analyse

[Mouchette]

Dear moderator of syndicate mailing-list
I'm not a member of this list and do not wish to be, but could you
please post this as a reply to a text which was posted on your list.
Thanks in advance.
Mouchette.
http://mouchette.org
===========================


I've been reading this and I wanted to reply with a few points, not
particularly directed at the writer of this text but to anyone who is
tempted to give any credit to these arguments.
Where is it mentioned that Mouchette's web pages (whether they be
seducing attempts or not) are directed towards a male grown-up? Aren't
they meant for any web visitor, male, female, of whatever age?
What if the addressed visitor is a female? Can we still speak of
encouraged pedophilia? If so, is it still mainstream?
What if the visitor is of the same age? Is it still regarded as an offence?

We have here the evidence that the writer of this text is building
arguments unaware of the fact he's using his personal interpretation of
the web site. Confusing facts and fictions, the writer is clearly
elaborating around personal fantasies.
And that he most probably is male and grown up doesn't improve his case....

Mouchette
http://mouchette.org

PS: Is this text published online somewhere? I would like to know the
link in order to mention it on my CV.



>  A Critical Analysis of Mouchette.org
>
>  After a request from an artist claiming to be responsible for
>  Mouchette.org in regards to my recent statements on the syndicate
>  mailing list concerning the site, I intend to address how the web site
>  http://www.mouchette.org can be seen as a glorification of sexual abuse
>  and a celebration of pedophilia against young girls. For those who
>  aren't familiar, the premise of the website is that a 12 year old girl
>  by the name of Mouchette is going to commit suicide on her 13th
>  birthday, and the website is a collection of her art work.
>
>  I want to be careful in explaining that I am not intending to accuse the
>  artist responsible for Mouchette.org of being a pedophile, nor that
>  Mouchette.org advocates sex with children, merely that the art can be
>  read as a glorification of youth sexualization. It has been mentioned to
>  me that pedophilia against young girls has been a component of
>  "legitimate" and "acceptable" art for centuries, including the
>  obligatory references to Lolita, although I tend to think that we are
>  not encouraged to feel sympathy for Humbert, whereas with Mouchettes
>  website, we are directly encouraged to participate in virtual
>  interactions against a young girl. I see this as an attempt to evoke
>  "the inner pedophile" and to relate child sexuality with "normal" (for
>  lack of a better word) adult sexuality, something that Nabokov's text
>  inherently condemns. Nor do I believe that because mankind has a
>  tradition of fetishizing young girls, it makes an acceptable case for
>  perpetuating it. The oppression of women has been a component of
>  fundamentalist religion for centuries and I don't feel like this makes
>  an acceptable case for sects that glorify female genital mutilation.
>
>  http://www.mouchette.org/touch/plush.html is a piece in which we are
>  encouraged to look through a plethora of childrens toys to find "a pink
>  open mouth" [which resembles a vagina] and a "striped penis." I am
>  wondering what we are supposed to interpret the message of this piece to
>  be? I find very little evidence that Mouchette is exploring anything
>  except for the territory of sexualization in this piece, nor do I find
>  any explicit or implied condemnation of the practice. Is there an
>  alternative reading of this piece? Another piece is:
>  http://mouchette.org/music/index.html where we hear either "whimpers" or
>  "moans" depending on your interactions, specifically, where you put your
>  mouse icon. This takes on sinister new meanings when combined with the
>  idea that your mouse is your hand, as described in this text:
>
>  "The arrow ...turns into a little ........... .......... hand
>  It feels like there's something behind the page
>  if you .....just press the mouse
>  the little pointed finger will.... penetrate ......
>  the secret link"
>  -from http://mouchette.org/secret/secret.html
>
>  I can't really see any other interpretation for "music" that is made
>  with the sounds of little girls crying or moaning depending on where you
>  "penetrate" the screen with your "finger." There are also numerous
>  pieces where the Mouchette character encourages the viewer to engage
>  with her through the screen. In one piece, "flesh and blood", at:
>  http://www.mouchette.org/flesh/tong.html for example, we are invited to
>  tell the 13 year old girl what her tongue tastes like. When we do- with
>  a button that says "come closer," we are treated to a close up of those
>  lips sucking on a finger.
>
>  The punchline of sorts to this project, and the central underlying
>  narrative, is Mouchettes suicide to happen at her 13th birthday party.
>  If this is presented as some sort of redemption for the abuses that
>  Mouchette has been implied to endure, it is a poor one that serves no
>  function, aside from the further titillation of the audience and the
>  degradation of the fictional child. The final act of Mouchette's life is
>  still that of a victim. Once she has committed to suicide, there can be
>  no redemption; and Mouchette lives permanently as a martyr to the
>  predatory lust that created her. It is a perfect resolution to this
>  threadbare narrative, since this ending merely glosses over the actual
