Mouchette - special event this Sunday at Postmasters

The furtherfield crew would of claimed the site…
but alas we are too late!

We arrive at Sunday 5pm, after terrorist checks & all the other sniff
habituals that security enjoys, we will not be able to get out of JFK till
later.

marc

http://www.furtherfield.org



> special event:
>
> MOUCHETTE
> Sunday, April 20, 3-5 pm
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> Franklin Furnace Archive, Inc. and Postmasters Gallery are pleased to
> announce their collaboration in support of the latest form of the
> longstanding and highly successful Net Art project, Mouchette.org
> http://www.mouchette.org. Mouchette is a recipient of a Franklin
> Furnace FUTURE OF THE PRESENT 2003 residency.
>
> Contact:
> Franklin Furnace Archive, Inc.
> 45 John Street #611
> New York, NY 10038
> 212-766-2606
> [email protected]
>
> Location:
> Postmasters Gallery
> 459 West 19th Street
> New York, NY 10011
> 212-727-3323
>
> Date:
> April 20, 2003, 3 - 5 PM
>
> "Mouchette" is the Net-based alter-ego of an anonymous artist whose
> actual identity is a closely guarded secret. Mouchette is a very
> young girl (not yet 13) who created her own website in October of
> 1996. Since then she has constantly expanded her website as she has
> taken part in numerous exhibitions and events in the artworld.
> Mouchette holds a very important presence within the NetArt community
> and has lectured and appeared extensively, and anonymously, in online
> and offline events and publications.
>
> The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
> debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
> been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
> place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
> for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> against young girls.'
>
> On Easter Sunday, April 20, the seven-year-old Mouchette project
> changes forever. The artist who created and maintains the website
> mouchette.org has decided that they are ready to meet their public,
> reveal their identity, and talk about their motives and intentions.
> This remarkable event will take place in an inflatable live
> environment especially constructed with New York artist Anakin Koenig
> (whose site can be found at http://www.akairways.com) at Postmasters
> Gallery, 459 West 19th Street (at 10th Avenue) New York, NY 10011,
> between 3 - 5 PM.
>
> Even more remarkably, this event at Postmasters Gallery will provide
> an opportunity for Mouchette to give the website away. Not only will
> visitors meet the present artist behind the persona, they might also
> get to be the next one! Anyone thinking of taking the site over and
> becoming the new Mouchette should attend, as the current Mouchette
> wants to meet you in person.
>
> The entire event will be streamed live, online from Postmasters
> Gallery via the NetArt Initiative's jihui salon at
> http://agent.netart-init.org. Martha Wilson, Founding Director of
> Franklin Furnace, and Robert Ayers, British AHRB research resident at
> Franklin Furnace this spring will interview gallery goers.
> jihui is a self-regulated digital salon that invites all interested
> people to send ideas for discussion/performance/etc. jihui is where
> your voice is heard and your vision shared. jihui is sponsored by
> Digital Design Department and Center for New Design @ Parsons School
> of Design jihui is organized by agent.netart
> http://agent.netart-init.org, a joint public program by NETART
> INITIATIVE and INTELLIGENT AGENT
>
> THE FUTURE OF THE PRESENT is Franklin Furnace's artist residency
> program, founded in 1998 when Franklin Furnace transformed itself
> from a physical to a virtual entity. Franklin Furnace offers artists
> an honorarium and a residency to create "live art on the Internet"
> facilitated by Franklin Furnace, for a 2-4 month duration at a
> physical or online venue: http://www.franklinfurnace.org
>
> POSTMASTERS, established in 1984, is a pioneering gallery firmly
> committed to presentation and support of new media art:
> http://www.postmastersart.com
>
> THE FUTURE OF THE PRESENT 2003 is made possible by grants from Jerome
> Foundation, and The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.
> Mouchette's participation is further supported by Funds for Visual
> Arts, Netherlands (Fonds BKVB), and the Mondriaan Foundation
> Netherlands.
>
>
> Note to editors: Mouchette will be available for interview. Please
> email [email protected] for an appointment.
> + 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
>

any ideas who Mouchette is?
—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
To: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
Postmasters


> The furtherfield crew would of claimed the site…
> but alas we are too late!
>
> We arrive at Sunday 5pm, after terrorist checks & all the other sniff
> habituals that security enjoys, we will not be able to get out of JFK till
> later.
>
> marc
>
> http://www.furtherfield.org
>
>
>
> > special event:
> >
> > MOUCHETTE
> > Sunday, April 20, 3-5 pm
> >
> >
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> >
> > Franklin Furnace Archive, Inc. and Postmasters Gallery are pleased to
> > announce their collaboration in support of the latest form of the
> > longstanding and highly successful Net Art project, Mouchette.org
> > http://www.mouchette.org. Mouchette is a recipient of a Franklin
> > Furnace FUTURE OF THE PRESENT 2003 residency.
> >
> > Contact:
> > Franklin Furnace Archive, Inc.
> > 45 John Street #611
> > New York, NY 10038
> > 212-766-2606
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Location:
> > Postmasters Gallery
> > 459 West 19th Street
> > New York, NY 10011
> > 212-727-3323
> >
> > Date:
> > April 20, 2003, 3 - 5 PM
> >
> > "Mouchette" is the Net-based alter-ego of an anonymous artist whose
> > actual identity is a closely guarded secret. Mouchette is a very
> > young girl (not yet 13) who created her own website in October of
> > 1996. Since then she has constantly expanded her website as she has
> > taken part in numerous exhibitions and events in the artworld.
> > Mouchette holds a very important presence within the NetArt community
> > and has lectured and appeared extensively, and anonymously, in online
> > and offline events and publications.
> >
> > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
> > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
> > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
> > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
> > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > against young girls.'
> >
> > On Easter Sunday, April 20, the seven-year-old Mouchette project
> > changes forever. The artist who created and maintains the website
> > mouchette.org has decided that they are ready to meet their public,
> > reveal their identity, and talk about their motives and intentions.
> > This remarkable event will take place in an inflatable live
> > environment especially constructed with New York artist Anakin Koenig
> > (whose site can be found at http://www.akairways.com) at Postmasters
> > Gallery, 459 West 19th Street (at 10th Avenue) New York, NY 10011,
> > between 3 - 5 PM.
> >
> > Even more remarkably, this event at Postmasters Gallery will provide
> > an opportunity for Mouchette to give the website away. Not only will
> > visitors meet the present artist behind the persona, they might also
> > get to be the next one! Anyone thinking of taking the site over and
> > becoming the new Mouchette should attend, as the current Mouchette
> > wants to meet you in person.
> >
> > The entire event will be streamed live, online from Postmasters
> > Gallery via the NetArt Initiative's jihui salon at
> > http://agent.netart-init.org. Martha Wilson, Founding Director of
> > Franklin Furnace, and Robert Ayers, British AHRB research resident at
> > Franklin Furnace this spring will interview gallery goers.
> > jihui is a self-regulated digital salon that invites all interested
> > people to send ideas for discussion/performance/etc. jihui is where
> > your voice is heard and your vision shared. jihui is sponsored by
> > Digital Design Department and Center for New Design @ Parsons School
> > of Design jihui is organized by agent.netart
> > http://agent.netart-init.org, a joint public program by NETART
> > INITIATIVE and INTELLIGENT AGENT
> >
> > THE FUTURE OF THE PRESENT is Franklin Furnace's artist residency
> > program, founded in 1998 when Franklin Furnace transformed itself
> > from a physical to a virtual entity. Franklin Furnace offers artists
> > an honorarium and a residency to create "live art on the Internet"
> > facilitated by Franklin Furnace, for a 2-4 month duration at a
> > physical or online venue: http://www.franklinfurnace.org
> >
> > POSTMASTERS, established in 1984, is a pioneering gallery firmly
> > committed to presentation and support of new media art:
> > http://www.postmastersart.com
> >
> > THE FUTURE OF THE PRESENT 2003 is made possible by grants from Jerome
> > Foundation, and The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.
> > Mouchette's participation is further supported by Funds for Visual
> > Arts, Netherlands (Fonds BKVB), and the Mondriaan Foundation
> > Netherlands.
> >
> >
> > Note to editors: Mouchette will be available for interview. Please
> > email [email protected] for an appointment.
> > + 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
> >
>
>
>
> + 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
>

Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists everywhere.
Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
themselves?

