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

[Eryk Salvaggio]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan at ivanpope.com>


> Eryk,
> I have no idea why really you want to make this 'analysis'.


Because I choose to be annoyed by what I see as cheap sexual exploitation of
women and children. Men I would mind, too, but they never seem to be in that
situation, have you noticed?



> You seem to accept that the site is the work of an artist, thus not, I
> presume, a real, naive, 13 yr old girl.
> Yet, you say, then, that we are 'directly encouraged to participate in
> virtual interactions against a young girl'.
> If it is the work of an artist, then there is no young girl, just maybe
our
> notion of one.


Mouchette.org is "succesful" because it "sexually titillates" its audience
with the illusion of sexual assault of a minor. There is none of the self
reflection or condemnation of the practive inherent in the work. Then, the
victim kills herself on her 13th birthday; a tidy clean up for the mess made
from the dehumanization inherent in this type of sexual assault.


>
> You say you do not want to censor any artists.
> Yet, you say that you think the primary message of the piece is 'putting
out
> the idea that children are capable of seducing adults'.
> If you do not want to censor, what is your point?


I do not believe that we should confuse the "violation of boundaries" with
art- art should violate boundaries, but it should do so for purposes far
beyond that of misplaced sexual aggression.


>
> You say
> > 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?
> yet there is no striped penis, there is no open mouth. There are just
> childrens toys and words. You wonder how we are to interpret this, but you
> have just told us. You interpret them as penis and vagina, as you are
> instructed by the text.


The text instructs me to think of childrens toys [and children] as sexual
objects.


>
> I think the piece is clever, strange, funny, disturbing and above all,
> knowing. I hardly think the world of paedophiles needs this sort of art to
> promote its agenda.


The work is a cultural incarnation of an irresponsible idea. Much of
mouchettes "success" is based less on the "art" itself and more on the
feeling of sexual titillation that the work promotes. The confusion between
art and sexual energy is something that I believe should be kept in check,
particularly when the work promotes the idea of exploitative sexual
practices. I do not believe that anyone who sees the work of Mouchette will
rape a child as a result, or even that it will "make" anyone sexualize
children. I just want to draw attention to this idea: Mouchette is succesful
because it sexualizes children, and people confuse this with "art". It is a
different thing altogether.


-e.