—– Original Message —–
From: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>
> 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.
Well then at the very least he is promoting the "agenda" of absentminded
exploitation. This is what I mean by my complaint that the site is
irresponsible. This lack of responsibility is at the root of poor art,
particularly if one is going to push for the right to confuse displaced
sexual aggression with "art." The artists you name below- Nabokov,
Caravaggio, Lewis Carrol- are far less about the accidental predatory nature
of sexual exploitation. Nabokov is an exception, but I've mentioned this in
comparison to Mouchette before. In "Lolita", (which I will admit I have
never read completely; but in what I have read-) Hubert isn't someone we're
supposed to relate to or want to emulate, really. Mouchette invites you to
take part in the virtual violation of a young girl first hand.
>
> 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?
I don't see how that applies here. The distinction is that gay teachers can
talk about sex "to" students, but they are not talking about sex "with"
students. If a gay teacher talked about how he wanted to taste his male [or
female] students tongue, he ought to fired. No one would raise a "free
speech" issue. [and neither am I, in this case- I just want to focus people
on the observation that a work which is by all means mediocre in execution
and aesthetics is somehow "succesful" in the male dominated art world- and,
surprise! It deals with sexualization and exploitation! Coincidence?] The
site is obviously not an actual crime against a minor- I don't know why I
need to clarify that. One does not need to actually commit a crime against a
minor to be held responsible for glorifying it. The vision of the world put
out by an artist are the responsibility of the artist. It's a portrayal of
one- and in this case, it advocates that world, if by accident or
deliberately I can't say. But it is an irresponsible thing to portray, and
an irresponsible thing to advocate- responsibility would mean working to
insure that the work doesn't advocate sexual exploitation and the
rationalization of violent sexual acts.
I am not saying artists should portray a world of sun beams and rainbows
with unicorns flying through them, either. Some artists take you to very
dark places with the intention of relief, exhaustion- to make a point about
what could be or the darker side of what is. I mention David Lynch below.
It's the in-joke sentiment of mouchette's work that brings to mind an orgy,
where men are invited, wink wink, to "get some of that." Ivan is right- I,
ultimately, bring some of my own processing to the work, but I don't think
anyone can deny that this is designed to bring out that a specific type of
thought process. Ultimately I am choosing to see this in the work- but I
feel like it would be a stretch to be fully present to this work and deny
that it is there.
>
>
> > The confusion between art and sexual energy is
> > something that I believe should be kept in check,
>
> Our perceptions thoroughly part company here.
I meant particularly violent/predatory/exploitative sexual energy. If an
artist wants to portray actual sexuality etc; that's fine- I've made nudes,
and they're very much about intimacy, sexuality, distance, etc. But if art
is something we choose to transmit, then we have to be careful about what we
are transmitting with it. The transmission that young girls [or grown women]
are sexual objects for you to use is not a responsible transmission. People
will obviously hem and haw about how art is outside the responsibility of
the artist- how "artists should be free to do and show whatever they want."
They obviously are- but you can eliminate the idea of "artist" from that
line. Then you'd see what a world we would live in if people took freedom
and didn't take responsibility for the outcome of how they use it. I
disagree with anyone who chooses that world- but people obviously do.
Anything to avoid responsibility.
I think this is called greed, I also think it is called sociopathic
behavior, and right now I don't care enough to try and "stop" them [nor
could I]. But it is worth noting how Mouchette shows up in many places, and
to apply some thinking as to why.
>
>
> > 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?