-e.




—– Original Message —–
From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>

> The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
> debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
> been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
> place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
> for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> against young girls.'
>

dude,

Can you dis MTAA on rhizome so that we can use yer stuff in a press
release. It's gold man, GOLD! ;-)

i don't know the *law* regarding this but i hope no one needs
permission to quote things you've written in a public forum.

On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

>
> Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
> everywhere.
> Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
> themselves?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
>
>> The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
>> debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
>> been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
>> place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
>> identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
>> for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
>> a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
>> against young girls.'
>>
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

"Heated debate" = "Someone said it sucked"

I'll trash you guys but it'll cost you. I have given away enough for free as
it is! It's ridiculous when an artist has to "cash in" on thier "controversy
value." Like how desperate is your career when you include "Some people
don't like us and have given explanations as to why" at the end of your
press releases? I mean doesn't Jerry Springer "provoke heated debate around
contemporary political and sexual issues" too? Or is it "strategy" designed
to try to siphon off negative criticism? Either way, it's seriously
pathetic, passive aggressive bullshit. There should be art education classes
that teach the public how to see through this crap. Or maybe people already
do and all my whining is for nihil.

I know there's no law against quoting people, but I thought it was a matter
of professional courtesy….

Also, why am I the only feminist on Rhizome?

-e.





—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
Postmasters


> dude,
>
> Can you dis MTAA on rhizome so that we can use yer stuff in a press
> release. It's gold man, GOLD! ;-)
>
> i don't know the *law* regarding this but i hope no one needs
> permission to quote things you've written in a public forum.
>
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> > Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
> > everywhere.
> > Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
> > themselves?
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> >
> >> The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
> >> debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
> >> been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
> >> place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> >> identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
> >> for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> >> a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> >> against young girls.'
> >>
> –
> <t.whid>
> www.mteww.com
> </t.whid>
>
> + 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
>

Now that just made my day. LOL


joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]


Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:

>
> Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists everywhere.
> Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
> themselves?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
>
> > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
> > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
> > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
> > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
> > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > against young girls.'
> >
>
> + 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

If people feel like they should associate themselves with me in order to
promote thier own work I guess I should be flattered. It's actually pretty
interesting to be thought of as so important that my opinions on peoples
work have got to be "reckoned with" in press releases and project
announcements.

This is how sleaze works, I guess. If I'm in the swamp, I can't avoid
leeches.

-e.








—– Original Message —–
From: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) " <[email protected]>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
Postmasters


> Now that just made my day. LOL
>
>
> joseph & donna
> www.electrichands.com
> joseph franklyn mcelroy
> corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
>
> go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> call me 646 279 2309
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> [email protected]
>
>
> Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
>
> >
> > Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
everywhere.
> > Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
> > themselves?
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> >
> > > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
> > > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
> > > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
> > > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
> > > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> > > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > > against young girls.'
> > >
> >
> > + 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
>

> If people feel like they should associate themselves with me in order to
> promote thier own work I guess I should be flattered. It's actually pretty
> interesting to be thought of as so important that my opinions on peoples
> work have got to be "reckoned with" in press releases and project
> announcements.
>
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke
heated
> > > > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once
again
> > > > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has
taken
> > > > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > > > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist
responsible
> > > > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> > > > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > > > against young girls.'

I don't think we argued much. Eryk made a post that seemed pretty strange
and off centre to me. While he was obviously trying to generate some debate,
I don't think it really worked.
I think the timing of Eryk's out of the blue contribution on Rhizome is
curious, being swiftly followed by the use of the responses in this press
release.
Again, Eryk is outraged by the use of his words:
' Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists everywhere.
Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
themselves? '
I think Eryk doth protest too much. I think he is closer to Mouchette than
he has yet let on. If he is not Mouchette, then he is close to the throne.
Maybe all will be revealed on Sunday, but I wouldn't count on it.
While some carefully constructed game is being played out, it is clear that
neither Mouchette nor Rhizome really matter in the broader scheme of things.
Cheers,
Ivan

Hi Eyrk,

Your critz are like gold dust - the more you crit people, the more they get
known.

marc


>
> Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists everywhere.
> Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
> themselves?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
>
> > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
> > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
> > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
> > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
> > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > against young girls.'
> >
>
> + 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
>
>

Hi Eryk,

Regarding courtesy - have you returned those quotes I lent you, before you
were born implanted by my descendents for safe keeping, so when it was time
(like now) I could receive them. Of course, you jcan ust send all the kool
quotes & statements privately or their value will plummet immediately.

marc


>
>
> "Heated debate" = "Someone said it sucked"
>
> I'll trash you guys but it'll cost you. I have given away enough for free
as
> it is! It's ridiculous when an artist has to "cash in" on thier
"controversy
> value." Like how desperate is your career when you include "Some people
> don't like us and have given explanations as to why" at the end of your
> press releases? I mean doesn't Jerry Springer "provoke heated debate
around
> contemporary political and sexual issues" too? Or is it "strategy"
designed
> to try to siphon off negative criticism? Either way, it's seriously
> pathetic, passive aggressive bullshit. There should be art education
classes
> that teach the public how to see through this crap. Or maybe people
already
> do and all my whining is for nihil.
>
> I know there's no law against quoting people, but I thought it was a
matter
> of professional courtesy….
>
> Also, why am I the only feminist on Rhizome?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
> Postmasters
>
>
> > dude,
> >
> > Can you dis MTAA on rhizome so that we can use yer stuff in a press
> > release. It's gold man, GOLD! ;-)
> >
> > i don't know the *law* regarding this but i hope no one needs
> > permission to quote things you've written in a public forum.
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
> > > everywhere.
> > > Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to
promote
> > > themselves?
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >> The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke heated
> > >> debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once again
> > >> been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has taken
> > >> place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > >> identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist responsible
> > >> for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have called
> > >> a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > >> against young girls.'
> > >>
> > –
> > <t.whid>
> > www.mteww.com
> > </t.whid>
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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
>

yo,

agreed. it would have been much more polite to have asked you or at
least notified you before using it.

>
>I know there's no law against quoting people, but I thought it was a matter
>of professional courtesy….
>
>
>-e.

>> i don't know the *law* regarding this but i hope no one needs
>> permission to quote things you've written in a public forum.
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

Ivan, you should relax, you sound paranoid. Let me give you some reasons why
I am not Mouchette. [I should note that this would not be the first time I
was accused of being someone else- I have been accused of being everyone
from Netochka Nezvanova to Frederic Madre, and now, Mouchette.]

1. I was born on 5/4/79. Mouchette was created in 1996. This would mean that
at the time I created Mouchette.org, I was still in high school. Though I do
believe Mouchette could be created by a high school student, so I guess this
point doesn't work really well. But anyway, my first website was created in
1997, and I did not have a domain registered [one38.org] until the end of
that year. The aesthetics I was primarily interested in at that time were
trashcoding and browser deconstruction.

