File spoon-archives/surrealist.archive/surrealist_1996/96-08-21.184, message 80


Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 14:37:01 -0700
From: biomorph-AT-ix.netcom.com (Wm. Dubin)
Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP (Michael B.)


I read Michael B.'s post on this yesterday, but decided to wait a bit 
before answering, in an attempt to come up with something profound 
(unfortunately, this didn't happen), so this will just have to read the 
way it comes out.

There has, in my opinion, been no more serious subject presented, since 
the beginning of this list, than that which Michael B.'s letter 
discusses. CENSORSHIP, in ANY of its forms, should be odeious to ALL 
who consider themselves to be connected in any way to surrealism. 
Sexual censorship, should be doubly so.

While I have problems with several of Breton's moral positions 
(vis-a-vis homosexuality for one), there is no question that Breton and 
surrealism attacked the hypocrosy of the sexual morality of their time, 
and the church's role in that hypocracy. The position of surrealism, 
and of surrealists is quite clear.

Michael's situation is also a replay, albiet on a lower level of 
attack, of the situations that happened earlier to Sally Mann and Jock 
Sturgis... both of whome were "reported" to police and FBI by so-called 
"workers" to whome they had entrusted their film for developement. Both 
had their lives nearly ruined by years of federal prosucition, the 
destruction of their negatives and studio equiptment, and ruinious 
legal fee's necessary to defend themselves from a government gone mad.

In both their cases, there was the added HORROR of child 
pornography.... YEAH... Sally Mann had the nerve to photograph her own 
children nude... Jock Sturgis photographed OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN (from 
whose parents he always got a signed release) nude. Both these cases 
were follow-up's on the unsuccessful attempt (at that time)to destroy 
the NEA through the example of Mapplethorp. (The NEA is of course, now 
finished... the "publicity" convinced the congress,- who really needed 
NO convincing - after all).

What makes Michael's case a bit trickier, is the fact that his 
"objectionable people" are NOT children... although their LACK of pubic 
hair might lead to some misunderstandings by hysterical-types, such as 
the worker who refused to print the transfers. There is also the fact 
(and in case I'm wrong, Michael, please correct this),that the 
ORIGINALS Michael uses, have already been printed once, and thusly 
passed any test for legal pornography as their very existence proves.

It is possible, that these two factors are the reasons Michael isn't 
sitting in jail. In case you think I'M BEING HYSTERICAL, I suggest you 
read-up on the Mann and Sturgis cases.

All of this, comes as the so-called christian right, makes its huge 
push to send the rest of us into the dark ages they desire so badly. 
Its hardly surprising, that some self-rightious worker took the stand 
this one did, at a time period when ALL sexual activity is circumspect, 
and the presidential canditates of BOTH parties express their 
hypocritical reactions to the questions of morality. Whats interesting, 
is the reaction of the photolab itself. At one time, the worker would 
simply have been laughed at (or fired), but hardly coddeled! This, 
unfortuanately, goes a long way towards showing the outright fear that 
exists today in America reguarding anything considered questionable 
about sexuality.

Surrealists of the past, seemed able to get together their forces, to 
at least publish a tract against such incidents, or behaviours. I would 
hope, that something that threatens us as writers, artists, and human 
beings, could bring about at least some sort of counter-attack.

Wm.



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005