Ovi Magazine : 50 Bucks: Bring On the Sluts by Sarah Beetson

Newsletter

Contact

Murray Hunter: Essential Oils: Art, Agriculture, Science, Industry and Entrepreneurship

WordsPlease - Inspiring the young to learn

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

BBC News : -

iBite : -

50 Bucks: Bring On the Sluts
by Sarah Beetson
2008-08-20 09:55:32

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Following shows in Melbourne and London, Sarah takes her second solo exhibition “50 Bucks: Bring On the Sluts” to Portland, Oregon. For those of you in the area it is your chance to see her collection of 500 small works rendered on moleskine paper (12.9 x 20.8 cms), and named to reflect both the subject matter and ‘cheap’ nature of the works.

The collection of works was initially inspired by a trip to Japan in 2007:

“I was overwhelmed by the Japanese vending machine culture – whereby one can purchase almost anything – from beer to bedroom slippers; a microwave dinner to a pair of used panties – from a handy vending machine. I wanted to compare the relationship between the multinational distributor responsible for the machine and the cheap nature of the product vended. The idea of the ‘sluts’ was then stimulated by my accruement of a large collection of vintage pornography.”

Sarah will present many of her artworks for ‘pot luck’ selection within her own art vending machine, sponsored by Pepsi Cola, whilst others will be made available across the gallery walls. All artworks (apart from the vending machine) will be priced at $50.

* * * *

"50 Bucks: Bring On The Sluts" - group show with Olivia Edith and Sarah Gottesdiener, closing night party Saturday 13th September, 2008 from 8pm (running from 7th Aug - 13th Sept), @ Valentine's, 232 SW Ankeny St, Portland, Oregon USA
www.myspace.com/valentineslifeblood

Click here to see artwork from the '50 Bucks: Bring On the Sluts' Exhibition

Click here to see the decorated Pepsi machine

Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author


Comments(38)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
(comments policy)

Simon	2008-04-23 17:54:21
Cool!


Lee Thorkhill	2008-04-23 18:18:27
I've noted the date and i shall pop along in August.


Sand	2008-08-20 13:57:02
Although the design style is quite different the full acceptance of the human body in all its emotional potential combined with a delight in color and line is reminiscent of the work of Gustav Klimt and just as refreshing.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-20 14:56:50
When people read erotic symbols into my painting, they're really thinking about their own affairs. (Georgia O'Keeffe)


Sand	2008-08-20 16:11:44
When someone views explicit graphics of beautiful naked people and tries to deny that they have erotic content their inhibitions are so overwhelmingly potent that they have no sense of reality whatsoever. It probably derives from perverted religious concepts that there is something repulsive about sex.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-20 17:45:24
Bizarre indeed! Since there are two billion Christians in the world, and naked bodies are abundantly displayed in the Vatican's Sistine Chapel one would never know it unless S. enlightened us on the matter. In any case, O'Keeffee and Michelangelo, to the bonfire you go! One wonders too why Hugh Heffner who goes around peddling naked women as works of art while laughing all the way to the bank, when challenged by a woman to display his own body in the centerfold, declined the invitation.


Sand	2008-08-20 17:56:14
To deny the anti-sexual prejudices of Christianity, whatever the display of church naked bodies, is to assume that the world is massively more stupidly gullible than it is and that's saying a great deal.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-20 18:11:30
There are actually two sides to the same fallacious coin. The Puritan says that sex is bad and to be tolerated at best, for it sullies one's soul. The other side is that of the rationalist materialist who says that "sex is another bodily fnction, period, and the more the better for one's psychic health. Both treat sex under the rubric of hygiene. Both blindly ignore the most important characteristic of human sex: its interpersonal aspect. We do live in sad times. The times of political correctness and the barbarism of the intellect parading as "enlightenment."


Sand	2008-08-20 18:20:44
Unfortunately your tremendous talent for fucking up spelling has inserted "fnction" and to the quick incident inspection the "n" after the "f" takes on the appearance of "ri" which makes an hilarious typo. Much fun today!