2. A comparison of artistic styles and ideologies that I have supported
publicly since 1997 and those employed by Mouchette.org reveals a sharp
contrast between the two. I am- at many peoples great annoyance- concerned
with social responsibility, something which Mouchette.org is at extreme odds
with.

3. The first commentary I had made about Mouchette.org is from 1998, and is
archived in the Rhizome Artbase. In "Absolut Net.Art," I made a parody of
absolut ads based on the styles of several different internet artists. One
of them was mouchette, where a small mouchette figure stood next to the
bottle saying aloud, "I Wonder If I Am My Only Victim."

4. Your perception of the "timing" of the Mouchette essay is innaccurate. I
originally wrote the Mouchette essay to Thingist and Syndicate,
"unprovoked", after rhizome began charging for access. I decided to post it
here after his show was announced.

5. The intent of that post was not to generate debate. The fact of the
matter is, Mouchette is a web site about sexuality and revolves around a 13
year old girl. There is no debating this. This was also pointed out by
Josephine Bosma- that the charector of Mouchette is a disgusting male
fantasy. There is no denying this unless you want to put your head in the
sand. What is debateable is why so many people put thier head in the sand
when it comes to Mouchette- and I assert that it is nothing greater than
inertia, the resume snowball effect. Whether one thinks this is acceptable
or not is debateable. The point of my post was to point out that many people
feel that it is, and to address the issue of why art which is so
aesthetically pedestrian is considered relevant- and I say it is simply
because it gives the male-dominated art world a tingle in their power
centers, because they get to commit a virtual sexual assault against a young
girl, and this is confused with "art." The post made its point and was
actually "discussed", something which is a bit of a coup for Rhizome.
However, if Ivan Pope doesn't agree with my sentiments I guess they're all
for naught.

6. The presence of curse words shouldn't be confused with "outrage." The
sleaziness that careerist artists will sink to in order to be considered
more "controversial" and "relevant" is actually pretty hilarious. I have to
wonder who wrote the press release in question, if Mouchette did it himself
or if the Postmasters Gallery people did. I would think the Postmasters
people could care less about my opinion. As you say Ivan, it is clear that
neither rhizome or mouchette- nor myself- really matter in the grand scheme
of things.

-e.



—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
Postmasters


> > If people feel like they should associate themselves with me in order to
> > promote thier own work I guess I should be flattered. It's actually
pretty
> > interesting to be thought of as so important that my opinions on peoples
> > work have got to be "reckoned with" in press releases and project
> > announcements.
> >
> > > > —– Original Message —–
> > > > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke
> heated
> > > > > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once
> again
> > > > > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has
> taken
> > > > > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > > > > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist
> responsible
> > > > > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have
called
> > > > > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > > > > against young girls.'
>
> I don't think we argued much. Eryk made a post that seemed pretty strange
> and off centre to me. While he was obviously trying to generate some
debate,
> I don't think it really worked.
> I think the timing of Eryk's out of the blue contribution on Rhizome is
> curious, being swiftly followed by the use of the responses in this press
> release.
> Again, Eryk is outraged by the use of his words:
> ' Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
everywhere.
> Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
> themselves? '
> I think Eryk doth protest too much. I think he is closer to Mouchette than
> he has yet let on. If he is not Mouchette, then he is close to the throne.
> Maybe all will be revealed on Sunday, but I wouldn't count on it.
> While some carefully constructed game is being played out, it is clear
that
> neither Mouchette nor Rhizome really matter in the broader scheme of
things.
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
>

> Ivan, you should relax, you sound paranoid. Let me give you some reasons
why
> I am not Mouchette.

> 5. The intent of that post was not to generate debate. The fact of the
> matter is, Mouchette is a web site about sexuality and revolves around a
13
> year old girl. There is no debating this.

I'm sure we could debate it till the cows come home. I mean, even if we
accept that the site is 'about' 'sexuality' and a '13 year old' 'girl', we
can still debate it.

>This was also pointed out by
> Josephine Bosma- that the charector of Mouchette is a disgusting male
> fantasy. There is no denying this …

You are just to dogmatic. What is not to be denied? That the character of
Mouchette is 'a disgusting male fantasy'. Is it the fantasy that is
disgusting? Or the content of the fantasy? Or the fact that it is male? On
what basis is it male? Why are things not to be denied?
I DENY IT.

I'd also like to point out that even if the Mouchette site was about a 13
year old girl when it was launched, it must now be about a 20 year old
woman.

>The post made its point and was
> actually "discussed", something which is a bit of a coup for Rhizome.
> However, if Ivan Pope doesn't agree with my sentiments I guess they're all
> for naught.

Well, we're all sentient beings. If you give us almost anything that is
totally preposterous we will jump in to discuss it, for a nanosecond at
least.
Anyway, it's not just me that doesn't agree with you sentiments. I don't
think anyone on Rhizome agreed with you, or thought you even had made any
sort of argument. That said, I'm sure we all respect your right to strike
such a position.
Sentiment is a strange and dangerous word.

Cheers,
Ivan

> 6. The presence of curse words shouldn't be confused with "outrage." The
> sleaziness that careerist artists will sink to in order to be considered
> more "controversial" and "relevant" is actually pretty hilarious. I have
to
> wonder who wrote the press release in question, if Mouchette did it
himself
> or if the Postmasters Gallery people did. I would think the Postmasters
> people could care less about my opinion. As you say Ivan, it is clear that
> neither rhizome or mouchette- nor myself- really matter in the grand
scheme
> of things.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
> Postmasters
>
>
> > > If people feel like they should associate themselves with me in order
to
> > > promote thier own work I guess I should be flattered. It's actually
> pretty
> > > interesting to be thought of as so important that my opinions on
peoples
> > > work have got to be "reckoned with" in press releases and project
> > > announcements.
> > >
> > > > > —– Original Message —–
> > > > > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke
> > heated
> > > > > > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once
> > again
> > > > > > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has
> > taken
> > > > > > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on
the
> > > > > > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist
> > responsible
> > > > > > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have
> called
> > > > > > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > > > > > against young girls.'
> >
> > I don't think we argued much. Eryk made a post that seemed pretty
strange
> > and off centre to me. While he was obviously trying to generate some
> debate,
> > I don't think it really worked.
> > I think the timing of Eryk's out of the blue contribution on Rhizome is
> > curious, being swiftly followed by the use of the responses in this
press
> > release.
> > Again, Eryk is outraged by the use of his words:
> > ' Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
> everywhere.
> > Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to promote
> > themselves? '
> > I think Eryk doth protest too much. I think he is closer to Mouchette
than
> > he has yet let on. If he is not Mouchette, then he is close to the
throne.
> > Maybe all will be revealed on Sunday, but I wouldn't count on it.
> > While some carefully constructed game is being played out, it is clear
> that
> > neither Mouchette nor Rhizome really matter in the broader scheme of
> things.
> > Cheers,
> > Ivan
> >
> >
>

> I'm sure we could debate it till the cows come home. I mean, even if we
> accept that the site is 'about' 'sexuality' and a '13 year old' 'girl', we
> can still debate it.

You can debate any fact for as long as you like, this is the basis of almost
all philosophies and the subject of all political discussions, it is how
people get caught up in "causes and crusades." Nor is this standpoint one of
"objectivity." "Debate" is just an argument of subjectivities. Debate does
not change what is fact and what is fiction, no matter how post modern you
want to be about it. There IS such a thing as truth. In this case:
Mouchette.org is about a 13 year old girl who invites people to play sexual
games with her and talks about committing suicide. That's the truth. The
interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some people
feel that art has a right to do whatever art wants to do in order to "shock
people," I don't, and that is my "opinion."


