'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[John Bennett]

But surely in this instance it's because of the existence of the extremely famous photograph of the body in situ? It's one of the most famous(if not the most famous) crime scene photographs in existence, in tandem with and famous because it's the work of the most famous serial killer in modern history. Isn't that the real distinction?

Where in any of that this is a "glorification" of Mary Kelly? Not glamourising or glorifying at all that I can see. Sympathising, maybe(that's the spirit in which I look at it, anyway). If it had been Annie Chapman in the bed in the photo it'd doubtless be Annie Chapman whose undue fame among ripper victims is discussed.

I'd have to disagree there. That photograph did not become widely viewable until 1972 (in Dan Farson's book). Before that it had appeared only in the book by Lacassagne (1899) and the Police Journal (1969), not exactly world-wide publications.

Yet Mary Kelly had been the subject of plays and the lynch pin of a number of suspect theories before then. She didn't get the attention because of that photograph, although it probably helped once everybody could see it. Mary Kelly probably gets the kind of attention she does because she was YOUNG. Because she was supposed to be attractive. Because her story (told by herself) reads like some romantic tragedy and was cut short in the most brutal of all the Whitechapel murders. And we are unable to prove any of this story, so people are happy to pin their own perceptions on her.

If that photograph depicted 47 year old, dishevelled, alcoholic mother of three Annie Chapman, at that time already dying of infections of the lungs and brain and somebody we know a lot about (thanks to people like Neal Shelden) do you think people would be getting into raptures about her?

[babybird67]

i haven't yet caught up with all the postings in this thread yet...

but i have read JM's last couple of postings, and wanted to say a couple of other things generally. (Ally i know you have posted several times since we last spoke but your posts are descending into Fisherisms (i.e., they are getting as interminable as my own ), and i just haven't had the time to give them the attention they need for adequate rebuttal but i will get round to it soon, i promise! ) Be warned though...this is going to be a long one!

One of the points i wanted to make was that there was a controversy on these boards not long after i had joined regarding the suitability or otherwise of a book being published, the cover of which would be displaying the crime scene photograph of MJK.

I actually changed my mind...my original stance was that it was using MJK as a shock to commercialise the book, exploiting her in death as she had been commercially exploited in her life, and that it was a poor decision. I remember having a discussion with you, JM, in chat on the very topic and you actually helped change my mind...you were fervently against censorship of any kind on that occasion.

Personally, i find it quite odd, that those people quite happy to see Mary's actual mutilated vagina and actual mutilated breasts, extremely intimate and personal photographs, released to general consumption, without her consent i might add, continually reproduced in works of history for all to pore over to their heart's content, are the very same people who appear to be so vociferously protective and defensive of an unreal representation of her body in a work of art...if you care so much about "Mary" the person, why don't you start a campaign to ban the continued commercialised use of her actual body before you move on to derviations of it? That would appear be more consistent with your expressed objections (i'd say intended objections, but i believe that would be haughtily presumptious of me to assume i know more about your own intentions than you do ).

Indeed, the approval of the display of her actual mutilated vagina and breasts to all and sundry is legitmised apparently only by its choice of context (of course utilising and commercialising her image for research or history is a much nobler enterprise than the plebs either creating or viewing an art exhibit on the subject in a Halloween 'show' would possibly be capable of {i do so love elitism!}) Oh, we can look at it, sure we can, because we are 'serious researchers' aren't we, and we can be trusted not to view it as something entertaining or titilating, but he can't, she can't, they can't...why? Because we know their response would be to be entertained, titilated, amused by it...we know not only the artist's intentions better than he does, but the intentions of everyone who goes to see it, and, not only that, but we know exactly how everyone (other than us, obviously) will react to it. Wow...we are a lot of know-it-alls, aren't we!

By the way, when viewing exhibits in a museum, is that called a history 'show'; paintings in the Louvre, is that an art 'show'? Aren't they just all exhibitions of various kinds, composed of a number of different genres of exhibit, which will please/displease subjectively, as art tends to do? Or is it the case, as i tend to suspect, that people who have made up their minds that they don't like this particular piece are using the word 'show' in a derogatory manner, since doing so allows them to label the work as being placed in an inappropriate context and justify their own point of view using semantics? They are so busy shoring up the shaky foundations of their moral highground that they sometimes forget to add that deciding this piece was inappropriately and tastelessly displayed/placed is just their opinion of course; perhaps if they paused in their busy crusade of morally educating the rest of us and berating us for our lack of principles in protecting the unadulterated dissemination of the image of a mannequin...i mean the real explicit image of the actual victim, Mary, sorry, they might have more time to devote to exposing our apparent double standards regarding the same (ironic eh?). Either that or they might take time to actually read what the artist has said about the placement of his work, and actually acknowledge that he ought to have a better grasp of his own intentions than they could ever pretend to attain to.

This case of double standards on the image (fine to display her actual body, tasteless, apparently, to respresent it in any other form) leads me only to conclude that it must be the context of the image that has given rise to such offence. So, censorship must extend not just to what images certain people sanction for general consumption, but also to the context in which those images appear? It's all about control really isn't it. Elitist control...that 'we' in the community here have assessed ourselves of being capable of deciding not only what is viewed, or worthy of being viewed, but also where it should be viewed and who is responsible enough to give a serious response to it.

I've asked this question before several times during my posting on this thread...have yet to have anyone brave enough to answer (apologies to Ally or anyone posting over the past day and a half-ish if you have been brave enough to answer it...will catch up with whole thread sometime soon)...but why is it perfectly all right to recreate the murders verbally, in history books, in poems and creative writing (there is a subsection on this forum devoted to Ripper-related creativity, entitled Creative Writing and Expression -An area to post short stories, poems, artwork or any other creative expression with reference to the Ripper Murders ,) but somehow sanctionable to recreate them visually? The reproduction/creative representation itself is accepted, the reproduction in the context of art/entertainment is accepted, hence the sub-forum for people to contribute what they 'create' there, indeed, artwork itself is even mentioned, encouraging people to share their own artistic interpretations of the murders...yet apparently Dave is not entitled to express his own creativity in relation to the case, at least without being called a perverted egoist or having his own clearly stated intentions misrepresented by people who just don't like what the freedom of creative expression has entitled him to create! Perhaps the first posting on the creative expression forum should be a sticky laying out exactly which censorship rules we all need to stringently apply, lest anyone get the mistaken idea that creativity is a free and subjective enterprise where they might be able to indulge their own artistic impulses and produce their own 'art'. That was sarcasm, by the way.

