From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest)
To: alloy-digest@smoe.org
Subject: alloy-digest V4 #86
Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org
Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk
X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org"
X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body.


alloy-digest         Thursday, March 18 1999         Volume 04 : Number 086



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Alloy: Stephen fesses up (was: Lost Toy People in San Francisco)  ["Stephe]
  Re: Alloy: NEA funding bad art                             [RThurF@aol.com]
  Alloy: Re: alloy-digest V4 #84  [Mary Ellen Spiegel <mspiegel@frontiernet.]
  Alloy: Re: sex & art        ["Jennie Bolton" <jbolton@ooze.nwfsc.noaa.gov>]
  Re: Alloy: Stephen fesses up (was: Lost Toy People in San Francisco)  [Deb]
  Alloy: Re: London-Canada convention   ["Lem Bingley" <lem@zdnetmail.co.uk>]
  Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art             [Debrah LaRue <darkpoet@darkpoet.com>]
  Alloy: Thomas on TV RIGHT NOW  [Tim_Dunn.JBA_HEATHROW.SPL_EXTERNAL@jba.co.]
  Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art  [Kathleen Truelove <Kathleen.McClelland@online.d]
  Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art                                   [RThurF@aol.com]
  Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art            ["Keith Stansell" <Keith@Stansell.com>]
  re:Alloy: sex and art                                   [DThurkirk@aol.com]
  Alloy: So Long, and thanks for all the fish...  ["Charles E. Kemp" <cekemp]
  Re: Alloy: So Long, and thanks for all the fish...  ["Keith Stansell" <Kei]
  Sex and Advertising (was: Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art)  [Robyn Moore <kbrm@ie]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:55:15 -0500
From: "Stephen M. Tilson" <Stephen_Tilson@compuserve.com>
Subject: Alloy: Stephen fesses up (was: Lost Toy People in San Francisco)

Debrah misconstrued thusly:

 > Ok you're more than a fan and I didn't realise it before!

That much at least is true, but . . .

 > Do you work with him at headspace? I didn't even know you were 
 > friends. Maybe you should fess up Stephen? '-) 

No, no, and yes.  Don't work with him.  Only met him once - about 18 months 
ago.  And now I've fessed up.

 > Maybe your marriage now will last forever, did you say you are 
 > married now?

Nice try. <grin>  Actually I am not married, but I am very involved, 
co-habitating even, with one of the Alloy members, Mary "Europa" 
Brown.  Europa and /\/\iles live at the other end of SF Bay from you 
in Santa Rosa.  We met on the internet at Thomas' web site (The Flat 
Earth Society) one year and some 354 days ago.  Life is good, for a 
change . . .  

/\/\iles

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 07:44:55 EST
From: RThurF@aol.com
Subject: Re: Alloy: NEA funding bad art

In a message dated 3/17/99 12:31:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
darkpoet@darkpoet.com writes:

<< Ick, that's gross but somehow gets funded by the government? >>

It upsets me! But it gets so complex when the definition of 'art' comes up for
debate. Personally, I think things like this exhibit not only belittle the
intended spirit of the feminist movement (as I see it - more of a 'realist'
movement, asserting the value of people as individuals, both male & female)
but it demeans the public's perception of what art is, true art as opposed to
arrogant mindgames. Saying things like "I am an artist, therefore what I do is
art" is the same thing as saying "I am a musician, therefore what I do is
music" even if it consists of throwing a set of bagpipes down the stairs.
Wouldn't that seem smug to you? I mean, it'd make a great sample, but... it
isn't music in itself. 

argh.

Robin T

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:23:48 -0500
From: Mary Ellen Spiegel <mspiegel@frontiernet.net>
Subject: Alloy: Re: alloy-digest V4 #84

Hey y'all!  *G*

I'm about to itty off to buy G-Vox but I thought I'd ask youse guys if you
knew of a better guitar-interface-software or one that also enables
keyboards to be used via computer  (I don't know all the proper terms for
them, if there are any  ;)

I was surprised to hear that Mr. Dolbys work was categorized as "pop music"
but then, upon thought, that would be the genera to put his stuff in...  or
the closest, I guess.  
We humans just can't seem to get away from putting perceptions into little
boxes and files,  we feel safer if we can catalogue everything;  all nice
and neat.  
Life, however, is rarely nice and neat...

and looking at this desk, neither am I;
*sigh* have to do some serious cleaning today  ;(

Debrah,  it appears we have many things in common...  water sign?   
(dang that's Trite!  ;)  I'll check a couple digests back for your home
page addy but if you write to the group today can you put it in your
letter?  It may make it easier,
and thanks

Hope all are well!