> You are just to dogmatic. What is not to be denied? That the character of
> Mouchette is 'a disgusting male fantasy'. Is it the fantasy that is
> disgusting? Or the content of the fantasy? Or the fact that it is male? On
> what basis is it male? Why are things not to be denied?
> I DENY IT.

I'm not surprised, denial is very convenient- It seems to be one of the
greatest human survival mechanisms ever invented. All of these questions are
irrelevant to what has been said. Do you want me to start preaching about
why fantasizing about 13 year old girls is an irresponsible thing to
encourage? Do you want me to titillate you further with more stories of
girls who have been subject to sexual abuse whose suffering was even more
prolonged as a result of this invented culture of "invitational
molestation"? Or would all these things be irrelevant since there is "no
such thing as truth?" So clearly there is no such thing as this suffering,
no such thing as a social acceptance of child molestation, no, not at all,
we're all very good and proper human beings who always "do the right thing."
Or we can just say "oh well, kids get raped, why not have fun with it?"
because all Ivan Popes believe in an innate subjectivity. Oh, but I'm
appealing to emotion now, aren't I? And apparently emotions should be
completely avoided because fascists had "emotions" too….


> I'd also like to point out that even if the Mouchette site was about a 13
> year old girl when it was launched, it must now be about a 20 year old
> woman.

The site is about a fictional character who is perpetually 13, perpetually
inviting sexual encounters, and perpetually contemplating suicide. Perhaps
you should familiarize yourself with the work before talking about how
"wrong" I am about it and trying to assert how "right" you are.


> Well, we're all sentient beings. If you give us almost anything that is
> totally preposterous we will jump in to discuss it, for a nanosecond at
> least.

"We" who? Is there more than one Ivan Pope? Are you a collective? I guess if
you are a collective I should double-check my entire hypothesis since the
larger the number of people who agree, the more right they are. All right,
so now I see that my view that Mouchette is about a 13 year old girl and has
a strong sexual tone is "preposterous." Good work guys!


> Anyway, it's not just me that doesn't agree with you sentiments. I don't
> think anyone on Rhizome agreed with you, or thought you even had made any
> sort of argument.

It is good that the elections were held which made you rhizome spokesperson,
unfortunately I seemed to have missed election day. Anyway, this point is
irrelevant and I don't care enough to research it. I don't even recall that
my intention was to start an "argument." I simply stated the truth. My
statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation. The site is
about a 13 year old girl who invites you to think of her sexually. The
ramifications of this position are something which can be discussed- maybe
you think that its fine to have sex with 13 year old girls. And since denial
is the most pervasive of all human defense mechanisms, I don't subscribe to
your belief that "the more people that believe it, the more true it is."
Reality doesn't care about democracy.


> That said, I'm sure we all respect your right to strike
> such a position.

How endearing of all Ivan Popes to speak again on behalf of the rhizome
community. Let me let you in something, I am not writing for your sake, or
for the sake of "you all." As if it matters who "respects my rights" to
"take a position" on this list. What would you do if you didn't "respect"
that "right"? Nothing, you could do nothing. [Except argue who is "right"
and who is "wrong" or "deny" everything and then pretend that it is
"constructive."]


> Sentiment is a strange and dangerous word.

Yes perhaps I used it incorrectly, though "The emotional import of a passage
as distinct from its form of expression" comes very close to what I am
talking about in mouchette.

-e.

He's good at retort…

marc ;-)

>
> > I'm sure we could debate it till the cows come home. I mean, even if we
> > accept that the site is 'about' 'sexuality' and a '13 year old' 'girl',
we
> > can still debate it.
>
> You can debate any fact for as long as you like, this is the basis of
almost
> all philosophies and the subject of all political discussions, it is how
> people get caught up in "causes and crusades." Nor is this standpoint one
of
> "objectivity." "Debate" is just an argument of subjectivities. Debate does
> not change what is fact and what is fiction, no matter how post modern you
> want to be about it. There IS such a thing as truth. In this case:
> Mouchette.org is about a 13 year old girl who invites people to play
sexual
> games with her and talks about committing suicide. That's the truth. The
> interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some
people
> feel that art has a right to do whatever art wants to do in order to
"shock
> people," I don't, and that is my "opinion."
>
>
> > You are just to dogmatic. What is not to be denied? That the character
of
> > Mouchette is 'a disgusting male fantasy'. Is it the fantasy that is
> > disgusting? Or the content of the fantasy? Or the fact that it is male?
On
> > what basis is it male? Why are things not to be denied?
> > I DENY IT.
>
> I'm not surprised, denial is very convenient- It seems to be one of the
> greatest human survival mechanisms ever invented. All of these questions
are
> irrelevant to what has been said. Do you want me to start preaching about
> why fantasizing about 13 year old girls is an irresponsible thing to
> encourage? Do you want me to titillate you further with more stories of
> girls who have been subject to sexual abuse whose suffering was even more
> prolonged as a result of this invented culture of "invitational
> molestation"? Or would all these things be irrelevant since there is "no
> such thing as truth?" So clearly there is no such thing as this suffering,

> no such thing as a social acceptance of child molestation, no, not at all,
> we're all very good and proper human beings who always "do the right
thing."
> Or we can just say "oh well, kids get raped, why not have fun with it?"
> because all Ivan Popes believe in an innate subjectivity. Oh, but I'm
> appealing to emotion now, aren't I? And apparently emotions should be
> completely avoided because fascists had "emotions" too….
>
>
> > I'd also like to point out that even if the Mouchette site was about a
13
> > year old girl when it was launched, it must now be about a 20 year old
> > woman.
>
> The site is about a fictional character who is perpetually 13, perpetually
> inviting sexual encounters, and perpetually contemplating suicide. Perhaps
> you should familiarize yourself with the work before talking about how
> "wrong" I am about it and trying to assert how "right" you are.
>
>
> > Well, we're all sentient beings. If you give us almost anything that is
> > totally preposterous we will jump in to discuss it, for a nanosecond at
> > least.
>
> "We" who? Is there more than one Ivan Pope? Are you a collective? I guess
if
> you are a collective I should double-check my entire hypothesis since the
> larger the number of people who agree, the more right they are. All right,
> so now I see that my view that Mouchette is about a 13 year old girl and
has
> a strong sexual tone is "preposterous." Good work guys!
>
>
> > Anyway, it's not just me that doesn't agree with you sentiments. I don't
> > think anyone on Rhizome agreed with you, or thought you even had made
any
> > sort of argument.
>
> It is good that the elections were held which made you rhizome
spokesperson,
> unfortunately I seemed to have missed election day. Anyway, this point is
> irrelevant and I don't care enough to research it. I don't even recall
that
> my intention was to start an "argument." I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation. The site is
> about a 13 year old girl who invites you to think of her sexually. The
> ramifications of this position are something which can be discussed- maybe
> you think that its fine to have sex with 13 year old girls. And since
denial
> is the most pervasive of all human defense mechanisms, I don't subscribe
to
> your belief that "the more people that believe it, the more true it is."
> Reality doesn't care about democracy.
>
>
> > That said, I'm sure we all respect your right to strike
> > such a position.
>
> How endearing of all Ivan Popes to speak again on behalf of the rhizome
> community. Let me let you in something, I am not writing for your sake, or
> for the sake of "you all." As if it matters who "respects my rights" to
> "take a position" on this list. What would you do if you didn't "respect"
> that "right"? Nothing, you could do nothing. [Except argue who is "right"
> and who is "wrong" or "deny" everything and then pretend that it is
> "constructive."]
>
>
> > Sentiment is a strange and dangerous word.
>
> Yes perhaps I used it incorrectly, though "The emotional import of a
passage
> as distinct from its form of expression" comes very close to what I am
> talking about in mouchette.
>
> -e.
>
> + 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
>
>

Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
>There IS such a thing as truth. In this case:
>Mouchette.org is about a 13 year old girl who invites people to play sexual
>games with her and talks about committing suicide. That's the truth. The
> interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some people

You can go back a long time and find plenty of art about sexual exploitation,
murder, etc … you claim your ASCII nudes were not about exploiting naked
women. Art is more documentary than responsible.

