Sj7g09's Blog

Archive for the ‘Original Work’ Category

I’m just so tired and stressed I can’t think. Want to write down the stuff from my tutorial today, so I have some recollection of it, but feel so tired I feel ill.

Showed some of my photos and videos in a tutorial… I think I’m picking out all the worst things that were said. I’m not sure I even remember there being anything good, although it didn’t feel so bad at the time.

The comments that interested me most were on the videos, which were ridiculously hard to share. I put together something last night… well, until 4 in the morning… that I thought would be reasonably well received seeing as it makes no sense, but it was a tutorial with a different staff member, so the criteria was all different again. I was surprised at how positive he was about it all though. Anyway, I made a video that has all the typical documentary-style filming – closeups of typing on laptop, filming the screen as the words appear, wringing hands, fiddling with jewellery, playing with hair, etc. I’m not really sure why I tried to make it like this, it just seemed apt. From watching videos of myself sped up, I’ve noticed the sort of actions that I continually do, and I wanted to slow these down and make them very deliberate, and thought they were the sort of things that emotive documentaries would focus on. I wrote some text, that is true and my own words, but translated it into Russian, then put it through a text-to-speech synthesizer, so all the images have Russian speech over them. I was surprised that one of the comments wasn’t that it came across as racist. I’ve picked up on using Russian language because of how it’s often insisted by customers that I cannot be British, I’m lying, I must be Russian. I think I use different languages, or a complete lack of speech, to get across the idea that, from an outside view, I appear to have no power. I don’t want to have character either, because of the idea that a group of people who have nothing to do with me can speak for me, and that makes me generic and voiceless. A symbol rather than a person. I wonder about working more specifically with my own experiences because I don’t want to seem like I’m trying to speak for anyone but myself. Really I just want to get across my perspective, seeing as I feel like people are completely unwilling to listen to me because it’s supposedly in my best interests that I have no say, and I don’t want to become that oppressor to other people who don’t agree with me.

p

One comment I found really interesting about this video was that the word for ‘prostitution’ was picked out, and so the assumption was that it was about prostitution, and because I was using an image of myself, I was a ‘character’. He was fair in saying that he wasn’t sure, because he didn’t understand the language and didn’t know what the text was saying, but asked whether I was a representation of a prostitute. I explained that it wasn’t about prostitution, it was about something that the government had termed ‘indistinguishable from prostitution’, and that the images of me weren’t intended as a stereotype. The video of myself was actually just made of me looking into the camera, and I happen to still be wearing the things that I’d put on for the previous videos I’d been making. It was just an experiment to see how pixellated I could make the video look, for looking into the idea that pictorial representations cannot be ‘selling yourself’ – it’s a representation of your image, made up of pixels.

Anyway, he said that the images of me looked like a disguise, like a character, like I was performing. I’d like to look at the line between performance and reality, because the ‘character’ of me as a sex worker (I need a better word for sex worker, because it doesn’t encompass what I actually mean) was seen as fake, completely fictitious, presumably that I was just taking media stereotypes and playing off those to make something totally unreal. The reason it was seen as a disguise was how much makeup I was wearing. What makes this video fake, as compared to when I am infront of my webcam, dressed up in ways that I maybe usually wouldn’t be, for what would be seen as reality? I think if I were to say to my parents that I strip on webcam, the boundary between fantasy and reality wouldn’t be understood – it would be no defense to say “but it’s not real”, because physically it is real. But what makes this different to acting? If you’re on stage and you do a certain action, it’s acting, not reality, but you did really undertake the action. I suppose it’s just the motivations behind doing it, I dont know. I always have a character when I’m being watched – it’s natural, I think everyone does – so why is that a part of who I ‘really’ am, whereas in video made specifically for art, it’s theatrics? I don’t make up a character for when I’m on webcam, but I do have a different name, and it’s therefore a bit of an alter-ego. I don’t want to use that name in my schoolwork, so it gets further removed and my alter-ego has an alter-ego. I use the name Natasha when it’s for school work, seeing as it’s the generic label for the face of the feminisation of poverty. The Natasha trade and so on. I use the surname ‘Dobycha’, because it was the phoenetic spelling of a Russian translation of ‘victim’ or ‘prey’, and then when I translated it back, it came up with all sorts of other words that I felt were fitting – ‘trophy’, ‘loot’, ‘plunder’, ‘kill’, ‘capture’, ‘spoil’… I explain this in the video, using images of translations, so I thought it made some sense even without knowing what the voiceover was saying, but it’s probably not all that clear. I’m never really sure whether to just tell the truth, share my actual experiences of creating what is seen as a ‘character’ academically, and what is sometimes assumed to be real at others, and to present my findings of my own work, or whether it seems too uninteresting to others. I’m the sort of person who adores documentaries for their anthropological and sociological value, but I don’t know whether I’m really that interesting to share findings that are to do with something I’ve done. At least I’d be talking about something I understand, but at the same time it makes me vulnerable, and maybe I seem self-centred.

