Sj7g09's Blog

Archive for March 2010

Posted on: March 9, 2010

These are the pieces that I created using the idea of an activity book. In a lot of cases, I prefer the look of the text to that of the actual image – I feel that the simplicity works well, and like the texture and look to the individually cut out words and phrases against a plain white background.

I think that the styles used to draw the various images vary a lot, and I’m not sure that they work together well as a whole, but in a way I like the effect that it gives – that the styles are almost in conflict with each other, with some outlined in thick felt-tips, and others drawn lightly, coloured sensitively in pinks and yellows.

I was not particularly happy with my rendering of the previous image, as I felt it was lacking something – it wasn’t interesting or encapsulating in the way that I wanted it to be. Despite it being somewhat of a risk, I decided to cut into the drawing, ripping and folding parts of the paper to look almost like wounds. I’d already been considering the idea of injuring the surfaces on which I’m working, as I thought it was interesting to look at whether people interpreted it as a physical blemish on the material, or whether they personified the content to such a degree that the damage to the paper or canvas became an injury on the subject of the work. I wanted to look into whether this separation between the material and the representation made any difference as to whether depiction of ‘injured’ women was acceptable. On the ethics forms, it suggests that anyone injured, or that appears to be injured, is a ‘vulnerable individual’ – but what if the depiction of injury wasn’t literally in the painting, but instead was on the painting? Similarly, I wanted to look at different materials to look into the same issue – does stabbing a canvas that happens to have a woman on it constitute showing the depiction of stabbing a woman? Does a canvas with a representation of a woman on it constitute as depicting suffocation if the canvas is wrapped in plastic?

Posted on: March 8, 2010

When printing the text I planned to use, the ‘female’ gendered font did not print properly, so I photographed my computer screen to show my original ideas with the fonts. Photographing the screen interested me because of the distortion involved – on taking the photo, the image shows bands, colours, various other distortions, that then quickly disappear. When viewing the images on-screen, how they appear is totally dependent on the size they are viewed. For example, on the previews of these images, the distortions are minimal, whereas when viewed through clicking on a link to them, bands and colours are visible, but when maximised further the images are grainy, with grid-like markings visible.

I was really intrigued by the different effects that could be created by using different camera settings while photographing the computer screen. These are the first images that I photographed in this way, as a test to see how images looked as opposed to text. Obviously photographing photos that do not belong to me brings up issues of image appropriation, copyright, etc. At the moment, I’m not quite sure how I want to use this technique, but I feel that it adds something to my work, and is something that I think will be worth exploring.

Posted on: March 8, 2010

As well as wanting the text to be simple and understandable, I wanted it to add to the visuals, as I had already decided that I wanted each piece to be a double page – 1 side of writing, 1 illustration. I wanted the writing to be simplistic, but be loaded with meaning and symbolism, with every word being carefully thought out and designed in such a way that it could be read into. Because of this, I decided that I wanted the words to be different sizes, to put emphasis on certain words in the sentence by making them larger, and that I would gender the important words. Any words expressing negativity (e.g. “pornography”, “hate”, “violence”, “rape”, “man”) are in the font ‘Gungsuh’ as, to me, it expressed a brutish, simple, single-minded feeling akin to the idea of phallogocentricism, whereas any words expressing positivity (e.g. “feminism”, “woman”, “her/self”, “empowering”) are gendered as female in the font ‘Segoe Script’, as its italicism gave the feeling of stereotypical femininity, which ecriture feminine seems to disparage as a male construction of femininity, while also suggesting that women are inherently different to men, with different abilities and creativities that they must use in order to gain equal status – supported by the fact that male orgasm is linear, and female orgasm is slow and explorative. This reminded me of Freud’s ideas on the uncanny, using “The Sand-Man” to support his own views while discrediting the views of others, when the stimulus could just as validly be seen to support the other theories. By starting with a point to be proved, anything can be read into anything, and through having formulated the theory first without evidence, any example can be seen as linking to the theory and supporting it. Alternatively, the theory was formed using the ‘evidence’ of gendered orgasms, but any link seems rather tenuous to me. Firstly, how does orgasm have anything to do with thought process? How is there any causal link between the two? How is there any link between them other than symbolic similarity? Who is to say that men and women experience orgasm and thinking in the same way as everyone else belonging to their gender at all?

Posted on: March 8, 2010


I’ve tried to put some thought into the text I’m using – I wanted it to be visual as well as something to read. In the past, I’ve worked with text quite a lot, but I’ve never really been able to accomodate it into my work…. I always have so much to say, so many explanations to give, that the text becomes a huge block at the bottom of an image, in a miniscule font, that eagerly elaborates on my intentions and influences, but is very far removed from actually being a part of the work.

I set out to avoid repeating this mistake through making the text clear,  so that it doesn’t distract or detract from the rest of the work. I have absolutely no experience with typography – most of my work in the past has been in standard Times New Roman because I don’t want to seem like I’m making a point by using a specific font, as I’d rather the text be judged on its own worth. Obviously with this work, I have exactly the opposite intention – it’s all about how it looks rather than what it says. Perhaps this means I’m taking too much of a shallow view and not really playing devil’s advocate well enough – if these were my own views I’d be furiously trying to explain them to make sure that they are as understandable as possible. However, I don’t think that this would really fit with the feel of my work – I want it to be simple, because I feel that whenever I’m confronted by people or literature trying to give me alternative views, it’s generally in such a way that doesn’t explain what they actually mean, using general buzzwords and statistics without having anything to support them, and it comes across more as propaganda than a well-reasoned argument.

