Sj7g09's Blog

Archive for the ‘Artists’ Category

Posted on: December 10, 2010

A bit off-topic, but I’ve been thinking about this lately, in regard to the ‘do you want to do art or do you want to do something else?’ issue.  One of my biggest inspirations is the comedian Bill Hicks, who is my absolute favourite comedian, he’s just the best. And the fantastic thing about him is that he’s extremely funny, but not just for the sake of being funny. Pretty much all of the material he uses is political, and about all of the things that I think are really important. And his career sucked for a long time, with his shows getting censored, and always being told that it didn’t make any sense for him to be producing comedy to do with politics. That they were separate things, and people didn’t want to have to think, they just wanted entertainment. I don’t think I’ve ever really had people who I’ve seen as properly influencing me or being a ‘role model’ – whenever I was asked that sort of question as a kid, I’d just have to make something up, because I didn’t really feel that there was anyone who was that important or influential to me, but I think Bill Hicks is probably the closest thing to a role model that I’ve had. A little strange, but hey, anyone who suggests that when you’re on LSD and think you can fly you test this theory from the ground not from the top of a building, is pretty fucking sensible. But yeah, I’m not saying I’m like Bill Hicks, but I am saying that I’d like to be, because at least he stood up for what he believed in and kept trying. And that is such a lame way of putting that, that sounds such like tortoise-and-the-hare morals, but I don’t even think that with Bill Hicks the ‘success’ was from him becoming successful, it’s just that he didn’t compromise.

Video of Bill Hicks being a comedian, or not. He’s more something else than just a comedian, but I don’t know what the word is.

Posted on: February 1, 2010

‘Dark Places’ focuses on science, technology and sites of secrecy within the UK. Obviously there is a visual element to this exhibition, but I found that the exploration of issues behind the images is what gives the work purpose and meaning. This is particularly relevant to the Mike Kenner archive, which is a culmination of years of work monitoring the Porton Down research facility, giving information on experiments conducted there that may otherwise not be known to the public . I was interested to find that now whenever the Porton Down facility receives questions or requests for information, they redirect the public to Mike Kenner, which, in a way, made me think of the CIA allegedly using Jackson Pollock’s work as propaganda – something that is critical of an institution becomes neutralised by being, perhaps unwittingly, associated with that institution. For me, it also raised issues of responsibility, in that through Porton Down redirecting to Mike Kenner, they are released of any responsibility to give an official statement, instead allowing someone who is not involved to give information, or misinformation. While I didn’t find myself particularly inspired by the literal stimulus of the exhibition, I admired Mike Kenner as clearly he is passionate about his cause in  away that didn’t translate in other work in the exhibition. For example, Victoria Halford and Steve Beard created a film in response to their research into the Health & Safety Laboratory. This film implemented narrative and fiction, which made the information more accessible to the general public who are used to media being presented in this way, but by it being a work of fiction it also became removed from reality and lost importance and credibility. However, as a whole, the exhibition raised some ever-relevant issues of implied consent, freedom of expression and information, legality, ethics and the balance between what an institution chooses to show of itself, what an artist is allowed to reveal, and what viewers are willing to let into their sphere of consciousness, showing a filtering of ‘truth’ through these stages.

NF713

Posted on: January 8, 2010

image by China Hamilton

One of the things that has made me the most angry in this investigation into current affairs in censorship is the ban on a film by artist China Hamilton, called “NF713”. It’s something I would be deeply interested in watching, and I do feel that it violates my personal and intellectual freedom to not be able to expose myself to this knowledge because the government feels that it’s inappropriate.

