From: STUART INMAN <S.Inman-AT-greenwich.ac.uk>
Date:          Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:25:35 GMT
Subject:       Re: Gregg Simpson etc.


I had wanted to get something first hand about the business a few 
weeks ago, when this first seemed to be a live issue, heard 
nothing, so thought he was not going to answer. His reply, when it 
came, seemed to fit with the impression I got from the previous 
discussions.

Now I have no objection to Gregg Simpson wanting to be careful 
about what his daughter sees on the Net, it is, in itself sensible, 
I mean that if his daughter is very young, some things on the Net 
could be upsetting and so on. His attitude seems to extend beyond 
this to the idea that sex is an unfit subject for surrealist 
investigation, so he is at least original. I have challenged this, 
mentioning Breton, Bataille, Mansour, Matta, Molinier, Bellmer, and 
others. As I hope I indicated in my previous post, I was not 
particularly trying to be provocative, but as he had at last replied 
to my message, I felt obliged to take issue with the points that he 
had made.

I would be totally against anyone trying to impose some kind of 
censorship on the subject matter either in our discussions or in the 
proposed exhibition. My concern then becomes whether or not the other 
Vancouver people would feel the same way. But I seem to remember a 
fairly high erotic content to Michael Bullock's work and suspect that 
the only source of this opinion is Gregg Simpson. Also, it is no 
longer April the first.

Stuart