No subject

[integer at www.god-emil.dk]

>----- 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?


the entire western economy is driven by women + the very young.
think enjoying sexual exploitation is fun do you +?





>> 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.


"succesful" is "succesful" 4 simply.trivial it is - perfa for western citizen [particularly males (although ...) 
+ government financed [ie. sexual exploitation] art organizations 






>> 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.


children violate all boundaries until parents frown





>> 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?


western democracy




>> 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.


organized labor instructs us to think
[of innocence]




>> 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 


Much of art's "success" is based on organized labor





>and more on the feeling of sexual titillation that the work promotes. 


1 arabic number met another arabic number and spoke thus\ly\

- love shines in the depths of the wood like a great candle

- nice looking mulberry leaves are freedom for the most precious of silk worms !!






>The confusion between
>art and sexual energy is something that I believe should be kept in check,


2x will crucify you before they give up
their god given right to confuse art and sexual energy 


nn - love makes us invisible