Those so vocally vociferous in lambasting Dave Allen may like to view the following thread as an example of a posting on the creative expression forum...barely a word, and certainly no words of censure, for this little 'artistic' gem, was there?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2417

All forms of artistic expression are equal, but some are more equal than others, perhaps?

A wise man once said, 'if we don't believe in freedom of expression for our enemies, then we do not believe in it at all', or words to that effect...yes, we have the right to like or dislike what is said, or expressed, or created, but do we have the right to pretend we have the moral highground when with one eye we are sneering at a representation of an image, while with the other we are continuing to believe that 'we' are entitled to choose to view the reality that the sneered-upon representation was derived from, a real body, a real woman, her real vagina, ripped open, and pretend that this is somehow a 'higher', more moral, thing to do? Give me a break. I get you don't like it. That's fine. What's not fine is the pretense that your judgement is any more valid, either morally or artistically, than the artist who created it or anyone viewing it who gets something from it (and no, i don't mean titillation, spectacle, entertainment...i've adequately expressed my personal reaction to it elsewhere on this thread and it doesn't need repeating).

Objections have been raised about its inclusion amongst cartoon monsters, fictional creations like Frankenstein's creature (notice i don't use the word monster...there never was a Frankenstein's monster...Mary Shelley called him a 'creature', not a monster...but is that semantics?). It is tasteless in this context, apparently, and speaks volumes, apparently at much higher decibels, or at least in decibels only perceptible by the enlightened few, much like the pitch at which dogs can hear but their Masters remain oblivious to, about the artist's intent: of course, next time someone says something that you take the wrong way, and they attempt to disabuse you of your mistake, your response shouldn't be to say, 'oh sorry, i misunderstood you, i thought you meant x.y.z'...oh no. The correct response is to reply, "no, i didn't get the wrong end of the stick...what you in fact meant was what i understood you to mean...and i am sorry if you disagree, but i know your intentions much better than you do." See how well that goes down with them!

Going back for a moment to my comparison between the acceptance of the murders as suitable material for creative expression, consider this analogy. An anthology of short stories is being planned. You are asked to contribute one. The topic is 'The Human Condition.' You are shown the other submissions. All of them are basically using a 'comic' model to represent what the human condition means to the authors. You consider your own response. Your own response sees the human condition as basically tragic. You consider whether it is appropriate to insert into an anthology characterised by a generally comic approach to life your own diverging view. Your story is about the murder of a young woman, not only murdered but mutilated too. You consider whether it would be the right context. Most people will be entertained by the other submissions; they will elicit laughter, amusement, wry contemplation of what it is to be human, within the audience. Your story is not designed for that purpose; your story will not entertain. Your story will challenge the audience, who will happen upon a radically different approach, a radically different subject matter, a tragedy within the general perception of human life as a comedy; yet, on reflection, is this not the ideal place to put your tragic interpretation of the subject? The audience will not be expecting it; they will be relaxed, off their guard, accustomed to reading the funny, and the witty ...your own tragic representation will hit them like a freight train hurtling full speed into the terminal buffers. It will stand out; they will take notice. They will be challenged, just like you were, in the writing of it and in the choosing of where to publish it.

Far from seeming an inappropriate addition to the anthology, your questioning has brought you to the conclusion that your own work would fit perfectly into the context. A stark reminder that there is more than one interpretation of what it is to live the human condition. Nothing is gratuitous. Your creation is not metaphorically blood spattered for effect...indeed, where you could choose explicit expressions for heightened effect, you deliberately choose not to do so. Sometimes, less is more. Sometimes, understatement speaks much louder than emphasis. So, you take your creative inspiration from a true life event, and relate it all with a starkness, a bareness, a matter-of-factuality that will have a much stronger effect on your audience than hyperbole or lengthy descriptions of blood and gore.

On reflection, you decide that you will submit your tragic interpretation. Why? Is it because issues of appropriate placement have not occurred to you? No; indeed, you have spent a long time thinking about it, considering what else is to be included, how to compose it, how to do justice to your material. You've asked yourself the difficult and uncomfortable questions. Your motivation is not to gratuitously shock, nor is it to fall into the role of entertainment that could be expected from its given context. Your art has asked awkward questions of you; now you want it to ask your audience the same questions. You want them to challenge their expectations; to question their motivations; to enter that sphere of art that engenders discomfort, disquiet, dissent.


Now, rewrite the above, substituting 'art exhibit' for 'story' and really read what Dave has said about how much contemplation he gave to those very same issues...the time he took in crafting such a faithfully factually replicated expression of his own experience of the murders; note that the explicitness in the piece is not his own expression, but a factual component of his subject; where artistic judgement was required, for example in the use of colour, Dave not only shows how carefully he considered the effect this would have, but how good his artistic judgement actually is by rejecting this option in favour of understatement, allowing the representation of Mary's body the authenticity of speaking for itself, consciously minimising any appeal to those who might be tempted to be attracted to the image by any element of gore or blood.

In regards the suitability of context, did Dave not give appropriate consideration to this point? Did he dash out something gratuitous as spectacle? Did he not consider very carefully the media interpretation of what it is to be a monster; what most people would think of when they hear the word monster (Frankenstein's creature, ghosts and ghouls etc); being skilled at recreating such images in special effects, could he not have decided to contribute such a monster to the exhibition? Did he not actually take the theme and question himself deeply about what his own interpretation of a monster was...whether our usual perception of monsters as being scary fictions that we like to frighten ourselves with in ghost stories and horror films was the only possible interpretation of what a monster is? Whether those fictional monsters, Frankenstein's creature for example, are actually more human, and human beings actually more monstrous, than our typical experience suggests?

He could have easily contributed a cartoon or fictional monster, couldn't he. He decided to buck the trend. He decided to challenge expectations. He decided to give the people attending that 'show', those plebs who we ’know’ only attended for titillation and amusement, a radically different experience of what being a monster is, as they wandered around the exhibits, no doubt marvelling at the vampires and mummies and werewolves. There would be one exhibit that night that wouldn't be just gazed at for a moment, then passed by, and forgotten, one meaningless fiction among a dozen other equally meaningless fictions. One exhibit would make those people stop, stop, and actually see, actually question, what it is to be a real monster; what the experience of coming across a real monster can be like. Amongst the commercialism and gratuitousness of the usual monster media, the vacariousness of the experience (enjoyment?) of other representations of horror/monsters, films like Saw and Hostel for example, one man would choose to show horror fans what authentic horror was actually like, what it actually meant, why perhaps we should not pass by at least one of those exhibits in casual laughter...that should not draw censure from us, in my opinion, but praise.

