—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
> Eryk,
> I have no idea why really you want to make this 'analysis'.
Because I choose to be annoyed by what I see as cheap sexual exploitation of
women and children. Men I would mind, too, but they never seem to be in that
situation, have you noticed?
> You seem to accept that the site is the work of an artist, thus not, I
> presume, a real, naive, 13 yr old girl.
> Yet, you say, then, that we are 'directly encouraged to participate in
> virtual interactions against a young girl'.
> If it is the work of an artist, then there is no young girl, just maybe
our
> notion of one.
Mouchette.org is "succesful" because it "sexually titillates" its audience
with the illusion of sexual assault of a minor. There is none of the self
reflection or condemnation of the practive inherent in the work. Then, the
victim kills herself on her 13th birthday; a tidy clean up for the mess made
from the dehumanization inherent in this type of sexual assault.
>
> You say you do not want to censor any artists.
> Yet, you say that you think the primary message of the piece is 'putting
out
> the idea that children are capable of seducing adults'.
> If you do not want to censor, what is your point?
I do not believe that we should confuse the "violation of boundaries" with
art- art should violate boundaries, but it should do so for purposes far
beyond that of misplaced sexual aggression.
>
> You say
> > http://www.mouchette.org/touch/plush.html is a piece in which we are
> > encouraged to look through a plethora of childrens toys to find "a pink
open
> > mouth" [which resembles a vagina] and a "striped penis." I am wondering
what
> > we are supposed to interpret the message of this piece to be?
> yet there is no striped penis, there is no open mouth. There are just
> childrens toys and words. You wonder how we are to interpret this, but you
> have just told us. You interpret them as penis and vagina, as you are
> instructed by the text.
The text instructs me to think of childrens toys [and children] as sexual
objects.
>
> I think the piece is clever, strange, funny, disturbing and above all,
> knowing. I hardly think the world of paedophiles needs this sort of art to
> promote its agenda.
The work is a cultural incarnation of an irresponsible idea. Much of
mouchettes "success" is based less on the "art" itself and more on the
feeling of sexual titillation that the work promotes. The confusion between
art and sexual energy is something that I believe should be kept in check,
particularly when the work promotes the idea of exploitative sexual
practices. I do not believe that anyone who sees the work of Mouchette will
rape a child as a result, or even that it will "make" anyone sexualize
children. I just want to draw attention to this idea: Mouchette is succesful
because it sexualizes children, and people confuse this with "art". It is a
different thing altogether.
-e.
Re: [syndicate] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: MOUCHETTE - Franklin Furnace'sfirst "Future of the Present 2003" Artist
-
Type: discussion
Comments
> The work is a cultural incarnation of an irresponsible idea. Much of
> mouchettes "success" is based less on the "art" itself and more on the
> feeling of sexual titillation …
I agree with Eryk, but only on this point. Mouchette appeals to folks in
some rather creepy ways. It uses child sexuality as a tool. That much is
fairly obvious.
> … that the work promotes.
There is a difference, however, between "using" and "promoting" child
sexuality. "Promotion" implies a deliberate agenda. I believe that the
makers of Mouchette don't posess a whole lot of deliberateness. They are
exploiting sexuality, not pressing any sort of agenda.
Furthermore, how many popular culture censorship advocates constantly
miss the distinction between portrayal and promotion? How many gay
teachers or soldiers have lost their jobs due to other peoples'
inability to make a distinction between practice and advocacy?
> The confusion between art and sexual energy is
> something that I believe should be kept in check,
Our perceptions thoroughly part company here.
> I just want to draw attention to this idea: Mouchette
> is succesful because it sexualizes children, and people
> confuse this with "art". It is a different thing altogether.
Holy moly, are you saying that the sexualization of children is
automatically "not art"? No Donatello? Balthus? Caravaggio? Schiele?
Lewis Carroll? Nabokov? Henry Darger?
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
[resent, apologies for any double posting due to sporadic email
problems while changing ISP]
Hi Eryk,
This could seem like an attack and I want to say please don't take it as
such as its not. I am genuinely interested in on your response to
mouchette - and I want to find out more your distinction of sexual
exploitation.
How do you place your comments in light of your ascii nudes being
drawn from the 'cam girls' culture. Is it because of mouchettes
everlasting child status whereas the 'cam girls' are adult women and
thus consenting? Does it make a difference to the piece if the creator is
male of female? For example, if the creator of mouchette is female
could it be argued by some that mouchette is an valid investigation of
female pre-adolescent sexuality (and the male gaze) whereas your own
male gaze of the ascii nudes is questionable as you are (at its base
level) a male gazing . It could be argued that you dehumanize the nude
through ascii thus making the fact (and the reasons why) the 'cam girls'
exist acceptable. If the cam girls are 'acceptable' as art why the
distinction? Is it because the female adult body falls under aesthetic
where as the idea of a sexualized 13 year old falls under abject? These
aren't necessarily my own views of either your work or mouchette, I am
just wondering if there is a line and if so where….
jess.
> Because I choose to be annoyed by what I see as cheap sexual exploitation of
> women and children. Men I would mind, too, but they never seem to be in that
> situation, have you noticed?
>
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
>
>> Eryk,
>> I have no idea why really you want to make this 'analysis'.
>
>
> Because I choose to be annoyed by what I see as cheap sexual exploitation of
> women and children. Men I would mind, too, but they never seem to be in that
> situation, have you noticed?
>
Do you analyse porn sites, child porn sites, male porn sites? If not, why
not?
>
>
> Mouchette.org is "succesful" because it "sexually titillates" its audience
> with the illusion of sexual assault of a minor. There is none of the self
> reflection or condemnation of the practive inherent in the work. Then, the
> victim kills herself on her 13th birthday; a tidy clean up for the mess made
> from the dehumanization inherent in this type of sexual assault.
>
I dont see that Mouchette kills herself to tidy up the mess. There is talk
of suicide, but there is a lot on the site, including some talk of her
mother and father encouraging her. Whatever its about, it doesnt lend itself
to your easy/straightforward reading, surely?
>> I think the piece is clever, strange, funny, disturbing and above all,
>> knowing. I hardly think the world of paedophiles needs this sort of art to
>> promote its agenda.
>
>
> The work is a cultural incarnation of an irresponsible idea. Much of
> mouchettes "success" is based less on the "art" itself and more on the
> feeling of sexual titillation that the work promotes. The confusion between
> art and sexual energy is something that I believe should be kept in check,
Sorry, I dont see why this should be kept in check. Sounds like a great
idea: confusion between art and sexual energy. I think a lot of artists have
aimed their work into this space. Surely sexual energy makes the world go
round, art included?
> particularly when the work promotes the idea of exploitative sexual
> practices.
Well, its your view that the Mouchett piece promotes the idea of
exploitative sexual practice. I would say that it plays successfully with
some notions of flirting, but safely within a self aware art context. I just
think that anyone from the art side will recognise where it sits and anyone
who does not approach it from an art perspective would see it as crazy, but
not exactly sexy.
>I do not believe that anyone who sees the work of Mouchette will
> rape a child as a result, or even that it will "make" anyone sexualize
> children. I just want to draw attention to this idea: Mouchette is succesful
> because it sexualizes children, and people confuse this with "art". It is a
> different thing altogether.
No, art is a broad church. Nothing is outside the remit of art. You may not
wish this to be true, but saying it does not make it so.
Cheers,
Ivan