Erica Lapadat-Janzen


Forum Replies Created

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
  • Firstly I’d like to thank Rosa for inviting me to join this conversation, I am very happy to be pushed to  more deeply consider the implications of this project.

    I feel I should elaborate more on the Glimbo project, as the introduction from the event is rather limited at best. The work itself is extremely recent/in process and certain issues in it and in my own concepts for the project have yet to be completely work through. I left the project untied, undecided  (“the images now serve a different purpose”) as it is still in process. Instant production and release of content into an endless, uncritical  stream of noise is not interesting, although incredibly easy to do.   What purpose the images serve is personally complicated; I find the images after being glitched to be more seductive than before.

    This project was inspired by an online conversation with a friend about his “bimbofication” fetish.  I was intrigued by the concept, although it made me consider that the desire for a “bimbo” or a hypersexualized female could be considered to be the most widespread publicly expectable and normalized  fetishes ever.

    I find the idea that women should be physically perfect and appeal to a certain hypersexualized ideal frustrating and the breaking  and deconstruction of these images to be cathartic.   In one of the images the women’s t-shirt reads “you can be sexy without having sex.”  I believe this statement to be a hugely influential idea of how women should act and how they should present themselves. My project is not critical of pornography; it’s critical of gendered behaviour control and the idea of hypersexual female perfection in online space.

    I purposefully did not use pornographic images for this project, because I wanted to consider the images that are excepted as normative for public consumption.

    “The internet is [visually] made up of women.”  I was not at all attempting to undermine the talented women that have worked/programmed  online space.  I realize the powerful quality of the statement that is sucked back into itself by the visual representations of a weak uninteresting ideal.

    I come from a background of painting, not programming. When I say the glitch was intentional, I am speaking to the push pull of the image. The play that happened with the information I chose to insert or take away and the amount of times those interactions were undid/redone.  I would agree that both the images and process are cliche, although I’m not sure I agree that using a cliche on top of a cliche is necassarily negative.

    To summaries intent, I wanted to take something I find incredibly boring and problematic and use it to create something more interesting. Perhaps it turns out the work is not and falls into the endless noise. I would argue that the fact that it is being critiqued and is a part of the conversation lends the project a certain amount of value.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
 Posted by at