>What do you think was the
>artist's intent for these
>illustrations?

Obviously, none of us can know for certain, but it does seem odd that this particular series of pin-ups differs notably from the rest of her work. Why? Perhaps it was at the request of the client who commissioned it.


>Do you think Zoe Mozert was
>trying to demean the women
>in these illustrations?

This is essentially the same question as previous. But I doubt that Mozert was consciously intending that these illustrations be demeaning towards women. However, an artist's intent or lack thereof to demean (or promote, etc) does not alone make it so. An artist can intend to impart something through their art, but fail to do so. Or, they may impart something unintentionally. I'm actually surprised that you would even ask this question after you took so much time and space to discuss the inherently subjective nature of art interpretation. If every person's interpretation of a piece of art is unique and equal, then the intention of the artist is totally irrelevant, isn't it? Further, if the only individuals that are going to view these pieces of art are women, then the fact that some men aren't offended by the works is, again, totally irrelevant.

>Did you know that the model
>in the first, second and last
>illustrations is Zoe herself?

I know that Mozert frequently used herself as the model for her artwork, but this is meaningless in regard to whether the illustrations tend to demean women.

>Do you think art should be
>censored or removed from
>display because it offends
>a certain political interest
>group?

Censorship is an act taken by a government, or a group in a dominant position of power. Obviously, that is not applicable here. But in general, as a society, we all apparently agree that it is acceptable that certain types of art -- certain subject matter -- is not allowed to be viewed by anyone (e.g., kiddie porn) or by particular viewers (e.g., Playboy, etc). If you disagree with this, then I urge you to stop wasting your time with this tiny little issue and instead engage yourself fully in the ongoing fight against very real and significant attempts to repress and/or censor ideas and artwork all over this "free" country of ours.

>Do you think you will
>be missed at the Seabright
>Brewery?

I could really care less.
I estimate that over the last ten years I've personally spent a couple thousand dollars at SB. However, because of the concerned and sensitive response from the SB owner on this matter, I estimate that in the next ten years I'll spend appx ZERO dollars there. That'll be my personal, private picket. And it sounds like I won't be alone in that decision.

>...LA LUCHA, No one ever
>assumed you were ever a
>female...

Yes, they did. Perhaps you should actually read the previous posts -- the ones that I was responding to -- before making ignorant comments.

However, that assumption may have been correct. Or, maybe not. Within the standard gender paradigm, you've got a 50/50 shot at it. My point was that those who identified as feminists were assumed to be women by (at least some of) the goons around here. That's a stupid and ignorant assumption to make, especially in Santa Cruz.

>Harassment of the management
>is what you advocated. Now
>you're backing down and
>saying you were just trying
>to get the art changed.

NO.
Getting the art changed was the point from the start. Expressing concerns and requests to the management was merely a logical method for achieving that end.
Duh.

>but the fact is: no one cares

Actually, you guys seem to care A LOT. Otherwise, why bother with all this?

>Ad hominum attacks are
>your only defense.

Personally, while I've lobbed a few insults at the "other" side, my argument, on balance, is not ad hominem. I've made a number of clear points that spoke directly to the issue; nobody reponds to those points. When they fail completely to repond to my points, *then* I lob insults.

La Lucha Continua


PS: When ck and Kenny admit (haha) to being sexist misogynists it lets me know that they don't understand what those terms mean. It's kind of like being racist klan members. Get it? One term is an essential element of the other... you can't be a non-sexist misogynist any more than you can be a non-racist klan member.