From what I’ve read, seeing as it’s impossible as of yet to find a copy to view, NF713 is a film designed as a sort of cross between “Closet Land” and “1984”, in which a woman is arrested, interrogated and tortured by a male representative of an unnamed state, using coercion, violence and physical, emotional and sexual degradation to make her confess to anti-State crimes. It conforms to the same sort of storyline as Closet Land, which was backed by Amnesty International and is an acclaimed film using well-known, reputable actors, but goes further in explicitly showing torture scenes. Despite it clearly being a political work, the BBFC chose to categorise it as a “sex work”, meaning that it was refused a classification and cannot be bought, sold, distributed, viewed, in the UK. The BBFC apparently chose to refuse classification because it shows sexual violence, and it could be seen as encouraging sexual violence. According to the BBFC, it lacks a story because most of the film shows the torture of the woman, and in much of the film she is naked(!) So it would seem that the message is that physical violence is ok in most circumstances – it becomes not ok if it’s enacted on a woman, particularly a naked woman, because then it’s sexual, and women must be protected from this sort of thing. It’s also interesting that a film like Closet Land can hint at violence, torture, degradation, without showing it, and that’s considered alright, whereas going a step further and showing these acts makes it unacceptable, even though surely a film like Closet Land sexualises and romanticises the themes more because none of the violence is ever seen explicitly. From the reception I’ve heard to Closet Land, a lot of people are turned on by the events shown – and most of these people are women. Does that then mean that those women who identify with the victim will go out and try to provoke someone to rape them? No one would ever say this because it would be seen as deeply misogynistic – so why is it alright to blindly assume that if a man watches something and identifies with a violent character they will attack a woman? It’s completely misandrist, and even moreso because no one even questions the validity of it – it’s just accepted that men, all men, are capable of this and can’t be trusted.

Much of the response to this film being banned is in agreement with the BBFC, with cries of “well, why would anyone want to watch anything like that anyway?!” That should never be a reason to destroy something from the public consciousness. It’s interesting that the government states that censorship laws won’t target art, political work, won’t limit peoples’ right to freedom of expression, but clearly the laws do all of these things, but no one has any inclination to stand up for these rights. People are all too willing to give away the rights that they don’t think they will want to use. This particular work was explicitly political, and made by an artist, but still it’s banned in the UK – is the unwritten stipulation that the UK government must appreciate and agree with the political statements or art in question for it to be able to be seen by the general public? That’s certainly what it seems like, seeing as there is no proof at all of there being a causal link between media violence and actual violence, yet the BBFC blanketly refuses to give classification to anything that expresses a view of sexual violence that isnt educational, or isn’t explicitly labelled as being consensual really – not in the literal sense that no one was harmed making it, but that in the fictional story, it must be labelled as a consensual BDSM scene or such like within the actual work.

I found it horrifying that the BBFC is often willing to classify male torture scenes. I suppose it makes sense really, seeing as there is so much constant yelling about material being degrading to women, whereas I can’t remember the last time I ever heard about something being considered degrading to men. And I think that that in itself is degrading in its own ways to both genders – mainstream feminism has created an environment in which women aren’t treated equally, they’re protected and mollycoddled and regulations have to bend to whatever might be offensive to women, or things that might supposedly harm women, because women can’t protect themselves. Alternatively, people seem to have such a terrible view of men that no portrayals of men are seen as offensive – any of it could be true. Either that or people think that it doesn’t matter with men because they’re the stronger gender, men aren’t going to dominate or abuse other men, and women aren’t strong enough to do it, so men are safe because they can look after themselves.

When researching another supposedly “feminist” artist mentioned in my lecture, I found a Tate exhibition that I thought was interesting. Part of the A Century of Artists’ Film in Britain exhibition was entitled “A Woman’s Place”, and featured the work of Mary Kelly, Catherine Elwes, and Tracey Emin, using film and text to look at female identity.

“This sequence begins with classic feminist texts of the 1970s and early 1980s. These paved the way for more recent works in which women use their own lives as subject matter. Part of the feminist project was, in Catherine Elwes’s words ‘to validate women’s private experience in the public arena of art’. 1995.”

I think perhaps I miss the importance of “classic” feminism – I probably take for granted the level of gender equality in current society, as obviously it has been much worse in the past. I don’t have much knowledge on past feminism, so can only really talk about current feminism. For example, the text above, and the ethos of the entire exhibition from my perspective, seems to separate the genders. To me, feminism is about gender equality, which is why it doesn’t seem to make any sense that it is labelled as “feminism” seeing as it should be equally about male equality instead of solely focusing on the supposed injustices towards women. While there are obviously injustices and inequalities enacted upon women, feminism seems to focus more on erradicating mainstream gender views, but indoctrinating people with just as many alternative views while suggesting that they are allowing people to form their own opinions, using ideas such as certain things being degrading to women, and scapegoating those as the sources of genuine oppression of females.

image from short film ‘Antepartum’ by Mary Kelly, 1973

“‘First of all it is an assertion of female creativity and intelligence; secondly an analysis of the process of socialisation by which, she believes, women are taught to regard themselves as intrinsically second rate; and thirdly a fusion of the “feminine” role of motherhood and the “masculine” one of making art.'” – Sarah Kent.