ME (Emmy)

Mary Ellen Spiegel



“never rest until you have uncovered your essential self.  Remember that.
Somewhere, deep inside you, hidden by all sorts of fears and worries and
petty little thoughts, is a clean pure being made of radiant colors.”
- --Shirley Jackson,  Hangsaman   p.  37

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Home Page:  http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4401

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Latest page:  Marian Apparitions 
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6002

Marian Apparitions email listserve; view its homepage at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6002/marianaps.html

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:26:14 -0800
From: "Jennie Bolton" <jbolton@ooze.nwfsc.noaa.gov>
Subject: Alloy: Re: sex & art

Robin writes:

>a lovely table arranged with a centerpiece of flowers,
> forks & knives & plates... but on each plate was an elaborate sculpture of
a

Though I have to ask, Robin, was it really a vagina (internal part), or a
vulva (the external parts)?  I imagine they were probably vulvas, just like
you see in the centerfolds of tons of magazines around (i.e., Hustler,
etc.).  To me, just going on your description, this sounds like a perfectly
fine artistic and political statement.  Women's bodies are routinely "cut
up" for advertisement and titillation purposes - this is just taking that
concept and putting it in a different context.  Is it supposed to shock? 
Yes, absolutely!  Because we are so used to seeing body parts of women
served up for these other, "acceptable" purposes, the artist needs to put it
in a shocking context to get you to notice....but think about the ads you
routinely see...you often don't see a woman entire, just legs or hands or
breasts as if cut off from the rest of her.  I can't even begin to count the
number of ads that use these disembodied female hands that don't seem to be
attached to anything!  The fact that this is done, and that we don't even
see it anymore is more shocking to me than an artistic observation calling
our attention to the practice.  It's alarming that they are starting to do
this with men's bodies, too.

And think of it this way...it's art like this that needs the most help to be
seen, and because it is seen, it means other artists are freer to express
themselves.  It works just like political struggle - the white establishment
in this country would never have dealt with Dr. M.L. King if there had not
been a Nation of Islam.  By having a group around that was even more extreme
and very visible, King looked like a moderate (which he was), which made it
more difficult to paint King as a raving lunatic, as Hoover and others would
have dearly loved to do.  Having artists test the very limits of free
expression, like those that have caused some political heat for the NEA in
the past, make us all freer to express ourselves, because they stretch the
limits of what you can say without reprisal, and I think that is an
important consideration in this age where politicians want to put
flagburners in prison for exercising their right to political speech.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now ;-)

Toodeloo,
Jen (:^
____________________________________________________
Jennie Bolton, Research Chemist
Northwest Fisheries Science Center ·
Vice-Chair, Pionus Breeders Association
<http://users.aol.com/apionus/PBAPAGE.HTM>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:06:26 -0700
From: Debrah LaRue <darkpoet@darkpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Alloy: Stephen fesses up (was: Lost Toy People in San Francisco)

> No, no, and yes.  Don't work with him.  Only met him once - about 18 months
> ago.  And now I've fessed up.
=====
Well that is very kewl...you just have so much info, it's really
impressive!

> 
> Nice try. <grin>  Actually I am not married, but I am very involved,
> co-habitating even, with one of the Alloy members, Mary "Europa"

Well who needs a piece of paper? Marriage is in the mind and I'm glad
you have someone. I am always glad when people are not alone. Maybe
because I loved being alone for many years and suddenly it felt very
empty after this and now I don't like "always" being alone. Good luck to
you!

Debrah


- - Sandman

3 books*** websites***   Email: darkpoet@darkpoet.com
http://www.intermag.com/DPS (Dance with the Dark Poet- Oct 96)
http://www.darkpoet.com (CycloDrama- release date Spring 1999)
http://www.darkpoet.net (Sun Storm Diaries- release date 2001?)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:24:54 +0000
From: "Lem Bingley" <lem@zdnetmail.co.uk>
Subject: Alloy: Re: London-Canada convention

Tim, I can't believe you ditched a half-drunk Crackers alone in London in the wee small hours. The poor guy had never been on a Tube train before!

