Michael Betancourt (mwb2@bellsouth.net)
Sun, 12 Jul 1998 19:31:03 -0400

A aertian individual has chosen to claim that the work of their
fellow artists is pornographic, and while I have already
commented on this person's posting, I feel that a further
elaboration is necessary after having looked at not only the
address provided in that vicious attack, but also the work of the
"artist" in question.

Leaving aside the question of art or not, we should consider the
implication of the following statements:

"There is a deeper and more interesting event taking place than
your jittery
storm tossed tea cup pornography with sugary images of women
plunked like
de-eroticised cup cakes on your saucer."

If the work is de-eroticised, how then can it be pornographic?
The pornographic is based in an appeal to so-called prurient
interests (which means erotic interests) is it the lack of
eroticism that is troubling to this person? Perhaps this is so,
or perhaps it is that this person responds emotionally to this
work and is troubled by that reaction and so much invent an
excuse (albeit a topic which should have been announced in its
own right) to attack those artists who have contributed to the
censored art exhibit.
(Please realize that this is an attack on everyone who has placed
work in the exhibition, and not just on Phil Rubinoff and
At the same time, using the work of Nidia Palomo as the
justification for this attack is also a belittlement of that
work. In effect, the posting is one done in cowardice with the
goal of silencing the artists who have contributed their work and
placed themselves in personal jepodary by posting their work on
the internet in the first place.

Has Mr. Smylie forgotten about the courtcases we have been
involved with? Or has he simply ignored them?

It has been said of hateful speech that the appropriate and
proper response is not censorship, but MORE speech demonstrating
how that speech is inaccurate and inappropriate.

Since the question of "pornography" in this instance is not only
inaccurate but internally to the posting impossible, the real
question is what has motivated Mr. Smylie to attack his fellow
art.netters in this heinous fashion?

In my previous comment on this I suggested that perhaps the
attitudes Mr. Smylie has brought forward for all our
consideration are in fact the enemy, and that by posting in this
fashion he is acting as a proponent of the very censors we are
currently battling in a New Mexico court.

Know your enemies.