This piece was presented in my lecture as being “feminist”, because it dealt with the female relationship with a newborn child, “something that male artists didn’t find important to address”. Personally, I don’t see why this is anything to do with gender equality. When looking further into the piece, it addresses issues to do with the ‘conflicting’ elements of femininity and masculinity, which is more about gender roles, stereotypes and equality. However, when reading the quote from Sarah Kent, it confirms my prejudices about “feminist” art, in the sense that it isolates, separates, puts barriers between the genders, for example in using the term “female creativity and intelligence”. The different genders probably generally have different aspects of intelligence and creativity, but using a term like “female creativity and intelligence” suggests that all women have different sorts of creativity and intelligence to men, instead of seeing the individuality in people, it focuses on generalising by gender. My views are mixed on these issues, because I feel that gender shouldn’t be important – people are people, regardless of gender, and therefore it seems to make sense that people be judged according to personal merit rather than their gender, but then gender is an important part of identity that forms who people are, how they think, feel, behave.

Why I Never Became a Dancer, Tracey Emin

This piece uses a personal account from the artist – as Catherine Elwes says, validating “women’s private experience in the public arena of art” – using an account from her life growing up in Margate.

“She re-visits the scene of a humiliation at the hands of local lads, and describes the moment when she seized control of her life, and triumphed over them.”

To me, Tracey Emin has always seemed like a shallow, self-centred artist, eternally focusing on her own life and issues, ignoring wider issues. I’m conflicted on this, because some times this can be effective, as it’s important to work with things that you have personal experience with because it adds a genuine quality to the work.

What does triumphing over a group of boys have to do with feminism, other than symbolising female superiority, or instead being “feminist” in the way that splatter films are “feminist” because of the female character triumphing over her male oppressor, rather than being “feminist” through the woman being treated equally to males. The quote about the work seems to suggest that having control over one’s life is inherently linked to triumphing over masculinity, which just instills another set of norms and values into women, just this time they are “feminist” rather than “patriarchal”. Of course I’m probably reading far too much into this – it’s just thinking about it rather than being offended by it or wanting it to be different, and it comes from a biased perspective, as all things do.

Biography:
Tracey Emin was born in 1963. She studied at Maidstone College of Art and the Royal College of Art, London. Initially a painter and printmaker, she ‘gave up art completely’ in 1991 following an abortion. She opened The Shop with Sarah Lucas in 1993, and began making videos. She was shortlisted for the Turner Prize in 1999.”

I found it interesting that in Emin’s biography, along with all her academic achievements, it mentions aspects of her personal life, namely her abortion. This makes me think that this aspect of her colours her work – but then, would this be correct? She does work on these issues, and there is the idea that experiences such as this are likely to shape one’s identity, preoccupations, artistic practice. Would any other medical reason for giving up art be mentioned in a biography? If so, would it carry the same sort of stigma, or importance, as abortion? Would something like cancer be seen as shaping one’s identity as much as abortion? Or indeed, would cancer be seen as something that can be generalised, to be able to stereotype someone by it as much as by abortion, seeing as it gives ideas on that person’s morals, sexuality, etc.? I think perhaps abortion, more than most things, changes views of people – stereotyping women who have had this experience, as most knowledge of this subject is from the media, so we expect real people affected by these issues to conform to the portrayals expressed by the media. Perhaps because of the lack of openness about this subject, even if there is no evidence to suggest that a person is being effected by the issue in the way we expect, we assume that they are, in the absence of firsthand knowledge.

In my International Perspectives on Art lectures, “feminist” art was mentioned, as there was the idea that modern art has implications for society and reflects sociological issues, and that the “feminist point of view” is an important aspect of this. I’m sure that the people presenting these lectures have a deep understanding of what they’re looking at, and so maybe they take it as read that the word “feminist” cannot describe the views of all feminists – it’s an invalid label – but I’m not certain that this is that explicit. Even if these lecturers think these things, it’s not presented in this way, and so hearing the words “feminist point of view”, in what seems like a literal sense, makes me somewhat angry. It’s obviously important to deal with issues of gender inequality and sexual politics in art as they are very current and relevant issues in this society, but to label every expressi0n of these themes as “feminist” seems inaccurate.

