m. thanks for the well wishes on the dc blog. yeah, i just need to take some time from there and a few other major places i haunt online and in life while i try and get some things together. i'll be lurking in and out of blogger's back alleyways though so i'll make sure to peep in this place's windows.
your art school looks so cool. i love how vibrant and in full development these creative spaces feel. also, probably an odd detail to notice but i love that cartoony mountain goat thing that's sticking out from the wall mural in the third shot. i want it. i would call it trotsky.
sorry to pick up from a previous post but ugh, the henson thing is a fucking disgrace. what is strangest to me actually is that the target of concern is neither henson nor the gallery per se. they are the ones that the authorities want to charge but no one is actually accusing them of pedophilia, really. instead, the banners - from our PM on down - have this vision of this unidentified pedopilic population somewhere out there who will be able to remanipulate the images out of their art installation context and into their own handheld fantasies. meaning that the real source of hysteria here seems to be the ability of images to be dereazlied of intent, not so much the intent that went into them. but as you said, m., they're sexualising the photos by insisting upon their supposed sexuality. the contradiction for the banners is, if you look at these photos and see them as sexual, there's an assumption in that perception that you seem to see the sex in them too. meaning that the sexualisation is something you understand - it's an aesthetic of sexual appeal you also get, though it may not arouse you. that's really the problem here. the hysteria of the people who oppose the photos is equivalent in operation to the projected desire of the sex offenders they think they're opposing. and it's self-fulfilling, of course, in that their own derealization is the clasp of their certainty that others are out there 'raping' the images made ready for them. sotos would have plenty of things to say about that.
hey david, online things can sometimes take up a lot of time and energy, so it's understandable you need a break if something's up. you're of course more than welcome to come by here whenever.
the goat is great, we have two of them! my school is an incredible space to be and work in, so i'm very sad to be done there very soon.
like you say, they're terrified of giving these unidentified hoardes of potential pedophiles wank-material. but it also feels like they're the most afraid for the effect the photos will have on their brothers, fathers, whatever, maybe even themselves. i don't think they know what they're scared of, they're just stuck in a state of terror. you would think that people would have a basic understanding that any number of things can provoke certain reactions and actions, but that that doesn't necessitate the removal and destruction of everything that might affect someone negatively. it's just not possible to deal with the problem like that, it'd be absurd to try. but that's still what they are doing. sotos has of course been struck with the same bat, though more severely. henson will have to deal with this stigma hanging over his work from now on, just like sotos does.
2 comments:
m. thanks for the well wishes on the dc blog. yeah, i just need to take some time from there and a few other major places i haunt online and in life while i try and get some things together. i'll be lurking in and out of blogger's back alleyways though so i'll make sure to peep in this place's windows.
your art school looks so cool. i love how vibrant and in full development these creative spaces feel. also, probably an odd detail to notice but i love that cartoony mountain goat thing that's sticking out from the wall mural in the third shot. i want it. i would call it trotsky.
sorry to pick up from a previous post but ugh, the henson thing is a fucking disgrace. what is strangest to me actually is that the target of concern is neither henson nor the gallery per se. they are the ones that the authorities want to charge but no one is actually accusing them of pedophilia, really. instead, the banners - from our PM on down - have this vision of this unidentified pedopilic population somewhere out there who will be able to remanipulate the images out of their art installation context and into their own handheld fantasies. meaning that the real source of hysteria here seems to be the ability of images to be dereazlied of intent, not so much the intent that went into them. but as you said, m., they're sexualising the photos by insisting upon their supposed sexuality. the contradiction for the banners is, if you look at these photos and see them as sexual, there's an assumption in that perception that you seem to see the sex in them too. meaning that the sexualisation is something you understand - it's an aesthetic of sexual appeal you also get, though it may not arouse you. that's really the problem here. the hysteria of the people who oppose the photos is equivalent in operation to the projected desire of the sex offenders they think they're opposing. and it's self-fulfilling, of course, in that their own derealization is the clasp of their certainty that others are out there 'raping' the images made ready for them. sotos would have plenty of things to say about that.
hey david, online things can sometimes take up a lot of time and energy, so it's understandable you need a break if something's up. you're of course more than welcome to come by here whenever.
the goat is great, we have two of them! my school is an incredible space to be and work in, so i'm very sad to be done there very soon.
like you say, they're terrified of giving these unidentified hoardes of potential pedophiles wank-material. but it also feels like they're the most afraid for the effect the photos will have on their brothers, fathers, whatever, maybe even themselves. i don't think they know what they're scared of, they're just stuck in a state of terror. you would think that people would have a basic understanding that any number of things can provoke certain reactions and actions, but that that doesn't necessitate the removal and destruction of everything that might affect someone negatively. it's just not possible to deal with the problem like that, it'd be absurd to try. but that's still what they are doing. sotos has of course been struck with the same bat, though more severely. henson will have to deal with this stigma hanging over his work from now on, just like sotos does.
Post a Comment