REVIEW
This is NOT a review, this is a PETITION...
On 27th September, Dr Mindbender82 posted an entry to the Poetry Community entitled "Christ is on the TV"...for those of you who havent seen it I say have a look, oh and be warned about its content, because what Dr Mindbender doesn't say beforehand is that he has included pornographic images as part of it ( Read more... )
But the context of the poem has been taken in the wrong way. The poem is objecting to the degradation of our art (and as such I'll be the first to admit it is not art in the same sense that my sketches and studies in anatomy are art) but that the work has now become it's own controversy is an added level of meaning, (and hence why I want to make it inot perfomance poetry - in a new and radical way.)
But, why isn't Mitch writing letters and singing pattitions about the smut on big brother on TV, or the smutty advertisments filing up our freeways and high ways, our magazines nad our newspapers? What about the lurid sexual content of the music on the radio?
The work in itself is a protest against the widerrealms of art and desceration of human culture, its is not smut for smut sake.
He has offered no reasonable grounds for the removal of the pieace other than it offends him. How is it MY fault the pieace OFFENDS him? There is nothing illegale or specifcally IMMORAL about the pieace like beastiality of peadofillia (which would make it an entirly diffrent matter) there are perhaps three images of a reasonably tame nature (No actual graphic display of genitallia or close up of specific sex organs)
Do we simply start taking down anything off the poetrycom we find offensive so we don't have to look at it? I have no problems with people commenting on how henious, distasteful or horrid the work is. (Because it would show they don't understand the peiace its self, as it was not created to be beautfiul or magical, or anything of that ilk)
But the pieace is there to illistrate a point, it is there an expression of an idea. Do we start stripping down poems and images and anything else off of the poetrycom because we simply don't want to look at it?
Reply
Reply
If you were on his friends list, he could delete you, and the smut from his lj. But because you posted it on the poetry community, he is faced with the choice of either seeing pictures which he finds offensive, or leaving the poetry community so that he doesn't have to see them. Is it fair that Mitch may have to leave the poetry community because he wants to avoid pornographic images? (even if they are justified by the poem?)
Also, you asked
"why isn't Mitch writing letters and singing pattitions about the smut on big brother on TV, or the smutty advertisments filing up our freeways and high ways, our magazines nad our newspapers? What about the lurid sexual content of the music on the radio?"
Perhaps he doesn't watch big brother? Perhaps he doesn't listen to the radio? Either way, he can turn off any of these if they offend him. But Mitch cannot turn off your images that appear on his friends page. Mitch is required to use lj for our uni assessment.
All Mitch seems to be asking is that he is able to do that, without being exposed images that are pornographic.
As I mentioned above, this problem could be solved by using the lj-cut tag. That way you can still put forth your poems without censoring your creativity, and people who choose not to be exposed to pornographic images cannot criticise you for it, because they would they then have a choice as to whether or not they click the link and access your work.
Reply
It may be worth pointing out that the poetrycom is not a compulsive part of the course, and my understanding of it is that it is a place to express our art with its own autonomy not subject ot prefrance or dislike. A personalised attack would not be tolerated, because it is of a totally diffrent kind, and i can understand him being upset if I were attaking him personally or anyone for that matter, but this was a work in its own right, nor is it simply smut for smuts sake.
Reply
Leave a comment