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.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005