Posted on: March 6, 2010

After a few sketches, I decided to start working on the text. In my haste to talk about the fonts and technical aspects (that I have no idea about…), I almost forgot the actual content. This suggests that my plan of transformation is working – I’m not thinking about what I’m writing, it’s perfect for this project. Although I would like to say now that this book isn’t just created as something to mock the views of pro-censorship feminism – I have no problem with people having these views, so long as it doesn’t infringe on other peoples’ freedoms, and I believe that some of these views do that. Not that that means that people can’t have these views, just that nothing should be done about them. And I’m sure that some pro-censorship feminists see my views as infringing on their/other peoples’ freedoms, so it’s a big old mess really now, isnt it? But yes, my intention with this work is more in criticism of the people who refuse to acknowledge that their views are opinion, that what they believe isn’t right for everyone and not everyone should convert to what they think immediately, lest they want to be branded as stupid. So I guess really it means to point out the fantastic hypocrisies in some feminist theories, because some people who spout them as undeniable truth don’t seem to have noticed them, or if they have they’re intently ignoring them.

So with content, I’ve just tried to formulate the views that I find contradictory, hypocritical, counterproductive or discriminatory into simple terms, as theory seems to put concepts into a multitude of words that say nothing, and these views sound ridiculous if they are reduced to their literal meaning. I don’t want to suggest that I fully understand any of these views, because I think that any social theory can have multiple meanings – the meaning is what you derive from it, in my opinion, as the author may have a specific meaning, but people may either misinterpret it or take a new meaning from it that the author didn’t consider. To say that these interpretations are wrong is to suggest that there is one universal meaning, and that if people truly understand it, they think about it in exactly the same way. I believe that semantics and language are an important part in this – people may read the same idea, but interpret in different ways, but may even still believe that they have the same interpretation as words have different connotations for different people, and there’s no way of properly knowing if you are understanding someone elses’ perspective, as communication can only go so far.

Posted on: March 6, 2010

These are a few sketches that I started working on, using the idea of creating an informative book on feminism, particularly in regard to pornography. I wanted to take into account the (unintuitive, non-descript) feedback from my last assessment, as  they wanted me to edit my work to be more friendly to my target audience, making sure people could understand it and didn’t have to do too much reading. I think that would be fair enough if I was creating something to try to teach people rather than my work being a learning process where I’m finding out new things and trying to form opinions, but my work needs to include a lot of writing for me to learn anything – it’s not for other people, it’s for my own learning most of the time. I want to strike some sort of balance in this project by having work that can act as standalone pieces, despite the fact that without context or explanation they give the polar opposite view to that which I’m actually expressing. I enjoyed the idea of this contradiction and possible confusion over my views and motives, as satire is often widely misinterpreted as being literal – much like how I was told that if anyone wanted to make any work that was misogynist (misandry was never mentioned – I can only guess that men can defend themselves and don‘t need protection from their fragile little feelings being hurt by people thinking nasty things about them…), it had to be absolutely clear of its intentions even if it was satirical or ironic, which I feel defeats the point by taking away any impact.
Anyway, so my work this time will be friendly, accessible – gone are complex opinions, big words, concepts that can’t be explained in one sentence. It’s obviously partly a reaction against artists/art lecturers who don’t have time for the words between the pretty pictures, but also that I feel like I’m being treated like some sort of idiot who can’t read, can’t understand, can’t quite get past the velcro stages on their shoes…. So the book is set out as intended for someone like me – someone who doesn’t quite get feminism and how great it is – and aims to teach these uneducated women just how much men hate them, how bad pornography is, and why everything they think is wrong, but they just don’t realise it yet.

People from my university seem to end up producing a lot of children’s books, so I wanted to have it in a similar sort of form to that, hence the images above. I started from the idea of creating generic illustration art of obscene images to be used in a “children’s” book, but then considered branching out a bit, making the content more interactive to try to hold the attention of those thicko anti-censorship (anti)feminists. Why not make some of it colouring in or dot-to-dot?

I was unsure of whether to make the drawings look as though they’re a pristine, untouched copy of this book, or whether to have the activities completed, possibly as by a child, like with my scribbly left-handed colouring previously. I think that eventually it will be some sort of mixture of activities (most likely uncompleted) and illustrations, if I manage to put it together as a proper book and it doesnt just stay in my sketchbook as jumbled ideas. Even though I know that my sketchbook can’t really be the finished book, at the moment I’m finding it hard to make it into sprawly ideas and sketches just in case a final book doesn’t manifest.



  • fred whitacre jr: they don,t have any sex invaled why are we so againce children being nude in pictures because of alll the sick fucking rapetist out there children
  • fred whitacre jr: she only 12 but it is not porn at all it is nude only only a sick person would want to fuck her not me but i will tell you the true she is a very hot
  • fred whitacre jr: i see noghting wrong just a nude girl no porn that would be wrong with a child but not worng with a grown up only nude pics of children is ok if no se