>  effects of sexual trauma. As if to say that a child, once used, is
>  worthless, and so it is made to disappear. This convenient elimination
>  of concern for consequences to the adult psychology of the victim keeps
>  the child in perpetual youth. This is an extension of basic pedophiliac
>  fantasies, an eternally innocent child to be used without consequence
>  and therefore without remorse. (The same impulse which drives most child
>  molesters towards children who live in poverty and are considered
>  "neglected.")
>
>  One might ask why it matters if a website includes an "acknowledgment"
>  of sexual instincts in children, but it's not as clear cut as that.
>  There is a rampant tendency among pedophiles to defend themselves with
>  the argument that their victims wanted to have sex; that children can
>  and will deliberately seduce adults as a result of "hormones" or some
>  misguided desire for affection. Because of this, the idea has made in
>  roads in our culture; usually attributed to "liberal values" though they
>  are, in fact, simply a defense tactic to garner what little public
>  support pedophiles can muster. For just one example, in the case of
>  convicted pedophile Kenneth Barrett, who began raping his girlfriends
>  daughter when she was 12, his defense included this statement: "After
>  she started getting cuddly, you know, that's when I started touching
>  her. She wanted me to touch her body." [source:
>  http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000511_texasjustice_feature.html ]
>  Might we see this same streak of thought in a web project where a twelve
>  year old girl invites the viewer into a series of sexually evocative
>  situations? Is Mouchette trying to seduce us? What does this say about
>  the cultural acceptance of such predatory instincts?
>
>  I point to the Barrett case because it is also a horrifying example of
>  what happens in a culture of acceptable exploitation. Although convicted
>  by way of confession, Kenneth Barrett, convicted of child rape, has
>  married the victims mother, who believes that her husband was "seduced."
>  Concerning her daughter, she states: "I don't feel she was permanently
>  injured." If one is tempted to place this situation into a simple matter
>  of "fucked up family life," you may want to take notice that a local
>  Christian School has offered Mr. Barrett a teaching position as soon as
>  he is released, an interesting flip take on the hard right's attempts to
>  portray Male Homosexuals as child molesters. (Yet, when a "straight"
>  child molester takes advantage of a female, he's not only vindicated,
>  but offered a teaching position.)
>
>  It is interesting to note that this same double standard also applies to
>  Mouchette when it comes to criticism of the web site. I've noticed how
>  other critics of net.art address the issue of Mouchette.org's content
>  based on their gender. While Josephine Bosma, a female critic, makes the
>  case that Mouchette is "based on staggeringly repulsive male fantasies"
>  [from http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?1156 ], a male critic, after
>  discussing at some length the pieces in which we are asked to taste
>  Mouchettes tongue, makes this statement:
>
>  "What's more, we're talking here of someone who goes by the name of
>  Mouchette and who has given her age as thirteen for a number of years
>  already... But one doesn't have to believe all that in order to enjoy
>  participating in her project." [from http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?1842 ]
>
>  I'm not going to argue that this writer literally "enjoyed" the pieces
>  sexual overtones, but at the very least, the entire text proves that
>  such net.art criticism can be focused on the idea of technology and
>  theory so much that it blinds us to the actual content an artist creates
>  with it.
>
>  As I've mentioned, one of the biggest concerns I have is the
>  "mainstreaming" efforts by pedophile organizations such as NAMBLA
>  towards a concept of "acceptable pedophilia." At the same time I am
>  aware that work can be misinterpreted and that some "checklists" for
>  sexual abuse are capable of making almost any individual into a
>  pedophile. One website defending the notion of pedophilia has a list of
>  oaths that pedophiles should take that read like the ambitions of anyone
>  who "respects kids". I don't think that looking at Mouchette.org will
>  breed a generation of child molesters. I want to be perfectly clear: the
>  subject is not whether the creator of Mouchette.org [who remains
>  anonymous] is a pedophile, but simply whether or not the site can be
>  read as mainstreaming, putting out the idea that children are capable of
>  seducing adults, an extension of the classic "she was asking for it /
>  dressed for rape" defense by male rapists. My conclusion is that this
>  can be read as the primary message within the work.
>
>  I am not attempting to censor any artists, nor do I believe that art
>  addressing the real impacts of sexual abuse would be problematic; nor
>  that explorations of sexuality are "immoral". I am not a defender of
>  policies which aim to child proof the world, nor do I believe in a world
>  of 100% political correctness. I believe that we have to begin to look
>  at net.art as a real art form that is interested in ideas and messages,
>  and that we begin to evaluate such work on the merits of these
>  intentions. To do this, we must look at the ideas and messages that
>  artists are putting across in the work, for better or for ill.
>
>  -Eryk Salvaggio