Creative derivations should always take us back to, and inform our understanding of, the originals, in my view. Thus, other interpretations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the Boris Karloff films, the Kenneth Brannagh version, inaptly named 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein' but then deviating in what i would consider major details from the author's work, should always take us back to the original. Studying that particular book, and relating subsequent creative interpretations of it, led me to question why the 'creature' was always referred to as a 'monster'; in my experience of the original, the monsters in the novel were actually the human beings capable of treating the doctor's creation with such contempt and cruelty. I questioned the definition of monster and re-read the original text to see exactly how Shelley herself had referred to her creation, reading it from cover to cover, in great detail. Not once did she use the word monster in relation to her creature. The only use of monster/monstrous, if i recall correctly, was in the interpretations others made of the creature; the author's voice consistently, pertinently, speaks of a 'creature'...a newborn perverted by the injustices of the society in which he is raised. So, those other representations did their job; they led me back to the original, and enhanced my knowledge and experience of the original. Someone else's creative response to the original led me to question my own response. Not a bad thing, i don't think. I've already said how the experience of Dave's artistic response has led me to an almost revelatory experience, both visually and theoretically, of the original photograph. I am grateful for that.

My final point (shut up already, babybird, i hear you all cry, as i duck the rotten eggs and tomatoes (or 'tomatoes' for American contributors*) is to comment on the various responses Dave himself has made to this thread. Ally thinks his art speaks volumes about him; i actually agree with her; where i disagree profoundly is in interpreting what it says. Augmenting my own interpretation of what it says, are Dave's own words about his intention and his creation.

Dave has responded with dignity and calm to some very nasty personal comments made about him on the basis of subjective interpretation of his art. He has not chosen to respond abusively. He has not chosen to storm off and throw his rattle out of the pram, and refuse to even contribute here again, which he could have done, perhaps considering we weren't even open to giving him a fair hearing.

What he has done is offer to answer questions from critics and admirers alike. What he has done is to actually thank his critics for their negative feedback and encourage other questions to be asked. What he has done is go into a detailed explanation of the personal questioning of the artistic intentions that he made of himself, before and during, and i expect even after, the creation of his exhibit. Nobody with bad intentions asks themselves those sorts of questions...would it be right, would it be appropriate, would it be acceptable, to do it this way, or that way, or at all. People whose intentions are to entertain would have used caricature, comedy, coloured in the blood, spent far less time and energy and probably money on creating something for such a purpose. Dave's questioning, respectful approach to his subject matter, his stated intention to let Mary speak for herself, to add nothing that would detract from her story, tells me more about his intent than any sensationalised, haranguing, nit-picking, semantic approach to disassembling every word he uses and trying to imbue it with a negative connotation to try to represent Dave's intentions as contrary to which he has honestly told us they were.

Good art asks questions; so do good artists. McCarthy’s Rents and Dave Allen are examples of both of these things.

In my opinion, of course, which is worth no more and no less than anybody else’s.

* Ally…in light of this point, I think I need to say, ‘let’s call the whole thing off.’

Apologies for the essay, but some of you may have noticed i feel particularly strongly about this.

[babybird67]

hi John

Yet Mary Kelly had been the subject of plays and the lynch pin of a number of suspect theories before then. She didn't get the attention because of that photograph, although it probably helped once everybody could see it. Mary Kelly probably gets the kind of attention she does because she was YOUNG. Because she was supposed to be attractive. Because her story (told by herself) reads like some romantic tragedy and was cut short in the most brutal of all the Whitechapel murders. And we are unable to prove any of this story, so people are happy to pin their own perceptions on her.

If that photograph depicted 47 year old, dishevelled, alcoholic mother of three Annie Chapman, at that time already dying of infections of the lungs and brain and somebody we know a lot about (thanks to people like Neal Shelden) do you think people would be getting into raptures about her?

I have to agree in general with you. I know i have attempted to positively discriminate against Mary's prominence in my own mind by paying a little more attention to the other victims, no less victims, no less valuable people, because they were older or have less 'romantic' or 'romanticised' stories than Mary.

In particular relation to Dave's choice of her as subject, i came away with the impression that his original idea was to portray a crime scene. None of the other victims, regrettably, were photographed at the crime scene, so this limited his choice, if he used the Ripper murders, which was one of his stated general interests, to one, effectively. I got the impression from what Dave said about this that this was the deciding factor, not because Mary herself appealed to him in any way more than the other victims. (Dave...feel free to correct me here if i am wrong...i am sure you know your own intentions and motivations much better than i do.)

I resist very strongly the romanticisation of Mary Kelly. I don't espouse the view that she was the lynch pin of the murders. She was 'merely' the last random victim in a chain of random victims of a depraved monster. However, i have softened towards her a little, since i realised in my neglect of her i was behaving in exactly the same way most other people behave towards the other victims. And that people romanticise her is not her fault; she deserves exactly the same consideration as the other victims to my mind.

hope some of that makes sense to you!

Jen

[Ally]

Jen,

You are attempting to equate our saying this is a vile and vulgar piece with censorship. There is not a single person on this thread who has said that he should be CENSORED from doing what he wants to do. What we are deploring is that he apparently feels this is something that ought to be done.

There is a wide range of difference between outside censorship and self-censorship because you know what you are doing is tasteless, tacky, sensational GARBAGE.

I would argue against ANY form of censorship as well. People can express themselves ANY way they want to, and *I'll* express my thoughts on how they express themselves ANY WAY I WANT TO. Which includes from time to time, telling someone I think they are a necrophiliac pervert. If that's what THEIR expression leads me to feel. Notice though Dave tried to CENSOR ME? So let's not get on the censorship as if that's what's happening here. Because both you and dave have tried to tell me how I should speak or not speak. Ironic, no?

And people look at the photos to try to find CLUES. They are wasting their time of course, but it's not done for the entertainment and shock value. And it is slightly different than sitting there for hours RECREATING IN EXACTING DETAIL her mutilated vagina and torn breasts. Which is why people tend to look at Dave there askance. WE tend to look "past", blur in our minds that part of her when we look at her because we don't want to gape at her ( I mean us normal students of the case). We don't sit there and study it so that we can create and craft it in specific and loving detail. It's no wonder some of us got a necrophiliac vibe from it.