“Fountain” by Marcel Duchamp

“Fountain” by Sherrie Levine

One artist presented as reflecting the “feminist point of view”, was Sherrie Levine, who is an appropriation artist who has photographed works of other artists, then presenting them as her own, and also creating a sculpture mimicking Duchamp’s, except casted with bronze. I could only really guess at why her work is feminist – there was nothing explicitly mentioned in the lecture, she was just labelled as a feminist with no real explanation. From some research online, it seems that she may have been labelled in this way because she takes the work of influential male artists and recreates them, to express the relative lack of female artists throughout art history.

Part of my lecture was looking at why there have been no great female artists throughout history. I’m not sure whether I agree with this, not because I want to defend my gender and say that women are just as good as men, but instead because I don’t know the work of all female artists, there may be some female artists who are producing great work. However, maybe they aren’t truly great because they obviously don’t have the same level of influence or infamy as male artists who have a place in art history.

These issues were discussed in my lecture, and these were the points raised, some times to the dismay of female students who don’t understand that you can present views that you don’t agree with, or that saying there are no great female artists doesn’t have to mean that you aren’t a “feminist”. There seems to be the view that saying that women aren’t as “good” as men means that you think that’s due to inherent characteristics, rather than how society views gender.

Why are there no great female artists?

  • Women aren’t as good – they aren’t made to be artists, they are made to be wives, mothers, etc. This idea caused arguments, but if the sort of token, knee-jerk response of offense could be ignored, it could be discussed and it does produce relevant points.
  • The psychology of art is male. I’m unsure of this, because the psychology of art can be defined in many different ways – it can be seen as creative, intuitive, or intellectual, academic, sociological. To look at these issues properly, a lot of things have to be explored. Firstly, how are gender roles formed? It can be seen that they have a biological basis, with women being caregivers or men being dominant because of their respective biologies, or that gender roles are a social construct, that the genders are socialised into gender roles rather than taking them on “naturally”. However, it could also be seen that gender roles are a social construct, but have a basis in biology – that the roles that biology suggests are encouraged by society, and therefore are reinforced and continue, making them seem “natural” or “god-given”. From my perspective, and that may very well be biasd, there are many female artists who are successful, but they are often artists that create commissioned pieces – they have artistic skill, but it’s more like ‘hobby’ painting; portraits of children, pets, aesthetic pieces like watercolours of flowers. Obviously this isn’t what all female artists are like, just as I couldn’t classify all male artists by one thing, but this is my inaccurate and biased perspective on the issue. It would be ridiculous to ignore the Tracey Emins of the art world, as clearly they don’t adhere to these properties, but, to me, these are 2 very definite variations of “female” art. I wouldn’t want to define art or artists by their gender, sexuality or ethnicity, but it seems like the art world, and society in general, feels the need to label art in this way. While I don’t feel it’s necessary or appropriate to talk about art in terms of the gender of the artist, it seems that the current standpoint encourages this, and therefore it’s semantically easier to go with terms like “female artist”, even though really they are just an artist who happens to be female (although it’s arguable as to how much effect or influence gender has on identity, and therefore on artistic concerns, themes, views, expressions). For example, earlier I mentioned the subsection of artists who paint on commission, who are by no means exclusively female, but I think that this is a niche in art that many females get into because males are seen as “proper” artists, whereas women paint on the side, for pleasure, but not necessarily as a career, as something in addition to their homely duties. In writing this, I also noticed that the examples I gave for these commissioned pieces were of children, pets and flowers, all of which are subjects most fitting of a woman – themes that women can be concerned with. It seems like women paint these things, and it confirms their status as a female, reinforces their gender roles, whereas if men paint such things on commission, it is something that doesn’t conform to gender stereotyping, it contrasts with other aspects of their identity, and so it doesn’t necessaily become a label for them. Conversely, it seems like “feminist artists”, who here shall be defined by their current pop-culture definition of artists such as Tracey Emin, Sarah Lucas, Barbara Kruger – artists that fit into the group of being female, but dealing with shock or obscenity. Instead of painting things that are becoming of a woman, things that reinforce gender roles – children, pets, flowers, subjects that women can work on – they go into conflicting issues, themes that are ‘unfeminine’, and therefore ‘masculine’ – anything to do with sexuality or gender, interpreted by mainstream feminism, taints the art or artist as masculine, or, by the same standards, lesbian.
  • The view of a “feminist art historian” was presented as women being unable to pursue art as a profession because of the inequalities in society, particularly because in the past academies banned women, and when this ban was lifted, there were still restrictions in place, for example women being banned from life drawing of nude models, which was the basis of artist training. In some ways, this view still prevails, as dealing with sexuality in art is still seen as ‘male’ – even if female, and by default “feminist”, artists deal with female sexuality or gender issues, it’s still seen as a male endeavor, which is generalised to the artist having male traits and that being why they are expressing unconventional ideas in their art.
  • I don’t think this view was expressed in my lecture, but it was something that I thought of when confronted with the other options. I think an important aspect of there being no great female artists is that female artists are labelled as feminists, and maybe because of that they are more likely to conform to stereotypes of mainstream feminism, meaning that while breaking some boundaries, they are still very much fenced in by other boundaries that they do not break. I don’t think that there are (m)any artists that express my viewpoint, but by simple definitions I would be considered a feminist as I believe in gender equality, but it’s difficult to be outside of mainstream feminism, as the sort of feminism that I believe in is totally against the views expressed by most ‘feminist’ material. I think that much of the issue is that female artists are always defined by their gender, and their work is judged by their gender – partly, this means that women are judged by male standards as art is implicitly seen as male, with female artists being seen as novel creatures, with all-female exhibitions being organised, clearly showing that the defining factor is the artists’ gender, that they are similar and dealing with common themes because women have the same concerns. Partly, women are just not seen as in the same league as men, they can’t be judged by the high standards that men are because they won’t ever measure up – they need to have their own exhibitions organised so that they can be separated from male art and seen in isolation to the wider art world.

