for example, were met with sighs and "ughs."
Isn't that pretty clear?
The "inference" about polling to find out what customers want is not really the point of the article so much as it is a criticism of the fact that when such does
not take place what we are left with is a committee that is imposing
its tastes and preferences rather than the seeking to satisfy the tastes and preferences of a more diverse clientele. The author make it quite clear he has no objections to servicing those favor the more "pop culture" types of subjects. But what about more traditional subjects ("educational, patriotic, or historical") that tell "the rest of the American story?"
Seems to me that if I'm right, I've just made the author's point using his own words.
Basil
Posted 10/29/2014 5:45 pm