Sand	2008-08-20 18:31:05
Incidentally, what appears important to one person may be trivial to another. Anyone who denies that is under the delusion that all minds operate in rigid conformity - a standard characteristic for religious monomaniacs. Sex has a spectrum of activities from masturbation to mass rape with something more civilized residing somewhere in the middle.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-20 19:07:21
The "n" reduced to a "ri." in the interest of spelling, of course. Uhmmm. Is that what the voices from the Churhc of the FSM told you today? They are even more funny than usual, but they lie nonetheless. I bet they also told you that "ft" can be changed (always in your head, of course) to "ere"? That would make even more of a sick joke. As already mentioned one has to wonder about all this prurient and obsessive interest in bodily functions--otherwise known as the poetics of defecation-- divorced from any ethical considerations. Indeed, the other side of ethereal Puritanism is sordid materiralism. Point proven, if we needed a proof at this stage of the Punch and Judy Show. _


Sand	2008-08-20 19:26:05
No doubt, as others have noted, the dual use of sexual organs for waste disposal and sex has had some associative problems with human feelings about sex but Paparella's quick latch onto sex and defecation perhaps indicates some personal sexual preferences. I have no objections or prejudices in the matter and cheer him on to whatever he finds enjoyable but, of course, the proliferation of buggering children amongst quite a few Catholic priests and the protection of these individuals within the church does find some social disapproval within society in general and has proved rather financially expensive to the hierarchy.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-20 19:52:43
And so, sooner or later, it all comes back to S.'s not so hidden agenda in this forum: the egregious and demagogic bashing of religion in general and the caricaturizing of the Catholic Church in particular, by any devious means and half-truths available. He has been shamelessly at it from the beginning and it's quite a sight to behold, symptomatic of a hard-wired and petrified mind-set in the grip of invincible ignorance and the barbarism of the intellect!


Sand	2008-08-20 20:03:10
The old "religion bashing" ploy again, as if it's not official records of Catholic misbehavior. As if the settlements for kid buggering never happened. These things are real, they happened, it's not bashing to mention them. It's very hard fact. Stop trying to change history to accommodate your delusions.


Sand	2008-08-20 20:29:41
And furthermore I would appreciate that you invent your own insults instead of mimicking mine. I'm sure you can rifle your extensive quotation references for more interesting nasty things to say instead of using mine. How the hell did you manage to acquire a PhD without doing at least a small amount of original work - or was that material cribbed also?


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-20 21:20:10
Considering the source I will ignore the aspersions on my Ph.D., and on Yale University where it was earned; something, in which among other nefarious enterprises in this forum you have been egregiously and dishonestly been engaging for a while now and from which you obviously do not intend to cease and desist. I think the general reader can draw his/her own conclusions. I trust their fairness and intelligence. In fact, had you not taken refuge in Finland that kind of egregious slander would have gotten you in some sort of lawsuit here in the US. Perhaps that explains your permanence there; or is conjecturing only your privilege as self-declared Grand Inquisitor on political correctness for Ovi magazine? I will not allow you, however, to get away with the demagogic and slanderous bashing of the Catholic Church. I have corrected your fallacious declarations before but it seems that it too went from one hear to the other. What the voices in your head have convinced you of, unfortunately, is that it is enough to take a grain of truth or a half truth out of context and then apply the smear to a whole group of people or institution. Such tactics are reprehensible and scurrilous. Let me therefore explain to the readers, for there is little hope that the voices in your head will allow you to change your tactics, the whole truth. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-20 21:20:35
As per non-Catholic scholar Philip Jenkins, who to date has made the most comprehensive study of pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) in his book “Pedophiles and Priests”, this anomaly among catholic priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. Jenkins found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children. Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men. In the wake of the current crisis in the Church, other religious denominations and non-religious institutions have admitted to having similar problems with both pedophilia and ephebophilia among the ranks of their clergy. There's no evidence that Catholic prelates are more likely to be pedophiles than Protestant ministers, Jewish leaders, physicians, or any other secular institution in which adults are in a position of authority and power over children. THAT IS THE WHOLE TRUTH. SO AT THIS POINT THE QUESTION ARISES, WHICH WAS ALSO ASKED ANOTHER SLANDERER (SENATOR MACHARTY): SIR HAVE YOU NO SHAME; HAVE YOU NO DECENCY?