I found it interesting that art, particularly of the avante garde, has been described as an aggressive dialogue with another force, a reaction against something. Personally, I’m left wondering whether art is able to exist in this form in a society where art and ideas can be censored if the government is opposed to them – I think that this undoubtedly will have an effect on the role of art in social change of norms and values, as things against the mainstream are doctored to create something less challenging.

“Entartete Kunst”, translated to “Degenerate Art”, was an exhibition in 1937, Nazi Germany, displaying chaotically hung Modernist works with derisive labels accompanying the pieces. The exhibition included work by artists such as Picasso, van Gogh, and Matisse, all of which are now artists that have been accepted as traditional and mainstream in regard to our modern culture, but at the  time their work was seized to be displayed as means of enraging the general public and creating a sense of revulsion and fear towards modernism, and therefore any subversion. Much of the work from such exhibitions was destroyed as a means of creating social cohesion, with pieces by Picasso, Dali and Ernst, among others, being burned on Bonfire Night in Paris, 1942. I imagine that this would be met with horror in modern society, that works by such admired artists was destroyed in the past and so can therefore never be seen, completely annihilating the knowledge from these pieces. In our society, art is still censored, particularly modern media such as film or photography, making that knowledge inaccessible as our government is adverse to what would be conveyed by the pieces. I think that this sort of censorship is actually worse than the exhibitions in Nazi Germany, seeing as at least it was possible to view the pieces that were being condemned – people had some ability to make their own decisions on the art because they could see it for themselves, even if they were being told what to think about it, rather than the case of our government completely ridding us of certain images, films, themes, depictions. This dictates to us how we should feel about such things in a much more subtle, but still very real way – if we are not allowed to view them because they are ‘obscene’, then anyone who wishes to expose themselves to such material must be obscene also. People are not even allowed to work out their own opinions in regard to specific pieces as instead of viewing the images and being told that they are disgusting, we are told that they are too disgusting for us to see without being corrupted. Perhaps this is the difference between our society and that of Nazi Germany – it was very obvious who the Nazis were intending to smear with their degenerate art, whereas our government is less specific, anyone could be a degenerate, or turned into a degenerate by exposure to certain images.

I was also told that there was a British exhibition, displaying works of art that had been censored, or considered controversial in the past, which made me wonder whether an exhibition like this could contain modern works, works that still could be considered contentious, despite the fact that in a number of years they will probably not be at all shocking because society will have developed to accomodate it, and there will be different things that will be considered inappropriate to show in a gallery.

image by Jackson Pollock

Going back to issues of propaganda, it was mentioned in my lecture that Pollock’s work was used by the CIA to promote the “American Dream”, citing abstract expressionism as a symptom of the “free world”, where Western artists can “do what they want”. I thought that this was an interesting comparison to work by Communist artists that was used as propaganda, as this was described as the artists being “forced to produce art to promote the philosophy”.