Ah well, I guess the big Canadian can take care of himself. Especially after he displayed his lightning, military-trained reflexes by jumping out of the way of a pint of Guinness that the barman in the Queen Vic tried to throw over his groin. Accidentally, apparently, or maybe the barman just didn't like Canadians...

Anyway, I highly recommend that other Alloids take the trouble to meet in real life if they get the chance. Having met /\/\iles and Europa as well, I feel something of an authority. They were only slightly mad, The_copse was vaguely humanoid, and Crackers was not nearly as terrifying as he is online. 

Now, Crackers, what were we saying about not making jokes online....

Lem





Get your free E-mail at http://www.zdnet.co.uk/mail/

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 10:21:44 -0700
From: Debrah LaRue <darkpoet@darkpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art

> Robin writes:
> 
> >a lovely table arranged with a centerpiece of flowers,
> > forks & knives & plates... but on each plate was an elaborate sculpture of

Jennie wrote:
> etc.).  To me, just going on your description, this sounds like a perfectly
> fine artistic and political statement.  Women's bodies are routinely "cut
> up" for advertisement and titillation purposes - this is just taking that
> concept and putting it in a different context.  Is it supposed to shock?
====
YES it was meant to shock I'll bet, and that is an excellent point!
I totally understand what you're saying and art should be as free as
speech et al and I can even understand why a feminist would bring the
shock element into it...it is more of a "that's too extreme (for us
personally) and maybe I wouldn't "want it in my house" but yes I would
want men who had no consciousness of women beyond playboy mentality, to
see it and yes even the media to make statements about it's "true
message." So it wouldn't be "my kind" of art perhaps, but I would
respect the intention.

I think Robin and I share support/equality of women with you in theory.
I used to call myself a feminist but my work has made me more into
"equality for all" and that means I have to focus on every group (even
the white male who has a toe up on everyone else'-) and can no longer
take any extreme side...but believe me I would fight for women if an
issue were put on the table, anytime! '-)
What you said was very "on target."

Debrah

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:02:44 +0000
From: Tim_Dunn.JBA_HEATHROW.SPL_EXTERNAL@jba.co.uk
Subject: Alloy: Thomas on TV RIGHT NOW

MY MATE JOS IS ON THE PHONE SAYING TMDR IS ON BBC1 RIGHT NOW

AND I'M AT WORK

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 12:05:29 -0800
From: Kathleen Truelove <Kathleen.McClelland@online.disney.com>
Subject: Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art

It seems to me that advertisers will use anything to sell their products will no
thought to morality or beauty. I've noticed that the sex appeal of us women and
women who have no hips and big breasts is used over and over again by greedy men
and women who could care less about respect for women and their bodies. Sex is
just another way to sell anything, like promises of a better life if you buy a
certain product. It sickens me how advertising works at times. Well, that's my
two cents.

Pax Aye,
Kate;-)
PS. Happy Irish day everyone!!

Jennie Bolton wrote:

> Robin writes:
>
> >a lovely table arranged with a centerpiece of flowers,
> > forks & knives & plates... but on each plate was an elaborate sculpture of
> a
>
> Though I have to ask, Robin, was it really a vagina (internal part), or a
> vulva (the external parts)?  I imagine they were probably vulvas, just like
> you see in the centerfolds of tons of magazines around (i.e., Hustler,
> etc.).  To me, just going on your description, this sounds like a perfectly
> fine artistic and political statement.  Women's bodies are routinely "cut
> up" for advertisement and titillation purposes - this is just taking that
> concept and putting it in a different context.  Is it supposed to shock?
> Yes, absolutely!  Because we are so used to seeing body parts of women
> served up for these other, "acceptable" purposes, the artist needs to put it
> in a shocking context to get you to notice....but think about the ads you
> routinely see...you often don't see a woman entire, just legs or hands or
> breasts as if cut off from the rest of her.  I can't even begin to count the
> number of ads that use these disembodied female hands that don't seem to be
> attached to anything!  The fact that this is done, and that we don't even
> see it anymore is more shocking to me than an artistic observation calling
> our attention to the practice.  It's alarming that they are starting to do
> this with men's bodies, too.
>
> And think of it this way...it's art like this that needs the most help to be
> seen, and because it is seen, it means other artists are freer to express
> themselves.  It works just like political struggle - the white establishment
> in this country would never have dealt with Dr. M.L. King if there had not
> been a Nation of Islam.  By having a group around that was even more extreme
> and very visible, King looked like a moderate (which he was), which made it
> more difficult to paint King as a raving lunatic, as Hoover and others would
> have dearly loved to do.  Having artists test the very limits of free
> expression, like those that have caused some political heat for the NEA in
> the past, make us all freer to express ourselves, because they stretch the
> limits of what you can say without reprisal, and I think that is an
> important consideration in this age where politicians want to put
> flagburners in prison for exercising their right to political speech.
>
> OK, I'm off my soapbox now ;-)
>
> Toodeloo,
> Jen (:^
> ____________________________________________________
> Jennie Bolton, Research Chemist
> Northwest Fisheries Science Center ·
> Vice-Chair, Pionus Breeders Association
> <http://users.aol.com/apionus/PBAPAGE.HTM>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 20:50:54 EST
From: RThurF@aol.com
Subject: Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art