In some cases, sexualization of children _isn't_ art, but I never meant to
imply that it is a binary, ie, there is a child and there is sexual energy
and therefore it is not art. I would never suggest anything as stupid as a
binary. I'm also not sure if my specific criticisms of this piece should be
abstracted to encompass "all pieces," I think thats a sure fire way to
obfuscate. But none of these artists that I am familiar with [Donatello,
Caravaggio, Carroll or Nabokov] are making interactive highly sexualized
work that glorifies the abuse of a child. Mouchette does, and what people
respond to in his "art" is the "power" that comes with rationalized
sexualization and the exploitation of youth- they do not respond to the
works "artistic merit". Even looking at it on the widely held superficial
level of what people expect art to mean: there are no "ideas or concepts"
expressed, there is no communication of anything, outside of the "joy" of
abuse, power, sex, and "rationalized" ie, "acceptable" dehumanization- "It's
okay because it's art" is a fundamental fallacy of the art "world". However
you choose to define it, "Art" is not a tool to excuse exploitative
behavior. If a work of art goes into that, it should be very careful about
how it comes _out_ of that.
David Lynch's, "Blue Velvet," for example; this work features the
dehumanization and objectification of Isabella Rosselini's charector, but it
does so "responsibly" within the narrative- it comes out on the other end
and works as a harrowing exploration of that world as well as an exploration
of its condemnation- and it explores the capacity for that within ourselves;
it touches on the idea of what every human is capable of, it brings things
out from within us and makes us sick for having them at all. [Clockwork
Orange is also succesful because of this- but I don't know if that is why so
many people "love" that film.] Mouchette does not make his work come out at
all. There is no condemnation inherent in the work. There is no exploration
of our role in what is happening besides the open ended wink wink of a
conspired gang bang on videotape. But it's okay, because it's "art" ?
A lot of people would love to say that art does not have to be responsible.
Of course, that would be a great world to live in, if no one was ever
responsible for thier own actions. Except that you would also never have
freedom. If an "artist" claimed openly that his work was designed to shift
responsibility from himself to others for his own destructive and harmful
actions, and to convince everyone else that they can, too, well, the
criticism would be different, don't you think? When an artist pretends he is
not responsible he is doing the same thing.
-eryk
Re: [syndicate] RE: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: MOUCHETTE - Franklin Furnace'sfirst "Future of the Present 2003" Artist
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Eyrk,
Mouchette your own work?
marc
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>
> > 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.
>
>
> Well then at the very least he is promoting the "agenda" of absentminded
> exploitation. This is what I mean by my complaint that the site is
> irresponsible. This lack of responsibility is at the root of poor art,
> particularly if one is going to push for the right to confuse displaced
> sexual aggression with "art." The artists you name below- Nabokov,
> Caravaggio, Lewis Carrol- are far less about the accidental predatory
nature
> of sexual exploitation. Nabokov is an exception, but I've mentioned this
in
> comparison to Mouchette before. In "Lolita", (which I will admit I have
> never read completely; but in what I have read-) Hubert isn't someone
we're
> supposed to relate to or want to emulate, really. Mouchette invites you to
> take part in the virtual violation of a young girl first hand.
>
>
>
> >
> > 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?
>
>
> I don't see how that applies here. The distinction is that gay teachers
can
> talk about sex "to" students, but they are not talking about sex "with"
> students. If a gay teacher talked about how he wanted to taste his male
[or
> female] students tongue, he ought to fired. No one would raise a "free
> speech" issue. [and neither am I, in this case- I just want to focus
people
> on the observation that a work which is by all means mediocre in execution
> and aesthetics is somehow "succesful" in the male dominated art world-
and,
> surprise! It deals with sexualization and exploitation! Coincidence?] The
> site is obviously not an actual crime against a minor- I don't know why I
> need to clarify that. One does not need to actually commit a crime against
a
> minor to be held responsible for glorifying it. The vision of the world
put
> out by an artist are the responsibility of the artist. It's a portrayal of
> one- and in this case, it advocates that world, if by accident or
> deliberately I can't say. But it is an irresponsible thing to portray, and
> an irresponsible thing to advocate- responsibility would mean working to
> insure that the work doesn't advocate sexual exploitation and the
> rationalization of violent sexual acts.
>
> I am not saying artists should portray a world of sun beams and rainbows
> with unicorns flying through them, either. Some artists take you to very
> dark places with the intention of relief, exhaustion- to make a point
about
> what could be or the darker side of what is. I mention David Lynch below.