Sand	2008-08-20 21:30:28
I'm sorry, Paparella, you know damn well I never questioned that you have a PhD - merely your methods in obtaining it based on your total incompetence in realistic thinking. And your screaming about the innocence of the Catholic Church really cannot seriously cover up the many news reports from reliable sources as to the disgrace of the Catholic Church and its financial settlements. You attempt to ape Hitler's technique of the big lie simply won't work in this matter. See http://www.karisable.com/catholic.htm You cannot bullshit your way out of this one.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 12:38:24
True to form, to the bonfire Philip Jenkins and his scholarly research; the truth is what the propaganda voices in the head of the intellectual bully say it is; 2+2=3; it is clear, say the voices, don't you see, don't you see? Perhaps it is time to call the ambulance at this point of the Punch and Judy show.


Sand	2008-08-21 13:17:31
See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/31/national/main566088.shtml The officials of the Catholic Church openly acknowledge their wrongdoing and apologize for the discovered pedophilia amongst their ranks but does Paparella feel any contrition for this disgusting behavior of church officials? Apparently not. As long as he can discover pedophilia somewhere else in humanity he seems to feel it is perfectly OK for an organization that proclaims itself the guardian of human morality to accept its portion of disgusting human misbehavior. So it is not the Catholic Church that feels comfortable with pedophilia, it is Paparella. Why does he feel it is so acceptable? And why is he entrusted with teaching children in an educational institution?


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 15:51:59
Indeed, there must be a reason why you are hiding in Finland. The voices know and so does the shadow; but the question remains: Sir, have you no shame?


Sand	2008-08-21 16:01:09
Hiding? Goodness gracious, Paparella, I feel no tolerance for pedophilia at all. Why should I hide? But of course, as you are in the habit of noting, you are projecting. I can understand your discomfort, considering your proclivities.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 16:08:05
You have just aptly answered the question on decency and shame, if we needed one at this point. It has become quite obvious that you have none and are not even aware of that fact, which indeed is the bigger character disaster.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 16:17:33
As I suggested some time ago, you ought to consider starting your own blog where all those proclivities exemplified in this forum within the poetics of defecation are given full satisfaction. You could call it the Punch and Judy show or perhaps the Grand Inquisitor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Church, with a warning that no truthful person need participate, only low-life slanderers and demagogues interested in name calling and creative insults and those who infringe on insults' copyright will be torturered by the Grand Inquisitor.


Sand	2008-08-21 16:21:46
Whereas your defense of the Catholic hierarchy containing an acceptable number of pedophiles (which seems strangely at odds with their public statements) puts you in the highest moral category in your eyes. It seems we have rather different standards of morality.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 16:23:48
P.S. It just occurred to me that you could use the graphic picture on top of this article as a fitting logos for your own blog.


Sand	2008-08-21 16:32:46
Let's not change the subject, Paparella. As a graphic artist I have some rather appropriate graphic concepts of your acceptance of pedophilia which you would no doubt find enticing, considering your expressed attitudes in its favor.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 17:33:58
You could start the blog with this slanderous statement, but then stay hidden in Finland and keep your changed name, or you may end up getting sued for slander and get picked up and that would indeed spoil all the fun.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 17:37:30
P.S. I wonder if you have ever read rule n. 1 of the comment policy of Ovi magazine. As it is, you have been in violation of it for a long time. I figured I'd let you know.


Sand	2008-08-21 17:46:31
No doubt you find slander a tempting defense but all I did was point out that you, in your own words, indicated that the percentage of pedophiles in the Catholic hierarchy was no more than that in many other human categories and therefore was acceptable. My own standards in finding any acceptance of pedophilia beyond decent morality makes you feel I am slanderous. I find that most strange and indicative of something in you that does not conform to social decency. That is, of course, a very personal opinion and not at all slanderous.


Sand	2008-08-21 17:55:55
If you are embarrassed by my pointing out the inconsistencies in your statements and their implications I suggest you consider them carefully before you make them. Your continual requests for censorship of my analyses indicates you feel you can tolerate no criticism whatsoever which is a strong indication of the quality of your mental attitudes.