The other video discussed was an experimentation to do with depicting the idea of rescuing women, and that whole moral crusade to ‘better’ women, as degrading and abusive. Because it is. If anything is abuse, it’s that, because it’s non-consensual and completely denies any rights or autonomy. So I made a video, using cameraphone and torch-light again, where I’m stroked and patronised and infantilised, and the speaker oversteps all the boundaries, all with the best of intentions. I don’t think it’s a bad idea, even if I haven’t found the right way of presenting it yet. The ostensibly reassuring words are contrasted with the torch-light on my face, which I’ve tried to use as a means of objectification – that the torch shows where the viewer, both in and outside of the video, are looking at the time. I don’t know whether I made the right choice in having imagery that looks ‘traditionally abusive’, like smeared makeup, and eventually tape over my mouth, but the makeup was smudged from trying out more aggressive actions previously, and my original idea was that I wanted it to be filmed visually quite like amateur horror, but then there is no violence or abuse or overt sexuality – there are just sickly kind words and invasion of personal space in the aid of being positive and comforting.

Again, I didnt want any sort of voice… I spoke in the original, but have edited out almost all of my speech, because I don’t want that sort of power. This sort of behaviour is abusive precisely because it claims to speak for people without a voice, while ensuring that the people actually involved are discredited and seen as poor little things that may not ever recover, may never be able to be taken seriously. The main thing that came up about this video was that it mentions child abuse, and that will make viewers not listen, or upset them, etc. I’ve been trying to think about this, and I do feel that the lines about abuse are important. I realise that they can be taken the wrong way, butĀ  that’s only from misunderstanding the piece. The actual line used is “Were you abused when you were a kid?”, in the original I say ‘no’ but this is obviously edited out, followed by “maybe you’ve just repressed it”, showing that the only response I could have given was negative. It was suggested that it seems like I’m pretending that I’ve been abused. I think it’s well within my rights to freedom of expression to make a video saying I’ve been abused when I haven’t, but that’s not what this particular video is. I’m not even saying that the on-screen character has been abused – the answer, through reading the responses of the speaking character, must be no. And I feel that this is an important thing to raise, because it’s a way of discrediting people. It’s also a way of justifying ‘deviant’ behaviour – it can’t just be that this person is an individual with varying fantasies, it’s that there must have been something bad that happened that caused them to become like this. Even when categorically saying that you were definitely not abused, people will still claim to have more knowledge about yourself than you do, through playing the repression card. It happened, but you don’t remember it, you poor, traumatised thing. And the scary thing is the amount of material claiming to be feminist that puts forward this view, telling women that there’s a good chance they’ve been abused but just don’t remember it, especially if they have positive feelings towards ‘abusive’ fantasies, or negative feelings towards ‘normal’ sexual activity. I haven’t quite decided how much I want to push to cling onto the abuse lines, because I don’t think they’re the most important part, but they do most definitely highlight a theme that is significant.

I know that the ‘characters’ expressed on these videos aren’t me in my natural state, but are they really characters? To me, they are a lot more just how I react to the stimulus within the videos, and that the reactions are the real reactions to how I myself behave towards the things that are happening while also being infront of a camera. Obviously some of the things I’m responding to can only be acting – when I’m being patronised and infantilised, the person saying the words doesn’t really mean them, but it still felt bad to have them said to me, while being touched so delicately, and the feeling that that character was overstepping my personal boundaries by demanding to hold my hand and such like. So the person I’m reacting to is a character, but a character based on reality, seeing as there are so so many people who’ve made me feel uncomfortable with this sort of ‘affection’ in my life. One thing I’m considering making is something to do with the non-consensuality of being touched as a child. Not sexually, but ‘affectionately’, by relatives, generally because you have to have them touch you or you touch them to pretend that you love them, because they’re giving you money or a birthday present or something. How is that not prostitution?