[Ally]

Oh and sorry Jen, because your posts do tend to be a bit long winded and preachy and what not, I have skipped answering this portion:

Why is creative writing acceptable, blah blah etc, stories poems, etc. I think there are a couple of reasons why this is acceptable (though I did answer somewhat in saying no one has tried to pass theirs off as art) but here's the difference. When people write poems, etc, they are actually looking at the case, allowing it to formulate in their brains and some form of EXPRESSION comes out. It might be pure crap, but it's something that came from THINKING about the case and it was an expression of creativity that derived from the process of it simmering in the mind and coming out. And those people tend to put Mary in a better light than she really was. They at least TRY (foolishly in my opinion) to put her in a sympathetic LIVING light. They don't reduce her down to the moment of her death and display and put only THAT out there for people to know her by.

There was no creative expression in this. This was: I need to make a crime scene installation. Gee, this photo is really gross, it'll do. Let me try to copy it EXACTLY because gee, wouldn't that be cool. This was not an expression of creativity. It was a paint by numbers, replicate to see if I can of the grossest photo I can find.

[babybird67]

Jen,

You are attempting to equate our saying this is a vile and vulgar piece with censorship. There is not a single person on this thread who has said that he should be CENSORED from doing what he wants to do. What we are deploring is that he apparently feels this is something that ought to be done.

No i am not. I am demonstrating that the adopted moral superiority of your response (beautifully demonstrated in the assumption above that your opinion that it is vile and vulgar therefore leads onto the belief that he should not have done what he has done) acts as a form of censorship. If you cannot control the creative expression of others, you'll use moral condemnation to effect it by bullying.

By all means, express your dissent about the merits of the art. Don't try to take the moral highground, though, and label people perverts, egos etc etc.

There is a wide range of difference between outside censorship and self-censorship because you know what you are doing is tasteless, tacky, sensational GARBAGE.

Absolutely. The artist has explained the questions he asked himself on these issues in relation to this piece...i addressed this in detail in my post...i hope you'll respond to those points later.

Notice though Dave tried to CENSOR ME? So let's not get on the censorship as if that's what's happening here. Because both you and dave have tried to tell me how I should speak or not speak. Ironic, no?

Absolutely not. Dave actually invited you to ask him questions. He thanked you for your response. He actually asked you to lay off the personal insults. That's not censorship. It's manners. I did the same. I absolutely support anyone's right to freedom of speech, but not to freedom to abuse. I see a difference.

And people look at the photos to try to find CLUES.

Do they? There's that elitist, i-can-read-people's minds thing again, Ally. You're getting really good at that. How do you know what any other person goes to that photo to look for or at or what they get out of looking at it? Are you not just using the elitist argument that we as serious researchers are entitled to look, because naturally nobody amongst us would be looking for any other reason than the nobility of research? Why not go one step further and join AP in his call for only accredited researchers to even have access to the image...open a special club.

They are wasting their time of course, but it's not done for the entertainment and shock value.

Elitist conjecture. You don't know what anybody else looks at it for. Hell, even if they specifically told you their motivation, you'd tell them it wasn't and that you knew better, wouldn't you.

Which is why people tend to look at Dave there askance. WE tend to look "past", blur in our minds that part of her when we look at her because we don't want to gape at her ( I mean us normal students of the case). We don't sit there and study it so that we can create and craft it in specific and loving detail. It's no wonder some of us got a necrophiliac vibe from it.

My emphasis of the word people. What 'people' are these? Are we like Moses' people? Will you ask someone plaintively 'let my people go'? What exactly is a 'normal student of the case'? Who decides who and what is normal and who and what is aberrant, and where do i get my membership card so i can join the 'people' with a legitimate right and only noble reasons for looking at the media in question? And no, you haven't studied it in detail because you weren't making a factually faithful replication of it. Again, please address this point, please, i am dying to hear your response...why is it all right for us, even us enlightened ennobled 'people' on here, to pore over verbal details, checking and rechecking facts, in the representation of the murders in the books, seeking to do exactly the same thing as Dave did visually, to replicate what was real, true, factual, and not all right for Dave to have done so. Can we distinguish between verbal necrophiliacs, poring over coroner's reports, going over and over what body part was where, exactly what mutilations etc, so that the reading audience can be fully informed, and visual ones...the former saintly, the latter condemned? What is the difference? I'll tell you shall i?

There isn't one.

If Dave is a necrophiliac pervert, then i think we have to conclude we all are.

[babybird67]

Oh and sorry Jen, because your posts do tend to be a bit long winded and preachy and what not, I have skipped answering this portion:

i know you love me really.

Why is creative writing acceptable, blah blah etc, stories poems, etc. I think there are a couple of reasons why this is acceptable (though I did answer somewhat in saying no one has tried to pass theirs off as art) but here's the difference. When people write poems, etc, they are actually looking at the case, allowing it to formulate in their brains and some form of EXPRESSION comes out. It might be pure crap, but it's something that came from THINKING about the case and it was an expression of creativity that derived from the process of it simmering in the mind and coming out.

Exactly what Dave did, in my opinion.

And those people tend to put Mary in a better light than she really was.

So you are happy with art/expressionism based on lies, but take offence when it takes its impetus from the truth? Wow, that's a strange stance.

They at least TRY (foolishly in my opinion) to put her in a sympathetic LIVING light. They don't reduce her down to the moment of her death and display and put only THAT out there for people to know her by.

So now you are praising people that romanticise Mary, and criticising those that don't? Hang on a minute...i thought he was getting it the neck for addressing her in his art in the first place? Now that's ok as long as we do romanticise her? These what is and is not acceptable rules are pretty slippery arent they?

There was no creative expression in this. This was: I need to make a crime scene installation. Gee, this photo is really gross, it'll do. Let me try to copy it EXACTLY because gee, wouldn't that be cool. This was not an expression of creativity. It was a paint by numbers, replicate to see if I can of the grossest photo I can find.

I'd use a word that begins with 'b' here to descibe this passage, but then i would lose the moral highground in reprimanding you about manners. :


So i will just say, gross misrepresentation. If you think that is what Dave thought, or said he thought, you really need to pay greater attention to THE WORDS PEOPLE USE!

Handbags at dawn? Catch you in chat...am leaving this thread for today as it has taken up my entire morning and i have real life impinging shortly!

have a good one

[Ally]

[QUOTE=babybird67;104894]

No i am not. I am demonstrating that the adopted moral superiority of your response (beautifully demonstrated in the assumption above that your opinion that it is vile and vulgar therefore leads onto the belief that he should not have done what he has done) acts as a form of censorship. If you cannot control the creative expression of others, you'll use moral condemnation to effect it by bullying.