> I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.

Who draws the line and defines the Truth Eryk? You don't use your opinion in a
discussion, you use your opinion like a club.

Makes for good quotes though…

joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]





Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:

>
> > I'm sure we could debate it till the cows come home. I mean, even if we
> > accept that the site is 'about' 'sexuality' and a '13 year old' 'girl', we
> > can still debate it.
>
> You can debate any fact for as long as you like, this is the basis of almost
> all philosophies and the subject of all political discussions, it is how
> people get caught up in "causes and crusades." Nor is this standpoint one of
> "objectivity." "Debate" is just an argument of subjectivities. Debate does
> not change what is fact and what is fiction, no matter how post modern you
> want to be about it. There IS such a thing as truth. In this case:
> Mouchette.org is about a 13 year old girl who invites people to play sexual
> games with her and talks about committing suicide. That's the truth. The
> interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some people
> feel that art has a right to do whatever art wants to do in order to "shock
> people," I don't, and that is my "opinion."
>
>
> > You are just to dogmatic. What is not to be denied? That the character of
> > Mouchette is 'a disgusting male fantasy'. Is it the fantasy that is
> > disgusting? Or the content of the fantasy? Or the fact that it is male? On
> > what basis is it male? Why are things not to be denied?
> > I DENY IT.
>
> I'm not surprised, denial is very convenient- It seems to be one of the
> greatest human survival mechanisms ever invented. All of these questions are
> irrelevant to what has been said. Do you want me to start preaching about
> why fantasizing about 13 year old girls is an irresponsible thing to
> encourage? Do you want me to titillate you further with more stories of
> girls who have been subject to sexual abuse whose suffering was even more
> prolonged as a result of this invented culture of "invitational
> molestation"? Or would all these things be irrelevant since there is "no
> such thing as truth?" So clearly there is no such thing as this suffering,
> no such thing as a social acceptance of child molestation, no, not at all,
> we're all very good and proper human beings who always "do the right thing."
> Or we can just say "oh well, kids get raped, why not have fun with it?"
> because all Ivan Popes believe in an innate subjectivity. Oh, but I'm
> appealing to emotion now, aren't I? And apparently emotions should be
> completely avoided because fascists had "emotions" too….
>
>
> > I'd also like to point out that even if the Mouchette site was about a 13
> > year old girl when it was launched, it must now be about a 20 year old
> > woman.
>
> The site is about a fictional character who is perpetually 13, perpetually
> inviting sexual encounters, and perpetually contemplating suicide. Perhaps
> you should familiarize yourself with the work before talking about how
> "wrong" I am about it and trying to assert how "right" you are.
>
>
> > Well, we're all sentient beings. If you give us almost anything that is
> > totally preposterous we will jump in to discuss it, for a nanosecond at
> > least.
>
> "We" who? Is there more than one Ivan Pope? Are you a collective? I guess if
> you are a collective I should double-check my entire hypothesis since the
> larger the number of people who agree, the more right they are. All right,
> so now I see that my view that Mouchette is about a 13 year old girl and has
> a strong sexual tone is "preposterous." Good work guys!
>
>
> > Anyway, it's not just me that doesn't agree with you sentiments. I don't
> > think anyone on Rhizome agreed with you, or thought you even had made any
> > sort of argument.
>
> It is good that the elections were held which made you rhizome spokesperson,
> unfortunately I seemed to have missed election day. Anyway, this point is
> irrelevant and I don't care enough to research it. I don't even recall that
> my intention was to start an "argument." I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation. The site is
> about a 13 year old girl who invites you to think of her sexually. The
> ramifications of this position are something which can be discussed- maybe
> you think that its fine to have sex with 13 year old girls. And since denial
> is the most pervasive of all human defense mechanisms, I don't subscribe to
> your belief that "the more people that believe it, the more true it is."
> Reality doesn't care about democracy.
>
>
> > That said, I'm sure we all respect your right to strike
> > such a position.
>
> How endearing of all Ivan Popes to speak again on behalf of the rhizome
> community. Let me let you in something, I am not writing for your sake, or
> for the sake of "you all." As if it matters who "respects my rights" to
> "take a position" on this list. What would you do if you didn't "respect"
> that "right"? Nothing, you could do nothing. [Except argue who is "right"
> and who is "wrong" or "deny" everything and then pretend that it is
> "constructive."]
>
>
> > Sentiment is a strange and dangerous word.
>
> Yes perhaps I used it incorrectly, though "The emotional import of a passage
> as distinct from its form of expression" comes very close to what I am
> talking about in mouchette.
>
> -e.
>
> + 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

> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
>
> The site is about a fictional character who is perpetually 13, perpetually
> inviting sexual encounters, and perpetually contemplating suicide. Perhaps
> you should familiarize yourself with the work before talking about how
> "wrong" I am about it and trying to assert how "right" you are.

See Eryk, this is where I had problems with your initial posting. I went to
look at the site. And found that you had picked out parts of the site with
blatant sexual overtones. But when I just visited via the front page, I
couldnt see that the site was so bad. If you took it at face value, you
might think this is one strange and smart 13 yr old. If you take it with an
art hat on (I know, I know, but we are used to reading work, surely) then it
walks an interesting line between various subjects. But I just cant see how
it is 'perpetually inviting sexual encounters, and perpetually contemplating
suicide perpetually'. And even if it is, does it have no redeeming value? Is
it not smart or witty or disturbing or spooky. Does it not make you think
about why or what or how?

As for me asserting how right I am, god, you do make it hard to have a
discussion.


> now I see that my view that Mouchette is about a 13 year old girl and has
> a strong sexual tone is "preposterous." Good work guys!

If your view was just that the site was 'about a 13 year old girl and has a
strong sexual tone' then we would be in total agreement. But your view is
that the site is bad, abusive, inexcusable, misogynistic etc and has no
redeeming value in an art sense.

>> Anyway, it's not just me that doesn't agree with you sentiments. I don't
>> think anyone on Rhizome agreed with you, or thought you even had made any
>> sort of argument.
>
> I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.

Yes, yes. Of course. 24 years old and Master of the Universe. Now go have a
lie down in a darkened room.

Cheers,
Ivan

> You can go back a long time and find plenty of art about sexual
exploitation,

Oh that's right. So I guess it's totally acceptable then. Because "most
people" agree that it's acceptable and because "most people" do it and have
been for a "long time", I guess it is just totally 100% okay. By this logic,
we "should" all be Chinese Nationals, since they have the "most people" on
the entire planet. Or would you say that we should instead all be the
Ashurai people of Mesopotamia, because they're possibly the first
civilization and therefore "go back the longest time?" Or would you prefer
if we went so far back as to the "natural" instinctual wandering ape
practices which predate civilization? You're the techno-nomad after all,
right?