Maybe my work is actually shit. I never spend more than a day actually making anything – I can spend months thinking about it, but the actual process of creating it will never take me more than a day. I woke up at midday today, and I’ve already made a video. And I guess maybe that’s the point – that it’s probably not a very good video.

But, I wish I could get across the point that I want to explore lots of different ideas – pretty much all of the things I make could rightfully be seen as ‘not finished’ in the sense that if I worked on them for weeks and weeks then they’d change and they might be ‘better’. But I really think that the only way in which they would be better is visually. I feel that making lots of different things quickly helps me to develop the ideas, and to see what’s working, or not working, and continue from there. This one of the things I’ve always despised about how art is taught – it seems like there’s the expectation that you will pick an idea and just keep doing it ad nauseum until you’ve found the perfect combination of how to do it, and, for me, that isn’t art. Well, it is art, because I think that most things can be considered art, but that it’s not how art has to be in order to be ‘art’. I don’t want to pick one idea and do it to death at the expense of thinking about anything else, because the only thing that I really, really want to do is transmit ideas, and however the thing is presented, it will have the same ideas. I understand that certain ways of presentation are going to make people think about the ideas more, but I really don’t think that trying to make art more ambiguous is a good way of transmitting a message. It seems like most popular art conforms to the well-respected criteria that it should be poetic, mysterious, and basically unreadable. It doesn’t matter what your work intends to say, so long as it says it in the right way. It seems like most art is ‘art’ because it’s framed in the context of being art, and doesn’t tell the viewer anything, so the viewer leaves thinking that it’s cleverer than it actually was. Art, like drama, unfortunately seems to be suffering “it’s-up-to-the-viewer’s-interpretation” syndrome, which, to me, shows a lot less care and consideration than looking at something with a clear opinion. My work doesn’t show care because I use sellotape, other work doesn’t show care because it’s the done thing to just say “I want the viewer to project their ideas onto it”, which is code for “I have no ideas, so I need the viewer to assume there are ideas and make them up themselves.” Fine, great, by all means do that, but it’s still stupid. I just desperately don’t want to end up creating art that is wishywashy. It’s pointless. I used to paint portraits, and it was pointless. Of course, my parents will always ask me why I don’t paint portraits any more, presumably wanting me to go back to doing something that they understand as art and are allowed to see. I don’t exactly feel much like sharing my work with them, just like I don’t particularly feel like sharing my work with my school, seeing as neither are especially nurturing of what I want to do. “It’s not art. If you wanted to do this, you should have done politics or sociology or psychology or joined a campaign group…” etc. But why isn’t it art?

I suppose the point I’m trying to make is that I think if I keep on working how I am, I’ll keep making links between the different ideas, and they’ll keep changing. I made a video today, and it probably isn’t especially good – I feel like the premise is mildly insane, while being unsure whether if I showed it at school this would be interpreted as artistic and poetic, or amateur and pathetic. I think it’s good for me to break away from the prostitution/trafficking clearcut issue for a bit, if only to make the suggestion that that’s not specifically what my work is about. I get the feeling that if you read my work literally, it comes across a lot like a school project, like a presentation on why <“contentious issue”> is <good/bad>, and that’s feels really stupid if it’s viewed solely as that. I wouldn’t mind the work having the feeling of a school project if that was just part of the work – the propaganda is a lot like a school project, expressing the most simple views without really thinking about them.

But I get the feeling that potentially all my work is read as is “sex work is bad/good”, rather than applying it more to the general issue of body autonomy and ownership of bodies. My video from today touches on these issues more, although it’s probably not at all clear. Although, unclear, obscure and saying nothing seems to be the marking criteria šŸ˜‰ Anyway, I felt faintly ridiculous, not because I’m dressed in Mouse ears, a dog collar, and pawprint gloves, but because I’ve tried to express everything I want to say in the video in ‘meow’s. Yes, it sounds stupid, and it felt stupid, and it really sounds like the sort of idea that someone’s doing just to look quirky, but I wanted to try it because it’d been on my mind for a while, in regard to women seen like animals, treated like animals, ‘human pets’, all linking to body autonomy and who has ownership over you. Like, if you allow an individual to have ownership over you, can you ever really consent to ‘slavery’, ‘abuse’, etc. when our legal system doesn’t allow you the ownership of your body to decide to do that, so really you still belong to the State. With things how they are at the moment, with government and law able to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body, you do not own your own body. Similarly, no other individual can own your body, because you can’t consent to them ‘owning’ you like a ‘slave’, and consent doesn’t matter in issues of abuse, like with the Spanner case. So the only thing you can ever really belong to is the State, which is interesting considering all the ideas of women ‘selling’ themselves in prostitution, because how can they sell something that doesn’t even belong to them?