Ah I see. If we think somethign is CRAP, we are demonstrating moral superiority. And since god forbid! anyone have an expression of moral superiority, we should all just shut up when we think people are disgusting pieces of filth, because god forbid we come off as JUDGING anyone. That's all right. I see what you are trying to do there, and I'll happily state: I am quite comfortable with my feelings of moral superiority, condemnation and judgment.

And saying that expressing your opinion is "bullying" is quite all right too. I notice you are being quite the bully on this as well. You just don't see your bullying as bullying because you believe you are RIGHT. So Jen, once again, when you go around calling me a bully, it's no different than me calling Dave a pervert. Which makes you a hypocrite. WE are both judging someone on their actions. You don't like mine, I don't like his. Isn't it great we both live in free countries where we can BOTH go around expressing our moral superiority to others?

By all means, express your dissent about the merits of the art. Don't try to take the moral highground, though, and label people perverts, egos etc etc.

How could I possibly get the moral highground with you standing up there calling people censoring bullies? You seem firmly entrenched.

Absolutely not. Dave actually invited you to ask him questions. He thanked you for your response. He actually asked you to lay off the personal insults. That's not censorship. It's manners. I did the same. I absolutely support anyone's right to freedom of speech, but not to freedom to abuse. I see a difference.

Miss Manners says that it is just as rude to attempt to correct the manners of others as the original offense you were trying to correct. In addition, it's hypocritical, because you are the one professing to know better.

Are you not just using the elitist argument that we as serious researchers are entitled to look, because naturally nobody amongst us would be looking for any other reason than the nobility of research? Why not go one step further and join AP in his call for only accredited researchers to even have access to the image...open a special club.

Ooh I wondered when the "elitist" word would be trotted out. Isn't that what all the low class people sling about when their "entertainment" is judged to be crap. I am an elitist. Proud of it. I have standards. Call me elitist all you want I wear it as badge of pride. I take pride in the fact that I don't wallow in the lowest form of entertainment that mankind fills their useless little brain with. We were given minds and we ought to be educating them and improving them, not guttering around in the filth because it's more entertaining than doing something worthwhile with our brains.

My emphasis of the word people. What 'people' are these? Are we like Moses' people? Will you ask someone plaintively 'let my people go'? What exactly is a 'normal student of the case'? Who decides who and what is normal and who and what is aberrant, and where do i get my membership card so i can join the 'people' with a legitimate right and only noble reasons for looking at the media in question?

We do. As the community on this board, we decide who is aberrant. And you can bet your sweet behind, than when some skanky little "I'm reincarnation of JAck" shows up, they get their behinds drummed out right quick.

. Again, please address this point, please, i am dying to hear your response...why is it all right for us, even us enlightened ennobled 'people' on here, to pore over verbal details, checking and rechecking facts, in the representation of the murders in the books, seeking to do exactly the same thing as Dave did visually, to replicate what was real, true, factual, and not all right for Dave to have done so. Can we distinguish between verbal necrophiliacs, poring over coroner's reports, going over and over what body part was where, exactly what mutilations etc, so that the reading audience can be fully informed, and visual ones...the former saintly, the latter condemned? What is the difference?

Once again, and I know this word just keeps goign RIGHT Over your head. Intent. To learn or to entertain. There is a HUGE difference. But since you seem to believe learning is one of those elitist things, I can understand how you wouldn't see the difference.

If Dave is a necrophiliac pervert, then i think we have to conclude we all are.

You, maybe. Me? Not so much.

[babybird67]

hi Ben

...And he's a masterfully clever linguist too, don't forget.

I'm no match for such a paragon of perpetual rightness.

Thanks for the support anyway, Beebs.

Sorry for the delay in replying!

You know i always support your stance on the 'other issue' (better not name it...it seems to be cursed, much like the mentioning of a certain Scottish play) so you have my permission to retort to any accusations of being in a minority of one that you most certainly are not. Anyway, there are others as well, such as Gary, and his wonderful analysis of the lack of an analysis. Better not continue this debate here anyway...awfully off topic.

But one more tip...when told you must be in the wrong because your opinion is in the minority and everyone else can see what you can't, you can always turn the tables and use that old elitist chestnut that the majority view is not to be aspired to, since the great unwashed majority are always wrong...cite reality tv, modern music, et cetera et cetera. That way, whether your view is minority or majority, you can still claim to be in the right!

Ah i love the slippery perameters of debate, don't you?

catch you around

Beebs x

[babybird67]

ooops

i dont know why my edit facility has disappeared, so apologies for mis-spelling your name, Garry.

[babybird67]

Ah I see. If we think somethign is CRAP, we are demonstrating moral superiority.

That's not what i said, Ally, although, i can see you are having so many problems actually understanding what Dave said, it was only to be expected you would have the same problems with me.

You have every right to call something crap if you think it is. You don't have to appreciate the same things as i do. What i object to was the onslaught of personal insults you used, extrapolating from your personal views about what does and does not constitute crap, to making very nasty comments about another poster's personality, down to accusing them of sexual perversion! There are site rules here which state that personal abuse is not to be tolerated: there is no site rule banning you from telling someone else you think their work is crap/irrelevant/in bad taste, etc; i presume Stephen had a hand in writing the site rules, and comprehends the difference, so i would advise asking him to explain it to you, as i have tried my best to teach you the distinction but you keep failing to comprehend it.

And saying that expressing your opinion is "bullying" is quite all right too.

Again, it is not your difference of opinion or your right to express it i object to. It's the aggressive, personal, attacking nature of the manner in which you have done it in this case based not on what someone else has done, but your own misunderstanding of the intent of what was done, that i do, and will continue to, object to.

I notice you are being quite the bully on this as well. You just don't see your bullying as bullying because you believe you are RIGHT.

I haven't engaged in any bullying. I haven't slung names at you or questioned your sexuality because i disagree with you. I've merely pointed out where you are wrong, where you have overstepped the mark in terms of how you disagreed with Dave on this. Yes i believe i am right but that would not and does not justify me telling someone else they are perverted for not agreeing with me.

So Jen, once again, when you go around calling me a bully, it's no different than me calling Dave a pervert.

Wrong. See above. Difference between freedom of speech and freedom to abuse. I know we will never see eye to eye on this. You are absolutely, doggedly, honest about your feelings; usually it is something i admire in you, in a world in which there are so many back-stabbers and fair weather friends. But by claiming honesty as a virtue, it doesn't automatically become acceptable to use it as a foil to any vices. If there was not an appreciable difference between disagreeing with someone and attacking the idea, and disagreeing with someone and vehemently launching an attack on the person, there would not be an appreciable difference to be made in the rules of this site, as one example.

