WATCH OUT

I was angry and disappointed when I saw your Faces to Watch cover last Sunday. The faces you’ve deemed important enough to “watch” are all males of various age ranges, and one female, a child of 13 (but oh-so-adultish, with her Lolita pink lips)! No 13-year-old boys?

Talk about Woody Allen! Obviously you don’t respect the (valid) opinion of your excellent journalist Kristine McKenna nor the scores of important and interesting non-actress women working in the arts. The cover was a blatant example of how women with years and substance are shunned by the media and then by society, which follows the media in their rulings of who is worthy to watch. I won’t be watching you!

I have canceled my subscription.

REBECCA SEGAL

Studio City

*

Absolutely neither Robert Wilson and Philip Glass nor the Verve will ever cross my “cultural radar screen.”

ANDRIUS V. VARNAS

Redondo Beach

*

I was perplexed to see the one (and only) artist chosen “to watch” in 1998, Charlie Ray, being selected as successor to the 1997 title holder, Cindy Sherman.

Don’t get me wrong, I am a great admirer of Sherman and Ray. They both have illustrious and deservedly successful careers. In fact, if a survey was compiled of contemporary art academics, curators, writers, etc. from around the world, both Sherman and Ray would certainly be included in a Top 10 list of “most influential” living artists.

Given that we are living in one of the art production capitals of the world, Los Angeles, one would only have to “look in their own backyard” to see to see the vast amount of emerging talent. By choosing artists like Charlie Ray and Cindy Sherman as those “to watch,” which is the equivalent of selecting Stanley Kubrick and Martin Scorsese as filmmakers to watch, you create a bit of an oxymoron. Have we not been watching them already?

MIKE MEHRING

Venice

*

Of the 35 Faces to Watch, “all chosen for their potential to change entertainment and the arts,” Calendar did not find it important to select even one representative of the Latino community in Los Angeles--a city populated by an over-40%-Latino constituency.

Is this yet another sign of Pete Wilson’s anti-affirmative action movement, which seems to some to be an excuse for eradicating the recognition of Latinos in the state of California?

STEVEN LOZA

Val Verde