> murder, etc … you claim your ASCII nudes were not about exploiting
naked
> women. Art is more documentary than responsible.

My ascii nudes don't exploit "naked women"- if I claimed they "did," they
still wouldn't. Also, if they were going to exploit anyone it would be
"women". Nude women are not a special category and do not carry any
different contexts than women with clothes on do, except for the baggage of
the male gaze or unless they are deliberately exploited in order to suggest
sexual arousal for the benefit of said male gaze. My pieces are not "erotic"
pieces, and even erotic pieces are not by the way "exploitative," it depends
on the context of the pieces themselves. You are speaking from a programmed
puritanical pov that makes it so that women cannot feed thier children
breast milk in public. If men could take responsibility for this we'd have
actual "liberation" of women "from men" (which is not the liberation of
women, which isn't mens to give them). The sight of a human body is not an
invitation to fuck it, and while the idea that specifically observing "the
aesthetics of the human form" does lend some credence to the idea of
objectification, my work by no way implies that the totality of a woman is
her sexual ability or desire. There are various vectors that one can
manipulate in order to evoke sexual arousal and most of these are contextual
and psychological- my pieces share one of these, nudity. For examples of
this, look at how pornography tries to sell itself, or your "rub Linda"
piece. We have already gone through this entire argument and I don't need to
defend myself against your deflective allegations- if anyone had brought it
up when it came out, you might have some credibility in this argument now,
but bringing up "well your work from last year is exploitative but I just
didn't say anything until just now" doesn't cut it.

Oh and Art is not a documentary, documentaries are documentaries and they
are a form of art. You can "represent reality" but if you call it
"documentary" and base it on some simulation of reality you are only
reinforcing the idea that this simulation we live in is reality itself- it's
not, its a projected duplicate. If you want to represent reality you have to
detatch yourself from the simulation, and you are not doing this if your
work has subjective judgements involved. I'm not saying I can do it, either,
but I am at the very least aware that I can't do it, and my work is about
that. If you want to call subjective art objective, go for it, I won't/can't
"stop" you but I can point out that your work's POV is totally fabricated,
ie, working completely in the field of simulation. Art, media, etc is itself
is simulation, and now you are simulating the simulation of reality. It's
fine and good, and makes for a lot of very interesting art when its made by
people who understand this concept, but you can't photocopy a photocopy and
call it an original unless you mean it is an original copy. And if someone
says that, fine.

You can keep arguing- not that you have even attempted to"argue" against any
of my points, instead, you switch it to a personal attack and then you
personally attack me "back" against your imagined phantoms of attacks on
your "character." You are so obsessed with me being wrong that you forget to
prove yourself right, which is a flip flop from how most people do it but
it's pretty common anyway, and anyway, in both cases it's totally
irrelevant.

For the record, I criticize the hypocrisy present in your public "persona"
and your work. I don't like either of them. Your obsession with proving me
"wrong" [and anyone else who crits your work, as Bethany did recently] is to
be expected because you haven't proven that you have anything intellegent to
say about your own work- which is why you needed to quote me in your article
about the piece in your newsletter. So you resort to defending it on the
basis of "respect". This has nothing to do with "you", though I do have
problems with your domineering personality. But thats seperate from your
work. But you can't believe that. You also think you are running a joke that
I am not "in on," [ie, "pushing the power button"] but I assure you I am
aware of it, and it's a waste of your time.


>
> > I simply stated the truth. My
> > statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.
>
> Who draws the line and defines the Truth Eryk?

No one does, and there is no "line" except for where you acknowledge your
opinion begins. If you are constantly aware of the seperation you can tell
the difference between facts and invented stories- and then deal with each
on thier individual planes. The truth is there regardless of whether you
want to acknowledge it or not, or "draw a line" or not, or be aware of it or
not. If you want to play around in a hypermediated reality and say you are
exposing the "truth" then you're just delusional.


> You don't use your opinion in a
> discussion, you use your opinion like a club.
>

All opinions could be defined as "clubs" when the person who is saying it
only knows how to wield an opinion in such a way. This is the difference
between "opinion and truth" although most people will fight to the death in
order to prove that thier opinion "is" truth and therefore fight tooth and
nail to the "right to thier opinions". I know my opinion is an opinion, I
have stated this numerous times, and yet people still insist on forcing me
into "admitting" that what I am saying is "based on opinion" as if no one
else on this list is writing opinion pieces everytime they crack open thier
email box. My opinions are drawn from a framework of humanity, compassion,
and awareness, even if I am not "friendly" about it. I admit to struggling
with the full awareness of these concepts in my own work, and I take notice
of works that pretend they are working from that framework when they exhibit
blatantly contradictory messages. And it strikes me- with all the political
posturing, all the claims of compassion and humanism on this list, that
maybe someone ought to start holding people up to thier claims of being
such, myself included. If someone is making those claims and staying
intrinsically true to them, there's no reason to worry, because if one is
genuinely interested in such a debate they can take such crits to heart or
with a grain of salt. The people who masquerade under that umbrella without
any internal questioning of what they are doing in regards to that framework
seem to be the only people raising a fuss. If you don't like it, don't.

-e.

—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
>
> See Eryk, this is where I had problems with your initial posting. I went
to
> look at the site. And found that you had picked out parts of the site with
> blatant sexual overtones.

Oh good, you finally looked at the site and gathered some "evidence". I am
glad that you have only waited for three or four emails about the piece in
question before you decided to look at what was being talked about.

Yes, I did this to prove that the site has some blatant sexual overtones to
its content. However, I am still looking at the site as a totality, and
those pieces are within the total context of the site itself.



But when I just visited via the front page, I
> couldnt see that the site was so bad.


Of course, if you only look at the URL, you might think the site was pretty
innocent, too.


> If you took it at face value, you
> might think this is one strange and smart 13 yr old. If you take it with
an
> art hat on (I know, I know, but we are used to reading work, surely) then
it
> walks an interesting line between various subjects. But I just cant see
how
> it is 'perpetually inviting sexual encounters, and perpetually
contemplating
> suicide perpetually'.

Ivan, Jesus Christ. Listen to me. You had said that Mouchette would be 19
years old by now, I said that the charector that the site works with is a 13
year old girl, and that the content of that site is perpetually in the same
situation- a twelve year old girl, actually, who wants to commit suicide on
her thirteenth birthday. And also offers various invitations to sexual
encounters, which I detailed in my original essay and exist within the site.
If you say "But take those individual sections away and it does not look so
bad" then I don't understand the point. If I took ants and mold out of the
muffin that I dropped outside last week it might not look so bad either. Are
you seriously implying that the parts I am concerned with have to be present
in every single html document on the site in order for them to warrant a
concern?


> And even if it is, does it have no redeeming value?

Sure, lots of good clergy men were child molesters, it has nothing to do
with how well they could preach.

> Is it not smart or witty or disturbing or spooky. Does it not make you
think
> about why or what or how?

Why what, Ivan? How what, Ivan? It makes me think about why this 12 year old
girl wants me to taste her tongue, why she wants me to find a striped penis
in her stuffed animals, and why she wants to commit suicide, and why her
parents are encouraging it. Yeah, its "smart and witty" I guess. But why is
it "disturbing" Ivan, and why is that a big plus? Is sensationalism a
redeeming quality?

> If your view was just that the site was 'about a 13 year old girl and has
a
> strong sexual tone' then we would be in total agreement. But your view is
> that the site is bad, abusive, inexcusable, misogynistic etc and has no
> redeeming value in an art sense.