You stubbornly refuse to accept what Dave has clearly told you his aims and intent were for this work, down to flat contradicting what he has told you his motives were and substituting your false view of what you think they were, as if you could possibly know better than him his own intent (and that's where the accusation of elitism fits in by the way, not with making judgements on what constitutes moral or immoral actions), and then to add insult to injury you use that mistaken interpretation on your part as a stick to beat him with. Your refusal to pay proper attention to what Dave has told you his aims were, or perhaps it is a matter of just not believing him, i don't know, you are just justifying your behaviour by locating the problem with Dave's motivation when it really lies in the basis of your lack of understanding of his motivation. And that's where i come in, and become a pain in your backside for a bit.

How could I possibly get the moral highground with you standing up there calling people censoring bullies? You seem firmly entrenched.

Ah come on now, there is plenty of room for two up here...and the air is lovely.

Miss Manners says that it is just as rude to attempt to correct the manners of others as the original offense you were trying to correct. In addition, it's hypocritical, because you are the one professing to know better.

Hmmmm...let's examine that logic for a brief moment shall we? Miss Manners apparently says it is bad manners to point out someone else's bad manners...doesn't that mean Miss Manners is hypocritical setting herself up to point out bad manners to people, thereby engaging in bad manners herself? So, based on that logic, nobody can ever be taught any manners, since it is bad manners to point it out that they are using them, and therefore impossible to teach them good manners. And, to boot, we are all hypocrits, including Miss Manners. Who would have guessed i would end up in such good company.

Ooh I wondered when the "elitist" word would be trotted out. Isn't that what all the low class people sling about when their "entertainment" is judged to be crap.

Oi you...less of the implication that i am of a low class, thanks, or i'll get my friend Miss Manners to point out that you...oh cr@p, that little conundrum again...oh well. I'd come over there myself but i am not allowed to breach the terms of my ASBO and my hoodies are all in the wash.

I am an elitist. Proud of it. I have standards.

Yes, I've noticed. Problem is from where i am sitting,and i haven't been drinking, i am seeing double ones; what's more, they appear to be being applied unequally depending on personal prejudice. That's why i keep disagreeing with you. Not because you don't agree with me...i think i would fall off my chair if we ever agreed on something. But because the basis of your disagreement is based on a falsehood as continually being repeated to you...you just refuse to take it on board and change your mind. Because you don't believe anybody could have produced what was produced for any reason other than entertainment, you conclude you must be right in assigning that as the intent, the motivation, even when the person whose intent is in question has been consistently pointing out to you that view is mistaken. I also have to repeat the one point i keep repeating which nobody has addressed...if we must 'look askance at Dave' for poring over the details of that scene in Miller's Court in order to produce an accurate visual account of it, why do we not look equally askance at those of us who pore over those details verbally, to recreate the scene in text? The actions are essentially the same; only the medium is different. That's where your (double) standards creep in, and that is unfair, and that is why i care about this issue so deeply.

We do. As the community on this board, we decide who is aberrant. And you can bet your sweet behind, than when some skanky little "I'm reincarnation of JAck" shows up, they get their behinds drummed out right quick.

Am in the club or out? Am i one of the chosen people? Do let me know or i will have a sleepless night tonight. I'm guessing i'm in danger of going over to the side of skanky aberrancy, since i have openly expressed my appreciation of what is quite plainly a perverted disgusting piece of cr@p. Make a valid comparison, by the way...the one between people recreating the truth of what happened in Miller's Court through the a textual medium, and those doing so through a visual one. One between a deluded glory hunting unfortunate and a man who has honestly and seriously set out to make a challenging work of art, for the purpose of challenging the audience to think for themselves (go back and read my long post again about how this was done) not for entertainment factor, is just not valid.

Once again, and I know this word just keeps goign RIGHT Over your head. Intent. To learn or to entertain. There is a HUGE difference. But since you seem to believe learning is one of those elitist things, I can understand how you wouldn't see the difference.

Lerning doent jus come from buks yu know, Aley. I have tried to express as best i can exactly how that work was a learning experience for me. I learned a lot, maybe not something that was quantifiable to you, but it enriched my understanding. It did not tittilate me. It did not entertain me. It was not something i went, 'oooh what a gory spectacle, i must have a gawp at it and feed my perverse necrophiliac tendencies on it to pass the time before X Factor starts'...i learned something, something valuable, and i am glad for that. If you continue to doubt Dave's motivation and intention in creating it, how can you doubt mine in relating to you what i gained from it? We know eachother pretty well i think. We have, i would like to think, a mutual respect for eachother, and that is despite having divergent views on practically everything we have ever discussed together.

You say the issue of intent keeps going over my head. How can you say that when i have deliberately addressed that point over and over. The issue is not intent...the issue is your disagreement with the artist over his stated intent, your refusal to accept what he says he meant to do. This is elitist. This is setting yourself up as someone who feels they are entitled to tell someone else what their own intent was, because you feel you know better than them. You do not know Dave's intent better than Dave himself. You equally do not know my intent in viewing it, or anyone else's intent in viewing either that or the original photograph. That would require you to either have paranormal abilities in mind reading, or be so elitist that you think you know someone's motives better than they do themselves; if the former i suggest you contact Derek Acorah and ask for a spot on one of his shows, if the latter i suggest you set up as a therapist and make a living out of it.

Both Dave in his responses and me in mine have absolutely upheld your right, and that of anybody else, to tell him they think his work is cr@p. You put something out there, it will be judged, good by some, bad by others. What you notice is lacking from our postings in response to yours though is taking it one step further and casting personal aspersions about your character or sexuality simply because we disagree with you. Especially when your basis for saying so conflicts so totally with what the person explains to you their intent was.

The truth of the matter is that you don't know Dave's intent was to entertain, indeed his stated rebuttal of that is on record; you don't know anyone else's intent in viewing either his work of art or any of the information displayed in textual or visual format here on this site; you know only your own. You know someone else's not by telepathy or assumption, but by asking them and then either accepting what they say, or disbelieving them and drawing your own conclusions. I don't think Dave would be dishonest. It is clear from everything he has said that his interest is serious and genuine and that his intent was not crass or reprehensible in any way. Nobody would devote that much time and attention to such a project if their aim was merely to entertain the unwashed masses when it would be cheaper, quicker and much less bother to trot out an imaginary monster to exhibit on the night. A bit of plastic, a bit of red paint, dimensions irrelevant, no hard work working out the angles and physical particulars etc...no, it is quite clear to me from the work itself and from the artist's own expression that the intent was never to 'entertain' but to challenge, challenge himself to ask questions, and us to ask them along with him, both of ourselves and eachother.