In a message dated 3/17/99 12:31:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jennie writes:

:: To me, just going on your description, this sounds like a perfectly
 fine artistic and political statement.  Women's bodies are routinely "cut
 up" for advertisement and titillation purposes - this is just taking that
 concept and putting it in a different context.  Is it supposed to shock? 
 Yes, absolutely!  Because we are so used to seeing body parts of women
 served up for these other, "acceptable" purposes, the artist needs to put it
 in a shocking context to get you to notice....but think about the ads you
 routinely see...you often don't see a woman entire, just legs or hands or
 breasts as if cut off from the rest of her. I can't even begin to count the
 number of ads that use these disembodied female hands that don't seem to be
 attached to anything!  The fact that this is done, and that we don't even
 see it anymore is more shocking to me than an artistic observation calling
 our attention to the practice.  . ::

Hmmm... I agree with the overall point of what you say, your observations
about the artist stirring things up & providing contrast as well as an
expressive forum for political views in a society are very well taken. I
understand how this particular artist might have felt the desire to use
juxtaposition of the vulva on the dinner plates to confuse people, shock them,
and make them see the ridiculousness & even the harm of seperating the female
sex organ from the person as in advertising, but unfortunately, if this is
what she meant by this work, this particular statement has been made so many
times over in so much of the feminist art I've seen that, frankly, I've grown
tired of looking at the things & don't find them shocking in the least... and
anyway by now it seems almost too obvious a point for a modern artist to make.
Those of us who would attend a feminist art opening don't need to be told yet
again that women's bodies are objectified by a male-oriented society. We know!

It's true, though, that I don't know the artist or what she had in mind when
she made this work. Perhaps we're mistaken & she was thinking of something
else entirely... like the dinner table scene with vulva on plates as
demonstrating women's traditional, confusing, dual, juxtaposed roles as both
'domestic slaves' and 'sex goddesses' (a more deeply-rooted psychological
torment than mere objectification which would have been uniquely stated in the
form she chose) Or on another, even more dramatic tack, especially if the
artist happens to be a *chef* as well, and the exhibit held in a restaurant
(think of it!)... then, the tables set with vulva on plates could symbolize
the traditional idea of both 'sex' and 'food' as equally erotic things but in
this case simultaneously - which would of course could only be complete if the
vulva were made out of real food and there were male organs involved as well
(every other plate?) and the exhibit became a performance piece where guests
would end the evening by eating all the sculptures... this is silly, of
course, but imagine the FUN of getting to eat someone's artwork as a social
statement...

Both male and female sexuality has been used to sell products and ideas for
centuries. Advertisers do use nude female (and male) images routinely to sell
products, and it's pretty much everywhere in our society, though you seem to
portray the use of partial images - rather than an entire female figure - in
ads in too sinister a light, as a plot to dehumanize and objectify women and
now men, and I have to disagree. A full-body model charges way more per
session than a hand model does, and requires more make-up and lighting
preparation... and why use a whole body if you're just advertising hand creme
for instance? The 'disembodied' hands, breasts, etc in advertising should be
thought of in simple, practical & design-oriented terms & not as any
deliberate symbolic mutilation of human beings. 