Sand	2008-08-21 20:00:36
In the matter of pedophilia in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church there is something that needs being said. In the first place, the church itself not only openly admitted that it exists but acceded to demands that huge monetary compensation be given to at least partially alleviate the guilt of its commission. This is in the public records and cannot be denied. Beyond that the public records not only indicate the commission of the terrible acts but that these acts were known to higher officials in the hierarchy and knowledge of them was suppressed by these officials to prevent the public from knowing they took place. And beyond that, the perpetrators, when discovered, were transferred to other positions in the hierarchy which enabled them to continue their damaging activity upon innocent children. Paparella is probably correct in his statistics that the number of perpetrators were no more numerous than in other sectors of human life but there is a very vital difference in their existence and protection by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is very special in its relationship to its adherents in that it is an organization constructed on very strong authority from the Pope on down and doubt about that authority is severely suppressed from early childhood into adulthood where questions about it can evoke warnings of severe punishment in this life and in the proposed life after. But the acceptance of this extreme authority also demands extreme trust in the worthiness and responsibility in those extending it. When that trust is clearly and openly violated as in the acts of the pedophiles and in the protection of these perpetrators the shock of that violation ran through the entire church organization and was much more damaging to the organization than it would be in a less authoritative structure. And an attempt to cover up or deny the facts in the matter such as Paparella attempted is a much greater violation of human decency than it would be to an organization that did not claim to be a bulwark of human morality that required absolute and total trust.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 20:08:05
Had you bothered to have the decency and honesty to read the statement before jumping on the horse called slander for a gratuitous hilarious quixotic charge you would have realized that the words were not mine but verbatim that of a scholar who has made a thorough study of the problem of pedophelia and that nowhere do I condone pedophilia in any shape or form as you slanderously assert. Obviously the whole truth scares you and you and the voices in your head seem to be much more comfortable with half truths, scurrilous innuendos and villanous insinuations. Indeed, it would have been by far preferable that you and your types had never attended school at all thus acquiring the tools with which to gratuitoulsy bash and smear. I must give credit to the editors of the magazine for tolerating this abuse of free speech in the interests of free speech, but alas, it remains what it is: an abuse. Abuse of language is indeed the pedophelia of philosophical thought. In ancient Greece they were called sophists and they were up to no good. Today we call them charlatans.


Sand	2008-08-21 20:31:50
By offering a statement, whether it was yours or someone else's, that the Catholic Church was no more guilty than anyone else in having a percentage of pedophiles amongst its members you intimated that morality was no more a concern of the church than it is of the secular organizations. Do you really believe that?


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-21 21:33:23
What is indeed scurrilous and reprehensible on your part is the fact that what you report is never the whole truth but only a selected portion of the all the facts as known to those who have observed and studied the problem of pedophilia or any other in its totality; which is to say, what is reported has a secret propagandistic biased agenda: the bashing of religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. This is no secret. You have been at it from the beginning and give no indication of desisting from it; in fact you misguidedly glory in it. What you just proudly proffered to the readers, thinking that you can easily put the wool over their eyes, is what in logic is called a non sequitur which would not pass logic 101 and can in fact be turned around on you quite easily thus: do you really believe that because you are not a member of a faith community or a religious group, that it absolves you from being responsible for committing pedophilia or violating any other universal moral principle? Those who believe in natural law can logically be expected to answer that indeed universal moral principles are just that and apply to all as Kant has well taught the civilized among us. Those who don’t believe in natural law will of course prevaricate on the answer. See my article on C.S. Lewis and Natural Law.


Sand	2008-08-21 21:59:41
Ah well, another mishmash of vague accusations.


Emanuel Paparella	2008-08-22 04:51:36
To the contrary, the question has been understoo only too well and so we play stupid and confused in order not to answer it.


Sand	2008-08-22 06:06:46
Admittedly your natural talent for stupidity leaves me light years behind and I wonder sometimes whether I should not bother to compete in that area. That I attempt to seriously discuss anything at all with you does indicate a tiny capability of mine for stupidity which might develop over practice and time but my normal intelligence is an obstacle quite difficult to overcome. This I understoo only too well but things get dull around here and I find myself frequently in deep conversation with mosquitoes, blue bottle flies and a spider or two who always demonstrate more intellect than you and who have no stake in defending the idiocies of the Catholic church so for variety I keep submitting to our discussions.