Letters

Pictures not “˜child
pornography’

In response to Ben Shapiro’s article, “Art
not always art in the eye of the beholder, masses“
(Viewpoint, Feb. 11), I wanted to outline exactly what my
intentions were with the photographs Shapiro categorized as
“child pornography.”

The girl in the photographs is my twelve-year-old sister. It was
my intent to point out how much the representation of women in pop
culture affects how she perceives her own gender and consequently
how she presents herself in front of a camera.

I never choreographed the pictures. My sister struck every
single pose of her own accord. Yes, her poses are
“reminiscent of adult models,” like Shapiro said. But
these poses are not the result of pedophilia. They are the result
of a culture in which sexually charged Victoria’s Secret
commercials run during primetime network television and in which
Britney Spears’ hyper-sexualized little girl image is
publicly praised.

My sister was simply mimicking what she sees on television, on
billboards, in advertisements, in magazines, etc. I expect these
images to be disturbing; I am saddened and disturbed myself. These
feelings are what made me want to begin this project in the first
place. I wanted to document the consequences of a young girl being
visually bombarded by pop culture’s ideal physical woman. If
this document is offensive to its viewers then we have to blame the
visual media and its representation of women.

Since I, the artist, was never contacted or interviewed by
Shapiro, his accusations of “child pornography” are
completely uninformed.

Art is a form of self-expression just like writing. So why is it
that when someone dislikes one piece by an art student they feel
justified in condemning the artist, art as a major, and ultimately
art in general? If, for instance, the situation were altered, and a
political science paper were in question, the thought of
denigrating the entire field of political science would be an
outrageous notion. It frightens me that prejudicial thinking and
misconceptions would lead, in the minds of certain people, to
justified censorship of art.

Sarah Goodwin Fourth-year Art

Group not working toward dialogue

There have lately been several pieces in the Daily Bruin that
portray the Muslim Student Association in an inaccurate light. In
his interview, Ibrahim Wang makes several misleading statements
that must be addressed (“Q&A
with the Daily Bruin,” Feb. 6). He claims that on campus
there exists no conflict regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
On the contrary, last year MSA held a protest of the Israeli
Independence Day celebration on campus. They followed this with a
week of protests against the state of Israel, coined
“Anti-Zionist Week,” during which a resolution was
introduced in USAC against Zionism.

In his letter, “Islamic
Awareness Week does not have anti-Zionist purpose“
(Viewpoint, Feb. 12), Bilal Khan, president of MSA, calls this week
“imaginary.” I’m sure these events didn’t
actually happen, and that the stories about them in the Bruin were
completely made up.

Furthermore, Wang asserts that MSA has been involved in
dialogue. Why, then, has their leadership repeatedly ignored or
outright refused the overtures from the Jewish community for
dialogue? In addition, they are not at all involved in the
Arab/Muslim-Jewish dialogue currently being manifested in the form
of Bruins for Middle East Dialogue, a new group on campus, nor did
they participate in the Middle East Peace Tent last year.

Because peace is so critical for Arab, Muslim and Jewish
relations, students must ask themselves why dialogue and peace are
not on MSA’s priority list.

Justin Levi President Jewish Student Union