I have been avoiding adding to this debate, but there is one comment
from Mitch that I can't ignore.
On 1 February 2011 16:14, Mitch Davis <mjd+lca at afork.com> wrote:
>
> Not to trivialise what you're saying, ?but I didn't see any sexual
> image which could unambiguously be seen as about sexual assault, loss
> of personal freedom or unwelcome power.
In that case, Mitch, you were at a different talk to me. The original
images, in another context, may well have been about consenting
parties all obtaining enjoyment from their actions. I am not in a
position to judge that. However the context in which they were
presented was "if you do <something> then you are f****d". I really
don't think Mark's intended message was "if you do <something> then
you'll be involved in consenting, enjoyable sexual acts". If that was
his aim, I expect he would have used different images. The context of
the display of those images, and his wording, implied that he meant
f****d as a euphemism for raped (or perhaps dominated). Therefore he
intended those pictures to denote sexual violence, even if the
original models/artists/etc did not. Remember, Mark was not talking
about the pictures. He was using the pictures to reinforce what he was
saying. The meanings I attributed to the images were those conveyed by
his words. And he seemed to be saying (in part) something like "using
facebook is as bad as being raped", or "if you use facebook you'll be
raped".
For the record, I also found the evil Ronald MacDonald disturbing.
Maybe equating child violence with MacDonald's advertising will raise
awareness of the dangers of junk food, however I fear it is more
likely to de-sensitise people to violence against children.
> ?My feeling is that Mark's use of
> words and images wasn't done with the purpose of trivialising assault
> or condoning marginalisation,
I agree.
> .. but to leverage the disgust the majority
> of people feel towards those issues, towards the increasingly
> important issues of techno-dependency, inequality and vulnerability.
> And why not?
Because doing so trivialises assault, by equating it with
techno-dependency. These two things are almost at opposite ends on a
spectrum of "badness".
My apologies Mitch if I have mis-represented you by quoting you out of
context. I don't think I have.
Cheers,
Anne.
--
Coherent Software Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 2773
Cheltenham Vic 3192
Phone: (03) 9585 6788
Fax: (03) 9585 1086
Web: http://www.cohsoft.com.au/
Email: sales at cohsoft.com.au
Bonsai ERP, the all-inclusive ERP system
http://www.bonsaierp.com.au/
Received on Tue Feb 01 2011 - 17:41:36 GMT