Ivan Pope
Since the beginning
Works in Brighton United States of America

BIO
In the place where analogue and digital overlap, that's why you will find me in the kitchen at parties.
Everything is at my site, http://blog.ivanpope.com
Discussions (225) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

NEW GAME: Bring me a Tank


Prize for the first person to send me a picture of any Tank or other
Military Vehicle (we learn to talk Humvee and Bradley) grabbed from this
live Baghdad webcam:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/live/now2.ram
Ta,
Ivan

--
Ivan Pope
ivan@ivanpope.com
www.ivanpope.com
www.tochki-inc.com

"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
Hunter S. Thompson

DISCUSSION

Hacking inkjet printers


I'm looking for information and help on hacking inkjet printers. I want to =
control my printers at the print head level rather than through standard so=
ftware, or something like that. I'm also interested in hacking them at the =
hardware level, i.e. electronics and disassembly.
Anyone out there who knows this stuff, who wants to have a go, who can poin=
t me in the right direction?
I'd be interested in a collaboration - I'm just not a hacker.
Cheers for any help, apologies for x posting.
Cheers,
Ivan

--
Ivan Pope
ivan@ivanpope.com
www.ivanpope.com
www.tochki-inc.com

"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
Hunter S. Thompson

DISCUSSION

Re: [syndicate] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: MOUCHETTE - Franklin Furnace's first "Future of the Present 2003" Artist


>
>> Eryk,
>> I have no idea why really you want to make this 'analysis'.
>
>
> Because I choose to be annoyed by what I see as cheap sexual exploitation of
> women and children. Men I would mind, too, but they never seem to be in that
> situation, have you noticed?
>
Do you analyse porn sites, child porn sites, male porn sites? If not, why
not?
>
>
> Mouchette.org is "succesful" because it "sexually titillates" its audience
> with the illusion of sexual assault of a minor. There is none of the self
> reflection or condemnation of the practive inherent in the work. Then, the
> victim kills herself on her 13th birthday; a tidy clean up for the mess made
> from the dehumanization inherent in this type of sexual assault.
>
I dont see that Mouchette kills herself to tidy up the mess. There is talk
of suicide, but there is a lot on the site, including some talk of her
mother and father encouraging her. Whatever its about, it doesnt lend itself
to your easy/straightforward reading, surely?

>> I think the piece is clever, strange, funny, disturbing and above all,
>> knowing. I hardly think the world of paedophiles needs this sort of art to
>> promote its agenda.
>
>
> The work is a cultural incarnation of an irresponsible idea. Much of
> mouchettes "success" is based less on the "art" itself and more on the
> feeling of sexual titillation that the work promotes. The confusion between
> art and sexual energy is something that I believe should be kept in check,

Sorry, I dont see why this should be kept in check. Sounds like a great
idea: confusion between art and sexual energy. I think a lot of artists have
aimed their work into this space. Surely sexual energy makes the world go
round, art included?

> particularly when the work promotes the idea of exploitative sexual
> practices.

Well, its your view that the Mouchett piece promotes the idea of
exploitative sexual practice. I would say that it plays successfully with
some notions of flirting, but safely within a self aware art context. I just
think that anyone from the art side will recognise where it sits and anyone
who does not approach it from an art perspective would see it as crazy, but
not exactly sexy.

>I do not believe that anyone who sees the work of Mouchette will
> rape a child as a result, or even that it will "make" anyone sexualize
> children. I just want to draw attention to this idea: Mouchette is succesful
> because it sexualizes children, and people confuse this with "art". It is a
> different thing altogether.

No, art is a broad church. Nothing is outside the remit of art. You may not
wish this to be true, but saying it does not make it so.

Cheers,
Ivan

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: [syndicate] MOUCHETTE - Franklin Furnace's first "Future of the Present 2003" Artist


Eryk,
I have no idea why really you want to make this 'analysis'.
You seem to accept that the site is the work of an artist, thus not, I
presume, a real, naive, 13 yr old girl.
Yet, you say, then, that we are 'directly encouraged to participate in
virtual interactions against a young girl'.
If it is the work of an artist, then there is no young girl, just maybe our
notion of one.

You say you do not want to censor any artists.
Yet, you say that you think the primary message of the piece is 'putting out
the idea that children are capable of seducing adults'.
If you do not want to censor, what is your point?

You say
> http://www.mouchette.org/touch/plush.html is a piece in which we are
> encouraged to look through a plethora of childrens toys to find "a pink open
> mouth" [which resembles a vagina] and a "striped penis." I am wondering what
> we are supposed to interpret the message of this piece to be?
yet there is no striped penis, there is no open mouth. There are just
childrens toys and words. You wonder how we are to interpret this, but you
have just told us. You interpret them as penis and vagina, as you are
instructed by the text.

I think the piece is clever, strange, funny, disturbing and above all,
knowing. I hardly think the world of paedophiles needs this sort of art to
promote its agenda.

Cheers,
Ivan

> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
>
> A Critical Analysis of Mouchette.org
>
> After a request from an artist claiming to be responsible for Mouchette.org

> I want to be careful in explaining that I am not intending to accuse the
> artist responsible for Mouchette.org of being a pedophile,

> with Mouchettes website, we are directly encouraged to
> participate in virtual interactions against a young girl.

> I want
> to be perfectly clear: the subject is ... simply whether or
> not the site can be read as mainstreaming, putting out the idea that
> children are capable of seducing adults, an extension of the classic "she
> was asking for it / dressed for rape" defense by male rapists. My conclusion
> is that this can be read as the primary message within the work.
>
>
> I am not attempting to censor any artists, nor do I believe that art
> addressing the real impacts of sexual abuse would be problematic; nor that
> explorations of sexuality are "immoral". I am not a defender of policies
> which aim to child proof the world, nor do I believe in a world of 100%
> political correctness. I believe that we have to begin to look at net.art as
> a real art form that is interested in ideas and messages, and that we begin
> to evaluate such work on the merits of these intentions. To do this, we must
> look at the ideas and messages that artists are putting across in the work,
> for better or for ill.

> http://www.mouchette.org/touch/plush.html is a piece in which we are
> encouraged to look through a plethora of childrens toys to find "a pink open
> mouth" [which resembles a vagina] and a "striped penis." I am wondering what
> we are supposed to interpret the message of this piece to be?

>Another piece is: http://mouchette.org/music/index.html where we
> hear either "whimpers" or "moans" depending on your interactions,
> specifically, where you put your mouse icon. This takes on sinister new
> meanings when combined with the idea that your mouse is your hand, as
> described in this text:

> I can't really see any other interpretation for "music" that is made with
> the sounds of little girls crying or moaning depending on where you
> "penetrate" the screen with your "finger." There are also numerous pieces
> where the Mouchette character encourages the viewer to engage with her
> through the screen. In one piece, "flesh and blood", at:
> http://www.mouchette.org/flesh/tong.html for example, we are invited to tell
> the 13 year old girl what her tongue tastes like. When we do- with a button
> that says "come closer," we are treated to a close up of those lips sucking
> on a finger.
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Iraq Acknowledges Strike on Saddam's Home


on 21/3/03 12:42 pm, lewis lacook at llacook@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Iraq Acknowledges Strike on Saddam's Home
> 16 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
>

We are not at war with Iraq
And we can't be at war with one person, Saddam.

We are at war with Saddaq

It's the second Saddaqi war.

:-(

Ivan