[syndicate] No Flesh Guaranteed...

Mon Nov 12 13:49:37 CET 2001

Hello Claudia,

Response to your questions.

C: actually was wondering, if you think, that the pictures are sexually
stimulating ( actually should they do that ? )
and if, do you think they are this more than before ? ( hm.... you know,
could be that there is a little gender problem ... and I just do not
understand... not so sure about this... )

M: Depends on what level you mean 'sexually stimulating'. For instance, in their
original form, I did find them sexually stimulating. Some of  my female friends do
not find the originals stimulating because of how obvious they are. I have been
informed that women generally prefer a cerebral encounter, or a good read about sex
rather than watch it or see it in an image. Although some friends of mine
(Bi-sexual) female friends mainly, do find watching or viewing the act of sexuality
exciting and shamelessly enjoy the experience. For me the idea of sex is just as
much as stimulating a thing as seeing it. So taking away the flesh is making it more
mysterious in a way, masking the form. Also it kind of fetishizes the experience
when you know that there is sexual activity in the image but it is masked at the
same time - a kind of mental tease.

(Side stepping) Going back to what you were talking about in reference to a gender
problem or issue even; traditionally men do not talk to their peers that honestly
about sex and women have had a more open experience, conferring mutually about it.
Yet traditionally the male can't help externalizing their sexuality into the world,
not keeping it in the head like it seems a lot of women tend to do. Women tend to
use their own bodies as product and men tend to use the female as an object of
desire - yet that is changing dramatically now. Many women have at last claimed
their own space on the Internet & the world globally, declaring their own interest
in sexuality on a different level...
                                Lesbian Sacred Sexuality & Arts Gallery, journal of
lesbian arts.
                                http://www.wildheartsranch.com/ - this group is a
good example.

C: would like to know, how you did the selection for the 'flesh mapping' ...
were the pictures related to each other somehow ?

M: It was a more intuitive process in the selection & of course what actually worked
as an image. As you have noticed there are different types of sections on the site.
At the start the viewer is offered the 'Void Images'. When I was creating these
images I was aware that I was cutting the flesh out. Extricating the offending
material. I imagined a world of people who would enjoy the idea of sex, but would
possibly be interested in viewing sex visually without actually seeing the sex
taking place/or a still image of such an act happening. A digitalized world, where
people are not so visceral in their needs but still would like to gain a more pure &
less in your face experience of viewing images of sex.

With the 'Void Images' the background was left in to re-emphasize a kind of reality.
They are like ghosts going through the act of sexuality. Its like if humanity did
not have sex, people would disappear.

M: Interesting is your remark about censorship.
Is censorship depersonalizing ? ( faces cut out )
Is it about replacing colour ( associations ( to naked skin ) ) ?
still in your images the shapes are quite clear...
just do not know, how censorship normally works... in films they take whole
scenes out ... ?

M: I do find censorship an attack on our civil liberties, humanity has its own
undercurrent agendas that go deeper than cultural restrictions or mass insecurity.
For instance I've got a classic book that was written in the early sixties, 1962
originally. It was a (UK) study on homosexuality. This is the title - The Homosexual
Society - A New Approach To The Problem, Incorporating A Social Report Prepared For
The Home Office. It is also a very interesting read - freedom via being in contact
of our own bodies is an issue, it seems that we are less likely to rely on external
products, intimacy tends to defy reliance on mass media advertisement and
seduction.

Censorship is depersonalizing, because it does not take account of everyone's needs
only the needs of the powers that be at the time. Pleasure with another entity is a
mutual function and how they share their needs is a personal issue and it is
different for everyone. Even though there are institutional roles that have been
allocated to certain acts of sexual freedom, no one is the same.

Its not about replacing colour, it s about replacing the dirtiness of skin, the
feral image of flesh.

I have kept the shapes/forms clear to make it very apparent that the act of sex is
happening within the image that is viewed.

C: the selection of images is interesting. How did you select the images you
put into the work ?
Did you have to search for the images or were they just sent to you ( hm ;) ?

M: If you mean how did I select the patterns and scenery images, they were taken
from various free web sites that offer free images. After I had chosen the images
that I believed at the time looked interesting visually in their own right. I just
went through the process of methodically cut & pasting without discriminating with
only a few alterations quality wise. I enjoyed the fact that the images changed into
a form of art, that was originally intended to gain money.

My decision to embark on such a project was a kind of act of using the Internet as
my palette. Through the haze of
too much information, too much commodity, that gives one the sense of being dwarved
by the pulp of mediation. It is a cathartic process, reclaiming ones own space out
there without being subsumed by commodity for the sake of capitalism.
How do you see them yourself?

Thanks Claudia...

Much respect from Marc Garrett

Claudia Westermann wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> ....... seems to me, that the weather is getting worse again at your place  ;)
>
> had a look at your page and would be interested in some things,
> thought perhaps interesting to discuss on the list ..........
>
> I took this statement from your page:
> ____________________________________________________________________
> No Flesh Guaranteed explores sensual and feral intimacies, using sexual imagery
> found on the Internet. You will not see any flesh in any of the images
> presented. Deliberately censored, cut out. The rest is left to the viewer's
> imagination & what can be more sexual than that...
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> actually was wondering, if you think, that the pictures are sexually
> stimulating ( actually should they do that ? )
> and if, do you think they are this more than before ? ( hm.... you know,
> could be that there is a little gender problem ... and I just do not
> understand... not so sure about this... )
>
> would like to know, how you did the selection for the 'flesh mapping' ...
> were the pictures related to each other somehow ?
>
> Interesting is your remark about censorship.
> Is censorship depersonalizing ? ( faces cut out )
> Is it about replacing colour ( associations ( to naked skin ) ) ?
> still in your images the shapes are quite clear...
> just do not know, how censorship normally works... in films they take whole
> scenes out ... ?
>
> the selection of images is interesting. How did you select the images you
> put into the work ?
> Did you have to search for the images or were they just sent to you ( hm ;) ?
>
> Actually
> did you want to read answers ? ;)
>
> greetings
> Claudia
>
> At 15:09 11.11.01 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> >Please Visit
> ><http://www.furtherfield.org/eyeopener/noflesh3/index.html>http://www.furtherfield.org/eyeopener/noflesh3/index.html
> >
> >& tell me what you think about the work...
> >
> >Your comments will be published in your name in an exhibition & on the
> >site linked above. Thanx very much for your time...
> >
> >Marc Garrett
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
> Syndicate network for media culture and media art
> information and archive: http://anart.no/~syndicate
> to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate at anart.no>
> no commercial use of the texts without permission
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tekspost.no/mailman/private/syndicate/attachments/20011112/cfea5a2e/attachment-0001.html>