The fact is that the site is about a 13 year old girl and has a strong
sexual tone. My opinion is that this stems from an abusive and mysogynistic
viewpoint that perpetuates the rape myth. I think that is "bad." That I
think it is "bad" has nothing to do with anything. You are the one trying to
convince me to change my mind. I never called for the site to be taken down,
I never called for people to attack his work, I never made any call to
action. Meanwhile, you imply that I am the fascist and you are the one
trying to "convince me" that I am the one who needs to "change" my "opinion"
to be more in line with yours that "everything is okay."

I am aware of the viewpoint that exists which says "everything is okay." I
reject it.


> Yes, yes. Of course. 24 years old and Master of the Universe. Now go have
a
> lie down in a darkened room.

Did I say that I was "Master of the Universe" Ivan? And you say I make it
hard to have a conversation. To clarify, I said the following with regards
to Mouchette.org's sexual component:

> I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.

For some reason you are trying to argue with me that Mouchette does not
sexualize its main 12 year old protagonist, and you made this claim
apparently w/out ever even looking at the piece because you had a problem
with my "tone." The fact is, the site does precisely this. You can interpret
what you want a result of it, and that is interpretation, but the fact is
that the site revolves around the idea that this 12 year old girl is going
to commit suicide on her 13th birthday and also she is placed into a
sexualized context. That this is simply correct is above interpretation.
What you want to draw out of that- is it acceptable or not- is your pov.
And, as I mentioned in the SAME EMAIL which was conveniently not responded
to, is:

"The interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some
people feel that art has a right to do whatever art wants to do in order to
"shock people," I don't, and that is my "opinion."


-e.

Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:

> > You can go back a long time and find plenty of art about sexual
> exploitation,
>
> Oh that's right. So I guess it's totally acceptable then. Because "most

You are putting words in my mouth with an assumption of a pov that I might
have. However, what I am saying is that art exists and has existed that is both
created and observed from various world viewpoints…and I believe that this is
a good thing - the closest we can acheive to an objective view of reality. For
example, I might see a spire and think it a finger pointing to god, another a
phallic symbol, another as an architectural element, etc. It is the
cummulative view that is closest to an objective view. I think it is the
responsibility of the artist to present their view, regardless of its
appropriateness, because this completes the cummulative view best. If I beat up
the artist that presents the phallic view because I think it is obscene, then I
am guilty of suppressing the most objective view possible.

> people" agree that it's acceptable and because "most people" do it and have
> been for a "long time", I guess it is just totally 100% okay. By this logic,
> we "should" all be Chinese Nationals, since they have the "most people" on
> the entire planet. Or would you say that we should instead all be the
> Ashurai people of Mesopotamia, because they're possibly the first
> civilization and therefore "go back the longest time?" Or would you prefer
> if we went so far back as to the "natural" instinctual wandering ape
> practices which predate civilization? You're the techno-nomad after all,
> right?

You are trying to insult me, but I am unconcerned about the number of people
that accept anything. An artist's work should exist because it should.

>
> My ascii nudes don't exploit "naked women"- if I claimed they "did," they
> still wouldn't. Also, if they were going to exploit anyone it would be
> "women". Nude women are not a special category and do not carry any
> different contexts than women with clothes on do, except for the baggage of
> the male gaze or unless they are deliberately exploited in order to suggest
> sexual arousal for the benefit of said male gaze. My pieces are not "erotic"
> pieces, and even erotic pieces are not by the way "exploitative," it depends
> on the context of the pieces themselves. You are speaking from a programmed
> puritanical pov that makes it so that women cannot feed thier children
> breast milk in public. If men could take responsibility for this we'd have
> actual "liberation" of women "from men" (which is not the liberation of
> women, which isn't mens to give them). The sight of a human body is not an
> invitation to fuck it, and while the idea that specifically observing "the
> aesthetics of the human form" does lend some credence to the idea of
> objectification, my work by no way implies that the totality of a woman is
> her sexual ability or desire. There are various vectors that one can
> manipulate in order to evoke sexual arousal and most of these are contextual
> and psychological- my pieces share one of these, nudity. For examples of
> this, look at how pornography tries to sell itself, or your "rub Linda"
> piece. We have already gone through this entire argument and I don't need to
> defend myself against your deflective allegations- if anyone had brought it
> up when it came out, you might have some credibility in this argument now,
> but bringing up "well your work from last year is exploitative but I just
> didn't say anything until just now" doesn't cut it.

I have no opinion about your ascii nudes because I bearly noticed them when
they came out. The point is that you have a view of what they are, and defend
them to the teeth. However, another person can judge them as they see fit, and
even see something that you don't. Because they have this opinion, should not
give them justification for trying to suppress yours. Your ascii nudes have as
much right to exist as their opinion. However, someone could rally numbers of
people to support their opinion and snuff the nudes out of existance. All
opinions are political. Your ferocious defense of opinions leads one to
believe that you are rallying support, thus raising the hackles of those who
fear being suppressed.

>
> Oh and Art is not a documentary, documentaries are documentaries and they
> are a form of art. You can "represent reality" but if you call it
> "documentary" and base it on some simulation of reality you are only
> reinforcing the idea that this simulation we live in is reality itself- it's
> not, its a projected duplicate. If you want to represent reality you have to
> detatch yourself from the simulation, and you are not doing this if your
> work has subjective judgements involved. I'm not saying I can do it, either,
> but I am at the very least aware that I can't do it, and my work is about
> that. If you want to call subjective art objective, go for it, I won't/can't
> "stop" you but I can point out that your work's POV is totally fabricated,
> ie, working completely in the field of simulation. Art, media, etc is itself
> is simulation, and now you are simulating the simulation of reality. It's
> fine and good, and makes for a lot of very interesting art when its made by
> people who understand this concept, but you can't photocopy a photocopy and
> call it an original unless you mean it is an original copy. And if someone
> says that, fine.

I did not say Art is a documentary, I said it is more documentary than
responsible. I am saying that in the sense that an artists view contributes
to a cummulative objective view, it documents reality, and while an artists
view also contributes to the cummulative responsibility of the world, in the
former case artists form a much larger subset of the domain than the latter.

I am not trying to present an objective view. I try to present multiple
subjective views as closer to (but only a subset of) an objective view. Thus
the reason that joseph franklyn mcelroy became joseph & donna and why corporate
performance artist has become a company of artists. Rub Linda was also
consistent with this approach, as I took elements on the web and weaved them
into a subjective american view, and added the photos displayed on Al Jeezeras
site as another subjective view of the world seen transparently through mine.

>
> You can keep arguing- not that you have even attempted to"argue" against any
> of my points, instead, you switch it to a personal attack and then you
> personally attack me "back" against your imagined phantoms of attacks on
> your "character." You are so obsessed with me being wrong that you forget to
> prove yourself right, which is a flip flop from how most people do it but
> it's pretty common anyway, and anyway, in both cases it's totally
> irrelevant.

From my view, you have attacked me with opinions because you personally dislike
me. It is just like a club attack and as such, all is fair. Whatever
frustrates you the most defeats your attack.

>
> For the record, I criticize the hypocrisy present in your public "persona"
> and your work. I don't like either of them. Your obsession with proving me
> "wrong" [and anyone else who crits your work, as Bethany did recently] is to

I did not do so with Blackheart of Marc, thus disproving your assertion. I am
harsh towards people who do a me-too attack without anything to say or someone
who attacks for personal reasons.