I think that vulva exhibit only came to mind in the first place because of the
initial discussion about sex in art... I know it's a matter of personal
preference but I feel that music and art are inherently emotional, stirring,
and can be quite naturally sexy too. But the art exhibit with the dinner
plates (in my original gut reaction to it at least) fell along the lines of
sex as an overstated political point and all I meant was, I prefer the musical
version!

Robin T

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 19:51:45 -0700
From: "Keith Stansell" <Keith@Stansell.com>
Subject: Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art

I went to the Cherry Creek arts festival a couple of years ago and watched a
performance artist almost do just what you were talking about.

He had a full size sculpture of a man made out of gelatin on a table.  He
spoke on about something as a manic preacher.  I'm embarrassed to say I
forgot what his speech was about - I think it had to do with Mexican people
and US / Mexican relations.

 At the end of the speech he carved up and served the man to the people
watching.

- -Keith Stansell
Denver

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <RThurF@aol.com>
.....Or on another, even more dramatic tack, especially if the
>artist happens to be a *chef* as well, and the exhibit held in a restaurant
>(think of it!)... then, the tables set with vulva on plates could symbolize
>the traditional idea of both 'sex' and 'food' as equally erotic things but
in
>this case simultaneously - which would of course could only be complete if
the
>vulva were made out of real food and there were male organs involved as
well
>(every other plate?) and the exhibit became a performance piece where
guests
>would end the evening by eating all the sculptures...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:10:28 EST
From: DThurkirk@aol.com
Subject: re:Alloy: sex and art

In a message dated 3/17/99 9:18:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, RThurF writes:

<< :: To me, just going on your description, this sounds like a perfectly
  fine artistic and political statement.  Women's bodies are routinely "cut
  up" for advertisement and titillation purposes - this is just taking that
  concept and putting it in a different context.  Is it supposed to shock? 
  Yes, absolutely!  Because we are so used to seeing body parts of women
  served up for these other, "acceptable" purposes, the artist needs to put it
  in a shocking context to get you to notice....but think about the ads you
  routinely see...you often don't see a woman entire, just legs or hands or
  breasts as if cut off from the rest of her. I can't even begin to count the
  number of ads that use these disembodied female hands that don't seem to be
  attached to anything!  The fact that this is done, and that we don't even
  see it anymore is more shocking to me than an artistic observation calling
  our attention to the practice.  . :: >><


Hmmm.  I read Robin's reply to this and I wanted to toss in my 2 cents worth
'cause, well, I'm a painter and all.  My problem with the piece is that the
artist didn't have control of the subject matter.  In other words no point was
put across by showing us a nicely set table with women's genitals as the main
course.  True the interpretation you offer is a possibility but so is a visual
pun about oral sex.  I could make up a few more interpretations, but the
question is does it express anything that couldn't be expressed effectively in
words?  Does a viewer look on it and feel something that they know isn't about
words, that can only be told through an installation piece such as this? Art
isn't about interpretation, its about communicating feelings that words don't
easily allow.

The best merit I can see in the work is from a surrealist perspective in which
no meaning is offered and you are left with the image alone, but the fact is
the artist got a grant to do the piece by stating what meaning she was going
to try to convey (she had not stated what exactly she was going to do to
convey her meaning by the way)  So I think she lost the fight with her subject
matter.  No big deal.  You are allowed to fail as an artist on occasion and
best of all no one gets hurt when you do.

But that brings us back to sex and art and how tough sex can be for an artist
to work with.  As a painter, and as a person, I have a deep appreciation for
the erotic, sexy, raunchy, adult, pornographic or whatever title makes you
feel most comfortable about sexual expression.  Different artists run into
different hurdles though. If you write about sex in poetry or prose people can
read it quietly and once the sex is over they move on to the rest of the work
so the sex isn't overwhelming no matter how graphic it is.  If you use sex in
music it's a little tougher. It's not as private as the written word.  Also
music is already a part of sex really, the rhythm, the urge to dance, the
intimacy, all have a sexual edge. So if you add some sexual lyrics it is
sometimes a little overwhelming.  So when a musician decides to get explicit
they are often forced into cutting it with humor like in "Hot Sauce",
otherwise they usually stick to implying sex might be involved somewhere.
Visual artists and movie makers are sunk though.  If I paint something as
explicitly sexual as writers can write, all anyone is likely to see is the
sex.  I'll effectively drown myself out if I'm not very careful.  Same goes
with a movie.  People will see an intense sex scene and their minds just are
not on the plot for a good twenty minutes afterward.

