I'm not angry or upset. This is just to damn tedious to try and figure should I want to jump into the sandbox and play childish games. So I leave it alone, forward motion, don't look back and carry on.
Strange thing is being on house quarantine do to the flu, has struck me as a blessing in disguise. Bren and I are on the mend, although he's still coughing up phlem. Me, my body aches and I can fall asleep at the drop of a hat. Yet if this is a ring of honesty, certain friendships are not missed. I think they just changed, when I looked at them differently. I never said so to their face, yet I accepted their stupid action as a error and left it their. Yeah, I had my own judgement, but I stuck it in the back and left it alone. Weird to think that it really made me look at them in a different way all together. Let's just say they also took it on their behalf to stick words in my mouth, speak for me for their own purpose, when I never said anything remotely close to what I am accused of. When you step outside of circles and look at things from a different perspective, things will always look different.
Yesterday I read that one of my favourite artists has come under fire, by having his work confiscated. Richard Prince whose show I caught last year at the Serpentine Gallery covers things that he finds interesting. a collector and painter. I love his biker momma photos. His work of Brooke Shields photo of a photo, "Spiritual America" has been deemed offensive and breaches the child porn laws set here in Britain. So the photo was seized by Met Police when whistle blowers called the photo child porn, and taken down from The Tate Modern exhibition. Now because of this dumb ass and the like, predetors can now Google the image and oogle it in the comfort of their own homes. Nice job shit head.
I never saw the photo as offensive nor pornographic., but the actual image was taken by another photographer in the late 70's and was featured in Playboy. It too was also subject to obscenity laws in the U.S. What bothers me about this whole thing is that this was manipulated by some asshole whom used choice words in describing the actual work. Describing the image, "exploiting that child", "bait". First off, this person is nothing more than a "child psychologist" spear heading a her agenda. But what this whack job doesn't understand is that by creating the Striesand Effect to an image most people had no idea about, she's done quit the opposite. I think it is her whom should feel ashamed of her self. I always question people whom look at artwork and think or see a suggestive ideology behind the piece itself. Does this not say more about them and how they view children?
Nan Goldin went through the same three years ago when a photo of two girls in a dance studio was confiscated. The image was of two girls whom appeared to be sitting in the studio taking a break while dancing. The Image was actually owned by Elton John and deemed offensive and went through the same hoo hah. The image of of Spiritual America was not considered pornographic in the U.S. This fucking harpie banging on about child abuse, should be looking in places other than art galleries to further bring attention to her organisation. She made it sound like The Tate was Billing this as the feature of the show. I always think it's these peoples repressive nature that is far more disturbing and a little closer to the pedophiles they profile and chase. One, cause they look at certain things in a particular way and seek them out, not like a normal person who looks at things.
I got dropped from my printer when he refused to print my work Les Petites Fluers. Calling it sick and pornographic. My response was, "Hey pal, just cause you leer at young girls you shouldn't put your shit onto me." It never occured to him to ask me about the work and ask what the representation was. That would be to civilized.
No comments:
Post a Comment