> be expected because you haven't proven that you have anything intellegent to
> say about your own work- which is why you needed to quote me in your article
> about the piece in your newsletter. So you resort to defending it on the
> basis of "respect". This has nothing to do with "you", though I do have
> problems with your domineering personality. But thats seperate from your
> work. But you can't believe that. You also think you are running a joke that
> I am not "in on," [ie, "pushing the power button"] but I assure you I am
> aware of it, and it's a waste of your time.
>

When I create software applications, if I have to explain to users how to use
it, I feel that I have failed. The same with an artwork.

> >
> > > I simply stated the truth. My
> > > statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.
> >
> > Who draws the line and defines the Truth Eryk?
>
> No one does, and there is no "line" except for where you acknowledge your
> opinion begins. If you are constantly aware of the seperation you can tell
> the difference between facts and invented stories- and then deal with each
> on thier individual planes. The truth is there regardless of whether you
> want to acknowledge it or not, or "draw a line" or not, or be aware of it or
> not. If you want to play around in a hypermediated reality and say you are
> exposing the "truth" then you're just delusional.

I don't believe any individual can know what is the truth or the facts. You can
assert it, but that does not mean it exists as you assert it.

>
>
> > You don't use your opinion in a
> > discussion, you use your opinion like a club.
> >
>
> All opinions could be defined as "clubs" when the person who is saying it
> only knows how to wield an opinion in such a way. This is the difference
> between "opinion and truth" although most people will fight to the death in
> order to prove that thier opinion "is" truth and therefore fight tooth and
> nail to the "right to thier opinions". I know my opinion is an opinion, I
> have stated this numerous times, and yet people still insist on forcing me
> into "admitting" that what I am saying is "based on opinion" as if no one
> else on this list is writing opinion pieces everytime they crack open thier
> email box. My opinions are drawn from a framework of humanity, compassion,
> and awareness, even if I am not "friendly" about it. I admit to struggling
> with the full awareness of these concepts in my own work, and I take notice
> of works that pretend they are working from that framework when they exhibit
> blatantly contradictory messages. And it strikes me- with all the political
> posturing, all the claims of compassion and humanism on this list, that
> maybe someone ought to start holding people up to thier claims of being
> such, myself included. If someone is making those claims and staying
> intrinsically true to them, there's no reason to worry, because if one is
> genuinely interested in such a debate they can take such crits to heart or
> with a grain of salt. The people who masquerade under that umbrella without
> any internal questioning of what they are doing in regards to that framework
> seem to be the only people raising a fuss. If you don't like it, don't.

My opinion of what I do as an artist is seperate from my personal opinions of
politics. Sometimes I present my opinion in an artwork, and try to present
another view point (or several). However, I don't build work with the idea of
it being compassionate or humanistic.

>


joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

It's ridiculous when an artist has to "cash in" on thier
> "controversy
> value." Like how desperate is your career when you include "Some people
> don't like us and have given explanations as to why" at the end of your
> press releases? I mean doesn't Jerry Springer "provoke heated debate
> around
> contemporary political and sexual issues" too?

mebbe dat wuz de point



Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:

>
>
> "Heated debate" = "Someone said it sucked"
>
> I'll trash you guys but it'll cost you. I have given away enough for
> free as
> it is! It's ridiculous when an artist has to "cash in" on thier
> "controversy
> value." Like how desperate is your career when you include "Some people
> don't like us and have given explanations as to why" at the end of your
> press releases? I mean doesn't Jerry Springer "provoke heated debate
> around
> contemporary political and sexual issues" too? Or is it "strategy"
> designed
> to try to siphon off negative criticism? Either way, it's seriously
> pathetic, passive aggressive bullshit. There should be art education
> classes
> that teach the public how to see through this crap. Or maybe people
> already
> do and all my whining is for nihil.
>
> I know there's no law against quoting people, but I thought it was a
> matter
> of professional courtesy….
>
> Also, why am I the only feminist on Rhizome?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
> Postmasters
>
>
> > dude,
> >
> > Can you dis MTAA on rhizome so that we can use yer stuff in a press
> > release. It's gold man, GOLD! ;-)
> >
> > i don't know the *law* regarding this but i hope no one needs
> > permission to quote things you've written in a public forum.
> >
> > On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
> > > everywhere.
> > > Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to
> promote
> > > themselves?
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >> The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke
> heated
> > >> debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once
> again
> > >> been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has
> taken
> > >> place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > >> identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist
> responsible
> > >> for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have
> called
> > >> a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > >> against young girls.'
> > >>
> > –
> > <t.whid>
> > www.mteww.com
> > </t.whid>
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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
>

mebbe it's mo dan dat–methinks in a way peops like you are being used like
psychological paintbrushes


Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:

>
>
> If people feel like they should associate themselves with me in order
> to
> promote thier own work I guess I should be flattered. It's actually
> pretty
> interesting to be thought of as so important that my opinions on
> peoples
> work have got to be "reckoned with" in press releases and project
> announcements.
>
> This is how sleaze works, I guess. If I'm in the swamp, I can't avoid
> leeches.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) " <[email protected]>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:00 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
> Postmasters
>
>
> > Now that just made my day. LOL
> >
> >
> > joseph & donna
> > www.electrichands.com
> > joseph franklyn mcelroy
> > corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
> >
> > go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> > call me 646 279 2309
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> > Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >
> > >
> > > Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
> everywhere.
> > > Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to
> promote
> > > themselves?
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke
> heated
> > > > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once
> again
> > > > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has
> taken
> > > > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on the
> > > > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist
> responsible
> > > > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have
> called
> > > > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > > > against young girls.'
> > > >
> > >
> > > + 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
> >
>
> + 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
>

—– Original Message —–
From: "Daniel Staskievich" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
Postmasters


> well, you must want the site then.
> —– Original Message —–
> From: <[email protected]>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no)" <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 2:21 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
> Postmasters
>
>
> >
> > mebbe it's mo dan dat–methinks in a way peops like you are being used
> like
> > psychological paintbrushes
> >
> >
> > Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > If people feel like they should associate themselves with me in order
> > > to
> > > promote thier own work I guess I should be flattered. It's actually
> > > pretty
> > > interesting to be thought of as so important that my opinions on
> > > peoples
> > > work have got to be "reckoned with" in press releases and project
> > > announcements.
> > >
> > > This is how sleaze works, I guess. If I'm in the swamp, I can't avoid
> > > leeches.
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) " <[email protected]>
> > > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:00 AM
> > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at
> > > Postmasters
> > >
> > >
> > > > Now that just made my day. LOL
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > joseph & donna
> > > > www.electrichands.com
> > > > joseph franklyn mcelroy
> > > > corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
> > > >
> > > > go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> > > > call me 646 279 2309
> > > >
> > > > SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jesus Christ, I am like a fucking publicist for shitty artists
> > > everywhere.
> > > > > Don't people have to ask my permission before using my words to
> > > promote
> > > > > themselves?
> > > > >
> > > > > -e.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > —– Original Message —–
> > > > > From: "Postmasters Gallery/Magda" <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > > The power of the Mouchette persona, and its ability to provoke
> > > heated
> > > > > > debate around contemporary political and sexual issues has once
> > > again
> > > > > > been demonstrated in the last few days by the exchange that has
> > > taken
> > > > > > place at http://rhizome.org. Contributors have speculated on
the
> > > > > > identity, and more particularly the gender, of the artist
> > > responsible
> > > > > > for http://www.mouchette.org, and argued about what they have
> > > called
> > > > > > a 'glorification of sexual abuse and a celebration of pedophilia
> > > > > > against young girls.'
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > + 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>