This all may be because sex is itself an art form.  It speaks to people on a
very deep and wordless level. So if you give it a chance it can often upstage
an artist.

That is what I think about art and sex.

__Dave Thurlow

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:16:28 -0800 (PST)
From: "Charles E. Kemp" <cekemp@netcom.com>
Subject: Alloy: So Long, and thanks for all the fish...

Miles wrote...

> Nice try. <grin>  Actually I am not married, but I am very involved, 
> co-habitating even, with one of the Alloy members, Mary "Europa" 
> Brown.  

Hey Miles, why don't you do some of us a favor and take the girl 
COMPLETELY off the market?  This cohabitation torture is killing us!  
:)   


And now for something completely different...

This, my friends, is goodbye.  well, sort of.  I have taken a job with a 
company that will require me to travel constantly and so will be 
unsubbing from Alloy so that I don't come home to a stuffed mailbox.  
Being gone for 3 weeks at a time will make even the digest version 
unmanageable.  

So, the following thanks...
Thomas- for bringing us together
Paul- for wishing the list into being
Jeff Wasiliko- for giving the list a home
Robin- for taking over as listmaster
Crackers- for the many laughs
Slarv- for more laughs and the lessons in English
Melissa- for putting her travels into my mind's eye
Robyn- for keeping the spirit of Super Chicken alive
Mary- for hours of conversation, confirmation, and confession.

When I do make it home, I'll re-sub for while I'm around, but that will 
make it tough to keep up with all things Alloy.  I can't just go cold 
turkey, because I don't want a life that is without the spirit of 
community of this list.  I'll still be on for a couple days more, so 
don't send those "good riddance" messages quite yet.  :)

And finally an apology...

Back when the Alloy T-shirt was in it's conceptual stages, and we were 
having debates on what was to be on the shirts, someone came up with an 
idea and I said that it sucked.  I'm sorry.  That was completely uncalled 
for, rude, and poorly expressed on my part.  I don't even remember what 
the suggestion was, or who made it, but I've been wanting to apologize 
ever since.  God gave me one mouth and two ears, and I really need to 
learn to use them in direct proportion.

This message powered by the Lightning Seeds' _Cloudcukooland_ album.


****** Charles E. Kemp ****** cekemp@netcom.com ****** (812) 597-5950 ******
Just for the sake of it make sure you're always frowning, it shows the 
world that you've got substance and depth.  - Neil Tennant

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:30:55 -0700
From: "Keith Stansell" <Keith@Stansell.com>
Subject: Re: Alloy: So Long, and thanks for all the fish...

I'm frowning.

Hey, don't forget about the archives at http://www.smoe.org  You can pop in
there and see what we are doing.  Do drop us a line now and then.  Hey
Robin - is it possible to be on the list in such a way that you can send to
the list without receiving messages?  Perhaps he could do that.

Later,

- -Keith Stansell
Denver

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Charles E. Kemp <cekemp@netcom.com>
To: <alloy@smoe.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 10:16 PM
Subject: Alloy: So Long, and thanks for all the fish...