The video is all subtitled, because it would have been fucking stupid to just have me meowing at the screen for 4 minutes with no explanation, although I don’t think what is actually said is all that important in comparison to the themes within it. It’s not especially clever or well thought-out, but at least it’s made me think about issues of ownership and buying, selling, consent, etc.

My current projects aren’t going well. I want to work in video, but feel I want to do something too ambitious, so I’m putting it off.

I have a number of projects that I’m planning at the moment, but may never ever come to fruition. Some of them are still pending from last year, and I haven’t done anything with them, even though I should, just so I can see that they’re bad ideas and let them go.

Most of the ideas I have are that I want to create ideological, political pornography. That’s not to say that it’s necessarily intended to arouse, and certainly it wouldn’t be intended as its ‘sole or primary purpose’ is to arouse, but that it would show whatever is being documented explicitly. There’s no point in not showing something, unless there’s a good reason, and that reason shouldn’t be to do with morals, offense or obscenity. One of the things I want to do is create a video that isn’t ‘pornographic’ in the sense of showing sexuality, but instead shows the sort of acts associated with pornography, but that are also considered ‘violent’. I’m trying to be realistic about this, so as much as I think it could be brilliant to be properly beaten on film, it’s probably going to have to be limited to restraining, slapping, spitting, hair-pulling, all within the context of being humilated, degraded, abused, precisely for wanting the freedom to do that. Or something along those lines. I want there to be a parallel between the sort of bondage that the government/legal system believes to be harmful to society, and the sort of bondage that the government/legal system inflicts on society in the name of keeping order, and that the second one is real, and there isn’t a safeword. There are so many themes and issues within this that I haven’t tried to start making it, because I want to be clear about what I’m doing, but for some reason I just can’t get it straight in my mind. I know exactly how I want to do it though, in regard to the method used, as I think that any actor or artist who won’t actually subject themselves to the things that they purport to be representing are fake. I don’t think that you can act something well, unless part of you believes that what you’re doing is real, which is great, because I’m very able to suspend by disbelief in this sort of thing. So obviously I’m always going to know that it’s safe, but I think that seeing as I won’t have any awareness of what’s actually going to happen (no script, and not being told in advance what the other person is going to do) at least it won’t be completely contrived. At least it will be a real representation of what it is – me having asked someone to do these things to me, because of how having my freedom of expression limited makes me feel.

Secondly, I want to workĀ  with the idea of art as prostitution. Original, I know. But the idea of the viewer having all the power, control, authority, and being able to dictate what the artist does. “Don’t try to please me, except for all the pleasing me.” Why is it more ethical to have people try to change my ideas to get me a good grade to enable my future prospects, than it would be to just say “suck me off and I’ll give you a good grade/job”? Maybe that’s a little extreme, but I found a notebook from my first year at university, and I’d written about how much more vulnerable I felt at having my work (which also happened to be photographs of my naked body) scrutinised academically by university staff than I felt showing my naked body sexually for money to strangers. And it’s completely, completely true. It’s incredibly less ‘degrading’ to ‘sell’ your body sexually than it is to show your body academically, and, more than that, to have to speak on demand about what you’ve done, justify it, give it context, and know that people can just say that they don’t like it, don’t think you should have done it, do something different next time. I guess this is the essence of criticism and I’ve never been at all good at taking criticism, but I feel that it’s more than that. Within an institution like this, there is a very clear hierarchy of authority, and authority is still something to be listened to, forcefully respected, and, because of that, if you don’t bend your ideas to whatever the authority suggests, you’re being insubordinate, you’re not showing respect, you’re not taking on board criticism and what’s the point in you being here if you’re not going to listen and improve yourself?

I want to make the videos really low-quality, webcam or camera-phone standard, because it’s obvious that that sort of image is what captures the public imagination and terrifies censors. The amount of things that have been cut just because it’s filmed by a hand-held camera. So I want to experiment with that. I plan on shooting the film about the “viewer” as a PoV shot, so the viewer of the film immediately identifies with the viewer in the film. We’ll see how it goes anyway.

The other film idea is markedly less pornographic, but requires more acting. I want to present a slideshow from an anti-porn website, preferably just using the script and slides they provide, but maybe improvising just to talk to the audience. An audience that obviously won’t exist, but I want to act as though they do. All these ideas sound so shit when you actually write them down… they’d probably look better if I made them rather than just talking about them.