Pollock’s work was used by the American state during the Cold War to promote its ideology, despite Pollock’s style at first being controversial, rebellious, against mainstream convention. In Pollock being a free artist, this meant him rebelling against social norms and values, but now such rebellious artists have become a symbol of our society, their art is the official art of our time. Western society seems to encourage free-thinking, but only to certain ends or through implementing boundaries – this art is used to represent the character of the “free world”, but it is not truly free. Perhaps this sort of rebel art is absorbed by the state to neutralise its ideas, stopping the work from being challenging, because it becomes mainstream, normal, conventional, with the government perhaps changing how it is viewed by using it for its own messages, or by emphasising its visual aesthetics rather than its messages – corporations can own subversive art, auction houses sell it, causing it to be viewed as shallow, trivial consumerist commodity rather than a form of subversion or rebellion. Because of this, how can an artist remain in opposition to society, or the government, asking questions about things that potentially can’t be viewed or discussed, when their views are neutralised or changed to express different sentiments?

International Perspectives on Art – Lecture V

image by Piet Mondrian

Mondrian was part of the De Stijl movement, which stripped art to its basics, focusing on line and colour, and making a point of not relying on other media. This was intended to create a pure visual experience, resisting the mass media and ‘kitsch’ mass produced media as these were viewed as false and having no value. These sorts of media were seen as being a form of shallow, trivial entertainment and a means of distraction, perhaps because De Stijl was born from World War II and art tends to react to times of social change or unrest, particularly as a voice to oppose the government, and create social awareness of the issues which otherwise may be ignored.

My only other knowledge of Mondrian’s work comes from reading Lauren Kipnis’s “Bound & Gagged” –

‘Mondrian’s aesthetic choices emerged from his unconscious conflicts; as he translated these choices into his painting, wielding his ruler and applying his brush, these conflicts guided his hand. He found sensuality so frightening that it was his dread of desire, rather than desires themselves, that ultimately shaped his abstract designs. No sentiment, no curves, no touching – that is how he lived and that is what his paintings proclaim…’

I found this interpretation of his work interesting as it suggests that the aesthetics of his work was largely dictated by subconscious conflicts, and I felt that this opened the possibility of artists perhaps not knowing all of the influences that were acting upon them – that it’s possible that they could be painting a certain way that others interpret as an expression of part of their psyche, but that the artist may not be aware of it or agree with that interpretation.

image by El Lissitzky

Modernism can be seen as being very involved in politics, with this often branching into radical or extreme views because of the idea that art can be an integral part of revolution and social change for a ‘better’ future. According to my lecture, this image is pro-communist, depicting the victory of communism in Russia through abstraction. I found it interesting that all of the communist work that was shown in my lecture was described as ‘propaganda’, and that it was suggested that all of the artists involved in the creation of this work were forced to paint in a certain way to convey very definite political philosophy. Obviously this is a very Western view – surely if Communist art is to be seen as propaganda, advertising in our culture should be seen as propaganda promoting Capitalist society. The problem lies in the fact that there isnt this equality, as the West influences and colonises other cultures – we don’t seem to have the sort of critical thinking for our own culture that we do for others, instead condemning difference but not looking at possible faults in our own social structure. It’s easier to see faults in other cultures and attempt to correct them, creating a state of false consciousness and alienation. I think this is accurately shown in the fact that Communism was presented so negatively in my lecture – it wasn’t presented as an alternative social structure, but instead as an evil opposing force, an enemy to our own social norms and values, I’m sure partly with some element of irony, but I think the views go so deep that it’s difficult to isolate Communism from its negative connotations. For example, in my lecture, art from Communist countries was grouped with work from Nazi Germany, surely something that expresses colonialism and an inability to accept or understand alternative social structures without demonising them – countries that adopt Communism often have social problems, but I’m unsure in my personal view as to whether that can really be attributed to Communism, as it is only misuse of Communism that can be linked to this. Also, Capitalist societies have social problems also, but because these cultures are so like our own, we find it difficult to see as many faults in them as it is what we know – it’s easier to see problems in the things that we aren’t involved in or don’t understand.



  • 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