>
>Miles wrote...
>
>> Nice try. <grin>  Actually I am not married, but I am very involved,
>> co-habitating even, with one of the Alloy members, Mary "Europa"
>> Brown.
>
>Hey Miles, why don't you do some of us a favor and take the girl
>COMPLETELY off the market?  This cohabitation torture is killing us!
>:)
>
>
>And now for something completely different...
>
>This, my friends, is goodbye.  well, sort of.  I have taken a job with a
>company that will require me to travel constantly and so will be
>unsubbing from Alloy so that I don't come home to a stuffed mailbox.
>Being gone for 3 weeks at a time will make even the digest version
>unmanageable.
>
>So, the following thanks...
>Thomas- for bringing us together
>Paul- for wishing the list into being
>Jeff Wasiliko- for giving the list a home
>Robin- for taking over as listmaster
>Crackers- for the many laughs
>Slarv- for more laughs and the lessons in English
>Melissa- for putting her travels into my mind's eye
>Robyn- for keeping the spirit of Super Chicken alive
>Mary- for hours of conversation, confirmation, and confession.
>
>When I do make it home, I'll re-sub for while I'm around, but that will
>make it tough to keep up with all things Alloy.  I can't just go cold
>turkey, because I don't want a life that is without the spirit of
>community of this list.  I'll still be on for a couple days more, so
>don't send those "good riddance" messages quite yet.  :)
>
>And finally an apology...
>
>Back when the Alloy T-shirt was in it's conceptual stages, and we were
>having debates on what was to be on the shirts, someone came up with an
>idea and I said that it sucked.  I'm sorry.  That was completely uncalled
>for, rude, and poorly expressed on my part.  I don't even remember what
>the suggestion was, or who made it, but I've been wanting to apologize
>ever since.  God gave me one mouth and two ears, and I really need to
>learn to use them in direct proportion.
>
>This message powered by the Lightning Seeds' _Cloudcukooland_ album.
>
>
>****** Charles E. Kemp ****** cekemp@netcom.com ****** (812) 597-5950
******
>Just for the sake of it make sure you're always frowning, it shows the
>world that you've got substance and depth.  - Neil Tennant
>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:09:01 -0800
From: Robyn Moore <kbrm@iefx.com>
Subject: Sex and Advertising (was: Re: Alloy: Re: sex & art)

At 05:50 PM 3/17/99 , you wrote:

>Both male and female sexuality has been used to sell products and ideas for
>centuries. Advertisers do use nude female (and male) images routinely to sell
>products, and it's pretty much everywhere in our society, though you seem to
>portray the use of partial images - rather than an entire female figure - in
>ads in too sinister a light, as a plot to dehumanize and objectify women and
>now men, and I have to disagree. A full-body model charges way more per
>session than a hand model does, and requires more make-up and lighting
>preparation... and why use a whole body if you're just advertising hand creme
>for instance? The 'disembodied' hands, breasts, etc in advertising should be
>thought of in simple, practical & design-oriented terms & not as any
>deliberate symbolic mutilation of human beings. 

  Two things have come to mind during the course of this, and they both
have to do with excesses in advertising, which is why I chose the above
paragraph. 

  The first is an old Bill Hicks comedy routine about how eventually
someone's going to run a campaign that's just a pan of a naked woman
sitting on a stool with her hand in her crotch (suggestively, not
protectively) saying 'Drink Coke'.  Because of this, Kevin and I have taken
to using 'Drink Coke' as a catchphrase for any commercial we feel is
pushing the envelope in that direction. 

  The second is my favourite example of excessive use of sexuality in US
advertising. About two or three years ago they ran a commercial with a
bikini-clad woman for HOT WHEELS. Now, I can almost understand a sight like
that in beer commercials, but in a toy commercial? According to the
morality police, the target market for the product isn't even supposed to
know sex exists yet. 

  On the other hand, there is the phenomena of commercials that're running
on regular old television in other countries that can only be shown in
their uncensored version on Pay TV (think HBO) after 11pm in the US. Even
the 'Call 1-800-HOT-CHAT' variety of commercials that're ubiquitous on
cable channels and the ones in local inserts for sex shops that're run
after 11p don't have nudity in them. It's only been the few years that
condom commercials have even begun to come close to being 'acceptable'
(again, after the magic hour of 11p), and that's assuming there's no
graphic example of them being used. Can you imagine what kind of cow the
conservatives would have if there was a Cosmo commercial discussing
strengthening pelvic muscles, let alone showing it implying a woman was
shooting ping-pong balls from her vagina? (A commercial for the Australian
edition of Cosmo as seen on one of the episodes of Turn On TV on HBO) So,
in the end, it may be yet another case of the rest of the world wondering
what we're fussing about.

                                                             Robyn M

This message powered by, oddly enough, by about a dozen repeats of the
Frantics bit 'Dirty Words'. "I'm going to K-Mart - they're changing the
mannequins today." (Never let your child play with the stereo while you're
doing something else. ::grin::)

 
@ Robyn Moore <kbrm@iefx.com> 
@ http://www.alveus.com/kbrm/robyn.html 
@ You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. - S.C.

------------------------------

End of alloy-digest V4 #86
**************************