My ultimate (perverse) artistic dream is to create a grainy, webcam or camera phone video as a fake snuff film, with blood packs and everything. Perhaps slightly contravening the OPA, but if it’s ok in a film (although, is it ok in a film…?) surely it’s fine to just make for my own curiosity. The person I live with is currently involved in a production of “The Pillowman”, and are having to sort out blood packs and how to break them inside a hood placed over one of their cast’s head for when he’s executed by Detective Tupolski, so all of this has sparked my desire to create something similar, but filmed, and therefore transcending the fantasy/reality barriers of stage. Obviously I’m more than happy for it to be political as well, so I’m taking a lot of influence from the play. I’m fine with being slapped, spat on, verbally abused, for my art, but where’s the line? The line might just be syrup-based fake blood in my hair….

(Considering going back and highlighting the ‘FAKE’ bit of ‘fake snuff film’, just so if I ever end up in court it can’t be paraphrased so easily into ‘snuff film’… Although, who cares about facts? Let’s just make sure we’re sending the right message.)

Some photos of my final, finished exhibition piece, because I’ve left the unfinished pictures up too long.

Not especially good, but it’s something. I don’t feel painfully inadequate to other students at my school, but also know I’m not exactly setting the world on fire or anything. Just don’t want anyone to think that I think what I do is really amazing… I’m just interested in the issues and at least formulating ideas into visuals makes me think about them more.

On a side note, the exhibition was called ‘Pain’, which personally I find hilarious. Who comes up with these things…?

My exhibition piece for tomorrow in progress. Better than I expected, considering I found out that I have an exhibition tomorrow at 3.30 this afternoon, and so had to go into my studio afterhours to take everything down and paint the wall white in preparation, then start actually making the piece. Obviously it’s completely badly made – it’s all stuck together with sellotape, but it doesnt show too much. My excuse for being able to link it to everyone elses’ work in my studio is that it has some stuff directly on the wall, and other people are doing murals, and the bedframe looks like an extension of the wall, or something. Failing that I’ll have to paint on the wall, which I dont want to do because I like how clean it looks as it is – maybe that can be my point, it’s not similar to the murals, it’s dissimilar, with black letters stuck to clean white wall. Bleh, dont really care. Not marked on it, will probably only be up for a couple of days. Totally unimportant, just dont really want to look like a twat for doing something completely different to anyone else in my studio, but not quite sure how painting a mural of kitchen utensils would really be that useful to my work, and get the impression that while the things should link together in the room, they are still meant to be something to do with your own working practice.

 

Here are some pictures from my studio shortly before it was dismantled. After moving in a couple of weeks ago, they’ve now decided that we’re having an exhibition tomorrow (which we were told about today), and are using the studio spaces to do this, so have to move everything out.

Luckily enough, I had my crit earlier today, otherwise I would have been very very unhappy seeing as I wouldn’t have a studio space if it were next week.

My crit was utterly bizarre. I’ve kind of given up writing on this blog now, or at least have done for a while. I dont think that it can really be that interesting to read, and probably would be of no interest to people who know me, let alone people who don’t. But maybe I should try to write, even if it’s just for myself.

The crit was strange and terrible, but not really that terrible. I was really nervous and nearly had a panic attack while people were discussing my work. It was horrible. The comments seemed to be that the subject matter was ‘dark’, ‘disturbing’, ‘horrible’, which I always find strange because there’s obviously nothing inherently dark, disturbing or horrible about the sex industry, in my opinion, and that the only reason you’d think it was dark, disturbing or horrible from seeing my work is if you believe the things my propaganda says. People seemed to think that there wasn’t any subtlety, that it was blunt and bludgeoning, but I hope that that’s about the propaganda images, as that’s exactly how they’re intended. I got the impression that people didn’t really understand that the views expressed in the propaganda wasn’t what I actually thought, and there wasn’t really any challenge of the views expressed within them.

The lecturer leading the crit suggested that with images of women, money, handprints, toys, etc. that even without the text she would have understood that it related to the sex industry. I think that that’s perfectly true, but can’t help but think that because of the level of stereotyping about the sex industry that people would get to the issue of the sex industry from that sort of imagery but that most likely they would arrive at the exact sort of thoughts expressed in the text on the images, without necessarily realising that those are stereotypes and generalisations, not universal truth. Part of why I use the text is so that when people read it they might actually question it, seeing as if they’re thinking those things then see them written down, they might wonder why those sort of things spring to mind.