Well, the stars are coming out up here on my mountain of moral superiority...i'll keep your place warm for you, anyway, cos it gets a bit lonely up here on my own. Catch you around, Ally. here's to the next bout!

[Ally]

[QUOTE=babybird67;104940]

That's not what i said, Ally, although, i can see you are having so many problems actually understanding what Dave said, it was only to be expected you would have the same problems with me.

Disagreeing is not the same thing as not understanding. I understand what Dave is saying, I just think, in addition to being a pervert with necrophiliac tendencies he's also lying through his caps.

What i object to was the onslaught of personal insults you used, extrapolating from your personal views about what does and does not constitute crap, to making very nasty comments about another poster's personality, down to accusing them of sexual perversion! There are site rules here which state that personal abuse is not to be tolerated:

Actually there is no site rule that says personal abuse will not be tolerated. Might want to contact someone who will teach you how to read, since it appears that's not your strong suit. And PS, if you ever bring Stephen into an argument with me again, we will have REAL words. Not play words, but real ones. He does his absolute best to stay out of the crap on the boards, so don't drag him in because that's the one thing that WILL piss me off for real. That's my one solid line. And back to poor abused Dave, too bad, so sad, if you make vile, perverted works of art, people are going to assume you are a vile pervert. Kind of goes hand in hand. And I have always made it clear that it is my opinion, by the use of words such as these: I think, I believe..etc. I think his work is necrophiliac and I am not going to stop saying it. Every time you praise it as "art" I'll point out it's creepy and borderline necrophiliac in its conception.

Again, it is not your difference of opinion or your right to express it i object to. It's the aggressive, personal, attacking nature of the manner in which you have done it in this case based not on what someone else has done, but your own misunderstanding of the intent of what was done, that i do, and will continue to, object to.

I understand the intent just fine. To make a shock and awe Halloween freak fest. No misunderstanding from me. And I understand you believe we should embrace freaks and perverts and sing kumbaya. Not my style. I'll just point and say FREAK! PERVERT! BEWARE!

I haven't engaged in any bullying. I haven't slung names at you or questioned your sexuality because i disagree with you. I've merely pointed out where you are wrong, where you have overstepped the mark in terms of how you disagreed with Dave on this. Yes i believe i am right but that would not and does not justify me telling someone else they are perverted for not agreeing with me.

I don't think Dave's perverted because he doesn't agree with me. I think he's perverted for creating this piece of crap.

Wrong. See above. Difference between freedom of speech and freedom to abuse. I know we will never see eye to eye on this. You are absolutely, doggedly, honest about your feelings; usually it is something i admire in you, in a world in which there are so many back-stabbers and fair weather friends. But by claiming honesty as a virtue, it doesn't automatically become acceptable to use it as a foil to any vices. If there was not an appreciable difference between disagreeing with someone and attacking the idea, and disagreeing with someone and vehemently launching an attack on the person, there would not be an appreciable difference to be made in the rules of this site, as one example.

I'll abuse filth wherever and whenever I find it. This is filth. Going to keep right on abusing it. Happily, proudly, I'll make a little banner that says : This is FILTH and just keep on keeping on. You are perfectly capable of keep on beating the "Art" drum. This is the vile depiction of a murdered woman for a Halloween freak show. As long as this thread lives, I'll be here calling it filth and abusing it mightily.

You stubbornly refuse to accept what Dave has clearly told you his aims and intent were for this work, down to flat contradicting what he has told you his motives were and substituting your false view of what you think they were, as if you could possibly know better than him his own intent (and that's where the accusation of elitism fits in by the way, not with making judgements on what constitutes moral or immoral actions), and then to add insult to injury you use that mistaken interpretation on your part as a stick to beat him with. Your refusal to pay proper attention to what Dave has told you his aims were, or perhaps it is a matter of just not believing him, i don't know, you are just justifying your behaviour by locating the problem with Dave's motivation when it really lies in the basis of your lack of understanding of his motivation. And that's where i come in, and become a pain in your backside for a bit.

Do you believe EVERYTHING everyone tells you? There's a word for that. It's called GULLIBLE. Do you really think he's going to come on here and say, "yeah the idea of this dead naked sprawled out woman gets me hot" or do you really think he'd say "yeah well I decided to do the most shocking and horrifying thing I could think of"? Of course not, he'd be an idiot. Nah he has to come on here and talk about his wife "look I am married so normal!" So was Dennis Rader and the Green River Killer. SO if you want to BELIEVE him, that's absolutely your priority. I don't have to. I don't go by what a person says. I look at the overall picture and form an opinion. And here's what I know. He made this piece to be the center attraction in a cheezy Halloween fright fest freak show. He says it's about Mary but she doesn't even get third or fourth billing behind her landlord, her street names and Jack the Ripper. So bullsht this is about Mary. It's about cheezy shock and awe.

Hmmmm...let's examine that logic for a brief moment shall we? Miss Manners apparently says it is bad manners to point out someone else's bad manners...doesn't that mean Miss Manners is hypocritical setting herself up to point out bad manners to people, thereby engaging in bad manners herself? So, based on that logic, nobody can ever be taught any manners, since it is bad manners to point it out that they are using them, and therefore impossible to teach them good manners. And, to boot, we are all hypocrits, including Miss Manners. Who would have guessed i would end up in such good company.

Don't examine logic if you don't know what the word means. People write in and ASK Miss manners questions. She doesn't go around sticking her nose in with unsolicited advice. This thread was created and ASKED what people thought of this piece of "art". The question was asked and I answered. No one asked you what you thought of my response, no one asked you to play Miss Manners. No one asked you to be the arbitrator of another grown adult's behavior. See the difference? The only people it is acceptable to correct the manners of is your underage children. And if it doesn't stick then, too bad.

But because the basis of your disagreement is based on a falsehood as continually being repeated to you...you just refuse to take it on board and change your mind.

The same could be said of you. How precisely do you know you aren't basing your opinions on a falsehood. I am going by several factors including the venue this appeared in. You are basing it on what you "feel" and what the "artist" has told you. Which is more rational? And less likely to be false?

