Re: [syndicate] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: MOUCHETTE - Franklin Furnace'sfirst "Future of the Present 2003" Artist

eryk,
thanks for your comments.
Personally (now I've stopped asking you questions) mouchette is
something that I have never settled on how I really feel but I can give
you one female perspective in as much as I have.

In one respect (much as the hype gets me down but then all hype does)
I think the site is pretty amazing and a example of how net.art can be
well done but on a viewer level I don't like being there. It disturbs and
upsets me, which is what I trust is at least part of the aim. I have to try
and switch to 'viewer' mode and turn the sound off (why is it sound gets
into you so much more than visuals?) Differently, for me its not the
sexual connotations that disturbs me I've always just looked flippantly
at that as a an artists who has been hanging round the dali museum too
long, or a sarah lucas wannabe (though why anyone would want to be
sarah lucas is beyond me) - the sexuality part does seem 'real' enough
to disturb me as being titillating. Its the suicide kit and the message
boards that do my head in. I'm looking at it, my 'viewer mode' slipping
off, thinking 'fuck are these comment for real??', how many are people
joining in the 'game' and how many are real emails sent to the site
thinking shes real. How do you take responsibility or respond to that?
What if some are real, how can I even be reading it as art??? I realise
then that I'm the one who suddenly cannot tell the difference between
what pretend and what not. That in itself disturbs the hell out of me and
possibly why (even though I dislike being there) it is a pretty radical
piece of net.art. How many other side mess up your head or blur this
distinction between role play, imagination, danger, despair and reality
like that??

Obviously I am not in the 'in crowd' but I would still like to place a
serious bet that there is a woman as the artist somewhere. There is
something about 'playing' with danger and blackness within it that
seems more female than male to me. I may be wrong through, I often
am.
jess.

>
>
> Hi Jess. Don't worry about offending me.
>
> I've been thinking about the nudes myself now that I am in a re-evaluation
> process of my old work. There are two possible answers to the ascii nudes.
>
> 1. The work was made when I had less of an awareness of what I was doing.
> 2. The work was made with a deliberate unwillingness to exploit. The model
> was already presenting these images, the model consented, the model approved
> the pieces before they were put on line.
>
> But answer number two does not affect how the work is percieved, which is at
> the heart of your question- how much control do we have over how others
> percieve our own work? This much can be said: I don't have any control over
> how the work is percieved, but I can take responsibility for making sure it
> doesn't say things I don't want them to say. Does it say "Women are objects
> to be stared at?" I don't know. I think the works are beautiful to a degree-
> and I don't think there is anything exploitative about them per se, some of
> them aren't even nude. They are more or less about the idea of simultaneous
> distance and intimacy.
>
> The difference is whether art manipulates what I concieve of as worse
> elements of our own human nature. I think Mouchettes piece is based on a
> manipulation of the viewers sexuality and base power constructs.
>
> I'll take your questions in context from here on in:
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Jess Loseby" <[email protected]>
>
> > 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 .
>
> To my connections to "in-crowd" knowledge of what goes on in the net.art
> world, Mouchette was created by a 43 year old man. However, the site does
> not make any reference to that, nor does any literature on the artists work.
> In this regard, I think the question you pose doesn't have much of an effect
> on reality because no one knows how the work is to be presented- ie, if it
> is the work of a woman or a man, we don't know, so the point is moot. Also,
> the site is not really an "investigation" of female pre-adolescent sexuality
> so much as the invitation to participate in it. It is not a healthy
> evaluation of sexuality, it is not a loving one or a fair one. It is
> entirely exploitative and I believe is deliberately from the viewpoint of
> the "male gaze." It is a vulgar male sexual fantasy version of
> pre-adolescent sexuality.
>
>
> > It could be argued that you dehumanize the nude
> > through ascii thus making the fact (and the reasons why) the 'cam girls'
> > exist acceptable.
>
> The work really isn't about cam girls per se, its about intimacy and
> distance. The Cam Girl phenomenon is more or less a metaphor for this. I
> know this seems like slippery language- the fact is, like I said, I am
> re-evaluating this piece, and a lot of my other work. For the most part I am
> happy and comfortable with all of them. I can say that a lot of people I
> know are moderate to extreme feminists and they have no problems with the
> work, this, however, doesn't mean I don't, or that there is "no problem"
> with the work.
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
> Here's my base level response to that question: If someone sees nudity as
> sexual exploitation, that is thier filter- the model is nude- that is not an
> invitation to fuck or rape or use that models nudity for sexual
> gratification It's prelapsarian innocence vs nudity after we ate the apple.
> The girl in the ascii nudes is happy about them, happy about her sexuality,
> comfortable about her body, is choosing to do what she does. A 13 year old
> fictional character created by what I assume to be a 43 year old man [and
> given mouchettes history, I seriously doubt we will ever know for sure] to
> play out male sexual fantasies is the ultimate level of control and abuse of
> sexual development and sexuality, period- done with a fictional character in
> order to have total control, whereas the ascii nudes were completely in the
> control of the model.
>
> Ascii is more or less a metaphor for the processing of the world- a metaphor
> for the base level of zero "processing" that everything operates on, which
> we project upon with our own interpretations as a result of that processing-
> as I said before, the ascii work is never actually an image, it is an
> abstract text which we draw an image out of, it is the reality we cast our
> images on. Mouchette's website strikes me as the inverse- they are
> "exciting" in the same way that watching "Americas Most Wanted" re-enact a
> rape scene is "exciting"- and everyone says its appalling, but its still on
> the air, eh?
>
> Again, how is my work percieved? I don't know- but I am, at this point,
> willing to take responsibility for them. I do not intend my work to
> manipulate the base level of the human [and particularly male] sexual
> impulse as a justification for the works claims to "art". I can not control
> the filters people have on when they look at this work; and as Ivan says,
> neither can Mouchette. But I see mouchette as an intentional manipulation of
> those filters- the deliberate winking at the worst elements of human nature,
> with a nod that "it's okay, it's art". I see my own work as aiming towards
> the removal of those filters. I don't know if I am good enough or capable
> enough to do that- or if it is possible to do that, but that is the aim I
> have with my work. A lot of artists don't share my aims- that is not the
> problem. Some people don't share my sense of humor, either- that's not a
> problem. The problem is when the work is intentionally harmful and
> manipulative, especially on the level that mouchette.org is. The problem is
> that Mouchette.org is nothing short of a rape joke.
>
>
> -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

o
/^ rssgallery.com
][