I can stand peopleĀ  not liking the work, not thinking it’s subtle enough, or wanting to take away the text, but wanting me to not have worked on it at all is quite something else. There was someone who talked about having been told not to work on anything to do with any ‘issues’ by a staff member here, which I think proves that intelligence and academia is actively discouraged at this university. At foundation level she worked on the subject of human trafficking, but at degree level she’s told not to discuss female domesticity, because it’s too much work…

That one’s not so bad, because they were talking about their own experiences and not trying to tell me not to work on this, just saying that they’d been advised not to, but one girl makes my heart want to burst with rage. She said that maybe I could have got the point across with just 1 or 2 images, but I’d taken it too far. She said that she didn’t want to talk about it (so why did she start speaking infront of everyone?), because I’d used myself in the pictures, and she didn’t know whether I’d had personal experience or whether I was using myself as a prop, ‘for want of a better word.’ Then she talked about how I should be very careful, because lots of women have actually been through this, and, if she was one of them, then she’d tell me what for, trying to talk about something I didn’t understand or have personal experience of.

So, basically, offence. People pre-empting offence on the behalf of other people who havent seen my work, may never see my work, and may not even exist. The predominant theme throughout was that it’s reeeeeally hard to work on big issues like this, and that you need to research it really thoroughly (I research this obsessively), and should maybe find someone to talk to who’s actually been involved in this sort of thing, to get personal experience. As though talking to someone in the sex industry means that you’ll understand what it’s like and be able to make better work – it’s just lazy. It’s trying to prove that you’re not lazy, when actually you are and are just indulging in a bit of reaching out to and meeting undesirables. Aside from this, there’s the fact that this girl who said ‘exploited’ women would be offended was completely generalising. I even asked her whether she meant in regard to trafficking specifically, or the entire industry, and she said she meant it as a whole, which seems to mean that she thinks that any woman involved in the sex industry would react the same way to this.

I truly believe that people should be able to talk about and produce work on anything they want, whether they have personal experience on it or not. It annoys me when people create stereotypical art work based on buzzwords, but that doesnt mean that they shouldnt be allowed to do it by any means – they’re at least probably going to learn something from undertaking a project like that, even if they never bother to actually research it properly. This may seem a little conceited, but I think that my work comes across as stereotypical and cliched because it’s intended to come across that way – the propaganda was designed in order to show how shallow and simplistic those views are when they’re actually spelt out.

I’m not quite sure what could be offensive about my work other than it’s subject matter in general, seeing as it expresses so many viewpoints on the issue. Why is it suddenly considered offensive to have really strongly opinionated propaganda on sex work in an art studio when there are posters about sex work and trafficking out in public on the street, or commissioned by our government? Are they not offensive because it’s not expected that they’ll be thought about?

I don’t like doing one-up-manship, so didn’t rise to the baiting of only being able to work on this sort of thing if you have personal experience. The girl who really pissed me off for being generalising and patronising and condescending apologised to me afterwards, not for what she said, but for how she said it, although I wouldnt really say it’s an apology when you say sorry but then justify what you said. Apparently she was sorry that she bit my head off, but it was that she found out that my only experience of this was from the media, not personal experience, and that she actually does have personal experience in this sort of thing. Because I’m that sort of person, I obviously started trying to deduce exactly what sort of experience she has with this sort of thing, and I’d be willing to guess some sort of sexual abuse, but absolutely nothing to do with the commercial sex industry, although obviously I may be wrong. It’s just that when she was telling me my work might upset people who’d been through these things, she mentioned my supposed mentioning of rape in my work, which actually doesn’t come up at all. I kind of took it for granted at the time that my work explicitly and specifically had something about rape in it, but then later realised that’s not true at all, unless you’re going to argue that all sex work is rape, so I think it was just her projecting onto it.

Anyway, it was an interesting crit. Definitely worthwhile, if nerve-wrecking. At least I’m able to pretend that all the negative criticisms were because the work is meant to be obvious and bludgeoning. I still dont think that any restrictions should be put in place as to what you can and cannot work on, and that it shouldnt always always be a big competition of “well, this has happened to meeeee, so I can talk about it, and you all have to listen and believe me because I have personal experience!” It would be cathartic to play that game, but never mind. I want people to think that my work has integrity, but unfortunately by giving my work this, I’d lose any integrity that I had personally.

Posted on: November 21, 2010



  • 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