I have recieved "pornographic " mail art, and it hasn't offended me. Hardly anything sexual in itself would offend me. Once someone new wrote to me and told me that she didn't want to recieve anything pornographic.... I don't usually send "pornography" but I could not help but to think that she was too uptight for me to correspond with.
Most of the "pornographic" mail art I have recieved is the usual commercial male hetero oriented photography that has been collaged. I don't find most of it very interesting as art. There is nothing surprising or moving about it. Yawn. One time I was concerned when a man sent me something that I considered sexual harassment, it was directed personally to me, and I was very glad he had my PO box and NOT my home address. I told him I was offended and he apologized, but then he sent me more, so I broke off contact with him. I haven't heard from him for a long time, thankfully. Another time I was offended when someone from Europe sent me "hate mail" -- the envelope was written with "nuke whales" and "kill all gays" and such, I think it was meant as a parody, and perhaps to test if the envelope would be delivered, but especially the "kill all gays" really got to me. It still happens, so it was too close to reality. I stopped writing to the person, but I regret that I did not ask what the motivation was and dialogued about it. I think dialogue is something that can be very enriching when contraversial work comes up. I think what would be beneficial in sexual imagery is basic sex education, there's so much so many people don't understand even today. Basic issues of birth control, safe sex practices, issues of consent, tolerance for other's sexual orientations, it's amazing how many people need more imformation on this. The more sophisticated and open-minded we become, the harder it is to come up with something provocative. Do you think? - T --- In [email protected], "Allan Revich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For clarity: > > My view is NOT that art and mail art must be shocking or "pornographic" in > order to be thoughtful or interesting. In fact the author of the post in > question (Reed A.), sends out incredibly thoughtful, and thought provoking > work that does not use images that anyone would likely call pornographic. > Also, I personally do respect both the letter and intent of the mail art > calls that I reply to. I just think that there is room for other, more > "open" interpretations, and that these too should be respected. > > If an exhibit will be seen by minors, then it is reasonable given the social > constructs in which we operate, to place images that are deemed to be > inappropriate for minors in an adults only forum. Hiding works with sexual > content from adults is just plain silly though. > > As artists we should be AGAINST censorship of all kinds. > > _____ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Allan Revich > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: (",) Who defines "pornography"? > > > > > These questions to Guido sound exactly like the questions that Fluxus (and > all avant garde) artists often get. Like, "why do you make that stuff?", > "who would buy that crap?" "do you really think that stuff is art?" "do you > make that stuff just to shock people or upset them?". > > What is shocking to me is that a mail artist or fluxus artist would ask > another artist to defend the "artistic merit" of his art. If what he sends > is his answer to a mail art call - then that is what it is. The recipient > can exhibit it, collect it, trade it, catalogue it, or do whatever he/she > does with the other art received. > > Anyone who doesn't like getting surprises in the mail should probably not be > putting out calls for mail art! > > As for me, I define pornography as images that are designed to titillate for > nefarious purposes. The worst porn of all is corporate advertising that > appeals to sexuality to sell consumer goods. Just as bad is fear-porn > sponsored by political power interests and designed to scare the crap out of > ordinary people so that they will support the suspension of their civil > rights. That stuff will do far more harm to children than pictures of naked > people engaged in sexual behaviour. This may surprise some of you, but > full-penetration vaginal sex is how our species reproduces. No sex act=no > humans (or any other animals). > > Fight pornography with sexuality. > > So Guido, keep up the good fight brother! > > Allan > > _____ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Reed Altemus > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: (",) Who defines "pornography"? > > > > I think what Guido is trying to say here is that he himself sends > out pornographic mail art and the lack of response he gets he > feels is fear or hatred. I say this only because Guido has sent > me pornographic mail art in the past which didn't interest me. > And also I wonder if Guido has a reason for sending out > pornographic mail art and whether it is because he wishes > to share an artistic experience or whether it is only a means > to the end of shocking, titillating or boring people. Maybe the > latter is an artistic experience itself. But who is to decide that? > Guido, do you have anything to say to these issues? Why exactly > do you send out pornographic images? Please defend their artistic > merit. > RA > > guido bondioli wrote: > > > > I am in support of the position implied by these > > questions. Who will say who will say? While I respect > > everyone's opinion as to what they themselves enjoy or > > are offended by, I reject the intrusion of anyone who > > chooses to be offended. The lack of balance that would > > allow anyone to be offended is what is dangerous. And > > this social distortion is far more dangerous to > > children than images of sex. The piece of mail art is > > insignificant. The fear and hatred felt by the > > offended is a serious social issue. Finding a way to > > end fear and hatred will have greater positive impact > > than getting rid of images of sex. > > --- Allan Revich <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:allanr%40digitalsalon.com> > .com > > <mailto:allanr%40digitalsalon.com>> wrote: > > > > > Well it's not a bad description, but the next > > > question is who decides what > > > is or is not "obscene", and what "artistic merit" > > > is, and what has it or > > > doesn't have it? > > > > > > What are the standards? Who sets them? Who gets to > > > enforce them? How do you > > > decide who is qualified to enforce them? > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ma-network%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com > <mailto:ma-network%40yahoogroups.com> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ma-network%40yahoogroups.com> > ups.com > > <mailto:ma-network%40yahoogroups.com>] On > > > Behalf Of Christine Tarantino > > > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 8:12 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:ma-network%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com > <mailto:ma-network%40yahoogroups.com> > > > Subject: (",) Who defines "pornography"? > > > > > > > > > > > > "obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the > > > like, > > > esp. those having little or no artistic merit." > > > > > > This definition came from Dictionary.com > > > > > > I'm not suggesting any part of this is correct, only > > > putting it out for discussion. > > > > > > Christine Tarantino > > > >