> It's the in-joke sentiment of mouchette's work that brings to mind an
orgy,
> where men are invited, wink wink, to "get some of that." Ivan is right- I,
> ultimately, bring some of my own processing to the work, but I don't think
> anyone can deny that this is designed to bring out that a specific type of
> thought process. Ultimately I am choosing to see this in the work- but I
> feel like it would be a stretch to be fully present to this work and deny
> that it is there.
>
> >
> >
> > > The confusion between art and sexual energy is
> > > something that I believe should be kept in check,
> >
> > Our perceptions thoroughly part company here.
>
> I meant particularly violent/predatory/exploitative sexual energy. If an
> artist wants to portray actual sexuality etc; that's fine- I've made
nudes,
> and they're very much about intimacy, sexuality, distance, etc. But if art
> is something we choose to transmit, then we have to be careful about what
we
> are transmitting with it. The transmission that young girls [or grown
women]
> are sexual objects for you to use is not a responsible transmission.
People
> will obviously hem and haw about how art is outside the responsibility of
> the artist- how "artists should be free to do and show whatever they
want."
> They obviously are- but you can eliminate the idea of "artist" from that
> line. Then you'd see what a world we would live in if people took freedom
> and didn't take responsibility for the outcome of how they use it. I
> disagree with anyone who chooses that world- but people obviously do.
> Anything to avoid responsibility.
>
> I think this is called greed, I also think it is called sociopathic
> behavior, and right now I don't care enough to try and "stop" them [nor
> could I]. But it is worth noting how Mouchette shows up in many places,
and
> to apply some thinking as to why.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > 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?
>
>
> In some cases, sexualization of children _isn't_ art, but I never meant to
> imply that it is a binary, ie, there is a child and there is sexual energy
> and therefore it is not art. I would never suggest anything as stupid as a
> binary. I'm also not sure if my specific criticisms of this piece should
be
> abstracted to encompass "all pieces," I think thats a sure fire way to
> obfuscate. But none of these artists that I am familiar with [Donatello,
> Caravaggio, Carroll or Nabokov] are making interactive highly sexualized
> work that glorifies the abuse of a child. Mouchette does, and what people
> respond to in his "art" is the "power" that comes with rationalized
> sexualization and the exploitation of youth- they do not respond to the
> works "artistic merit". Even looking at it on the widely held superficial
> level of what people expect art to mean: there are no "ideas or concepts"
> expressed, there is no communication of anything, outside of the "joy" of
> abuse, power, sex, and "rationalized" ie, "acceptable" dehumanization-
"It's
> okay because it's art" is a fundamental fallacy of the art "world".
However
> you choose to define it, "Art" is not a tool to excuse exploitative
> behavior. If a work of art goes into that, it should be very careful about
> how it comes _out_ of that.
>
> David Lynch's, "Blue Velvet," for example; this work features the
> dehumanization and objectification of Isabella Rosselini's charector, but
it
> does so "responsibly" within the narrative- it comes out on the other end
> and works as a harrowing exploration of that world as well as an
exploration
> of its condemnation- and it explores the capacity for that within
ourselves;
> it touches on the idea of what every human is capable of, it brings things
> out from within us and makes us sick for having them at all. [Clockwork
> Orange is also succesful because of this- but I don't know if that is why
so
> many people "love" that film.] Mouchette does not make his work come out
at
> all. There is no condemnation inherent in the work. There is no
exploration
> of our role in what is happening besides the open ended wink wink of a
> conspired gang bang on videotape. But it's okay, because it's "art" ?
>
> A lot of people would love to say that art does not have to be
responsible.
> Of course, that would be a great world to live in, if no one was ever
> responsible for thier own actions. Except that you would also never have
> freedom. If an "artist" claimed openly that his work was designed to shift
> responsibility from himself to others for his own destructive and harmful
> actions, and to convince everyone else that they can, too, well, the
> criticism would be different, don't you think? When an artist pretends he
is
> not responsible he is doing the same thing.
>
>
> -eryk
>
>
>
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>