Am in the club or out? Am i one of the chosen people?

No, you're not. How many books on Jack the Ripper have you read, cover to cover? If the answer is less than 12, you aren't in the club. A nice random and completely arbitrary number, yes, but a good gauge. Now you can rest easy tonight.

I have tried to express as best i can exactly how that work was a learning experience for me. I learned a lot, maybe not something that was quantifiable to you, but it enriched my understanding. It did not tittilate me. It did not entertain me. It was not something i went, 'oooh what a gory spectacle, i must have a gawp at it and feed my perverse necrophiliac tendencies on it to pass the time before X Factor starts'...i learned something, something valuable, and i am glad for that. If you continue to doubt Dave's motivation and intention in creating it, how can you doubt mine in relating to you what i gained from it? We know eachother pretty well i think. We have, i would like to think, a mutual respect for eachother, and that is despite having divergent views on practically everything we have ever discussed together.

Just out of curiosity do you actually find that a valid argument? Someone's reaction to something says absolutely NOTHING about the creator's intention. Your reaction doesn't justify its creation. Everyone will respond to something according to their own particular bent. Some people look at porn and are aroused and some are disgusted. Some watch horror films and some are entertained and some are repulsed. Your reaction doesn't matter diddly squat to his intention in creating it. And just because YOU believe it's art and the intent was pure doesn't make YOUR reaction more valid than mine. And just out of curiosity, what would you have done if he'd come on here and just flat out admitted it was made for torture porn? Would you be so hot to defend him then?

You say the issue of intent keeps going over my head. How can you say that when i have deliberately addressed that point over and over. The issue is not intent...the issue is your disagreement with the artist over his stated intent, your refusal to accept what he says he meant to do. This is elitist.

No. It's not believing something just because someone tells me it's true. It's looking at the OVERALL picture and coming to the conclusion based on EVERYTHING involved not just what I am told to believe. If you actually believe that I should believe everything I am told just cause someone tells me so, sorry. Not going to happen. I don't believe him. Period. I don't believe someone with ANY good intentions would put this as a set piece in a horror, gross out monster freak show. Period. So yes, if you want me to elaborate and say that in addition to thinking he's a necrophiliac pervert he's also either lying or delusional, I can add those two as well.

Nobody would devote that much time and attention to such a project if their aim was merely to entertain the unwashed masses when it would be cheaper, quicker and much less bother to trot out an imaginary monster to exhibit on the night.

Crock of crap. The more elaborate and sensational something is the better it sells. He absolutely wouldn't have gotten this kind of buzz and reaction if he hadn't used the brutalized remains of a real woman. Saying he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble is a fallacious argument and not valid at all.

[Hatchett]

I have been reading this thread with ever increasing concern. The issue seems very simple to me. Someone has created something that wasn’t there before, in this particular form. The individual who views it, and history, will determine whether it is Art or not. The same as the individual who sees it will determine whether it reaches or touches them or not.
That is freedom of choice. Freedom that people gave their lives to win and maintain.
Ally, much as I like you, I believe that you are going against this basic freedom. You don’t like this creation. That is fine. It doesn’t touch you. That is fine. But you go beyond that and say that other people shouldn’t like it because you don’t. You go further than that and attack the artist, or creator, making vile personal accusations that you simply cannot justify. You then go on and make the same vile accusations against people who are effected by this creation, again without any justification at all.
What you are really talking about Ally, is cencorship determined and dictated by Queen Ally. That clearly is just a bully boy/girl mentality at work here.
Why does an artist have to declare his or intent? That is nonsense. An artist creates a creative work and then it stands alone. It then becomes a personal inter action between the work of art ( or creation) and the person who looks at it. That is basic. I don’t know why you cannot understand it?
Oscar Wilde was forced to spend a considerable time at his trial being forced to defend why he had written The Picture of Dorian Grey, which was a work of fiction. Oscar Wilde was sent to prison and ruined. You, Ally, are bringing back those bigotted and dicatorial days, trying to demean both the creator of this work and the people who have been moved by it in the most insulting and hectoring manner.
For my part, and I say this openly, I was stunned by this work, and I call it a work of art. It brought a sense of reality to me that I hadn’t seen before in a grainy photograph where it is difficult to pick out details. It also made me aware that I have spent years protected by the mass of detail and endless discussion that comfortably seperates us from the real human disaster that happened in the Auntum of terror.
You can moan all you like Ally about what should or should not happen in your safe and quiet world. But at the end of the day it is only often Art that can make us really feel the human condition. Just look at Charles Dickens. And it has done this for me, and possibly for others also. It is our right to appreciate this.
Art is dangerous. Art is uncontrollable. And Art will outlive you. The same as it will outlive me.
Why not just accept that you are not the controlling conscious of the world? You have no right to be. No one has.
You have a view. That is fine. Just don’t say that everyone is wrong because their view is different to yours. You do not have that right.

[Ally]

Aw Hatchett I'd wondered when you'd jump in. I have never said anyone was wrong. I have never said anyone doesn't have the right to believe whatever they want to believe or say whatever they want to say. YOU are the ones who are saying I don't have the right to say what I want to say because you don't like it and you don't agree with it.

I have the right to say I think this guy is a blasted pervert. I always love how when YOU ALL don't agree with someone and YOU feel perfectly free to express your opinions, you start shouting censorhip and bullying when the opposition doesn't back down. It's the nice brigade. Everyone's free to say anything they want unless you don't think it's "nice".

And *I* am the one going against the basic freedom for people to express themselves however they want? Oh yeah, people are free to put up the brutalized remains of a murdered woman for the entertainment of a Halloween freak show but I don't have the right to say I think doing so is disgusting vile and repulsive? I LOVE your definition of freedom of speech and who is infringing on who. Really, it's telling.

Get over it. I think he's a perv. I'll say it as often as needs repeating. If you consider that bullying, Tough. Too bad. Don't care. I have an opinion and I'll express it and if YOU disagree with it, you are perfectly capable of putting in your opposing two cents. Just like you are doing.

So quit whining about "bullying" and "censorship" just because I don't agree with you. It's pathetic and it's weak. I am standing here alone against everyone else telling me I shouldn't say what I want to say and you ALL are complaining about censorship and bullying? If a whole pack of you can't take on little ole me, you really are sad.

[Cap'n Jack]

You ain't alone here, Ally, in fact my views on this matter are more extreme than yours. I abhor the 'artistic' use of the victim's bodies in any form or manner in which it might appear, whether that be a photograph, recreated image, or even a work of 'art'.