Jose Bedia

Here are some samples of Jose Bedia's work. He is mentioned in the first text.

An artist for next week

El Anatsui was born, raised and educated in Ghana. His work is traditionally African in content though western in style. There's a fairly good article in the July/August 2006 issue of Sculpture Magazine.

Butlers essay and reading Dina’s entry instantly made me think about a discussion that my mom had with my grandfather a few years ago. I think the conversation was about how times were changing (started by ridiculous excuse for a goatee). What had me floored was when my mom said (to my grandpa) “do you remember when you hit my sister (my moms older sister) with a belt severely because you caught her wearing pants?” What?! Wearing pants was wrong if you were a woman? People would think she was a lesbian…do remember this was many years ago in Mexico were having an open mind really didn’t apply to most people. It is so insane how wearing pants would have such violent reprocutions.

Outloud Thoughts

You will all hear alot from me today in regards to the articles. But as these articles whirl in my mind, I am getting dressed for class. My school identity is different than my home, work, and weekend identity. For school, I tend to dress down, in jeans and t-shirts. My school attire is far less feminine than my work or weekend attire. But what constitutes feminine attire? A dress? Heels? Nylons? A flower in my hair? Does a feminine attire become something of it's own existence?
Or is it just an unspoken cultural norm/law? Perhaps it is nothing to mull over since we are so familiar with femininity identity. We know how a woman acts, smells, walks, what sexual icons she embodies.
As I dress for class today I am thinking of the Piper video, where she addresses the idea of "visibly black Americans". Visibility and the idea that identity is visible and not visible. One may look a certain way and may in fact be the opposite. But this comes with preconcieved notions within individuals of what we expect an "identity" to look like, to act like, etc.
As I dress for school today I am no exception to the rule of preconcieved ideas of identity.

The idea that television and the media as a controlling force is true. The television holds a certain amount of control over all those who view it. Because the media is something we rely on to be the representative of truth the power of video is expressed in the presentation of real events. But these events can also be controlled as far as what parts are shown through the media, what is edited out, rarely are we allowed to view the whole in its entirety. I grew up not watching tv and I think that serves as a reason for me being suspicious of what is shown.

“Television is linked crucially to the enigma of survival. It inhabits the contiguous neighborhoods of broken experience and rerouted memory. Refusing in its discourse and values to record, preferring instead to play out the myths of liveness, living color, being there, television will have produced a counterphobic perspective to an interrupted history.” Avital Ronell pg 206

I really liked Adrian Piper's article, not only because I think the topic is interesting and one does not usually think about "being black", but also how she confronts the reader with that issue. How she draws him in.
Then I found this of Adrian Pipers works (the picture above and the text go together). To me, her work is very heavy. Almost like talking politics in Europe! ;) I enjoy how she condenses the subjective perceptions of a somewhat black person and we know her points aren't too far fetched. At least I could imagine that people actually feel that way. I like the second text where we can observe a very stereotypical and dull reaction, trying to talk it down, but at the same time creating an even bigger conflict/drama.
Both texts are well exaggerated and generate a reaction in the reader. I must say the first text almost made me feel sick, it just feels horrible. But I hope that the second text also lightened you up. It just seems like that is how a lot of people would act when facing some harshly revealed feelings..

SKINNED ALIVE, that last protective skein of illusion
ripped off.
No insulation against acid reality,
flayed meat exposed to searchlight glares,
burning harsh to panic madness.
No respite, no solace, no refuge anywhere
on my grilled raw surfaces.
Only the corrosive cooking smell, the sickening realization that
there is no self-duplicity in your predation,
not even the inner pretension to virtuous disposition.

No idealistic aspirations here;
draw a breath and nothing, no one rushes in to aerate the blood.
There is no one home to come home to, no one home to avoid, no one home to pay homage to,
no home at all,
just emptiness that suffocates my attempts to fertilize it with stubborn hopes.
No one home, only the wheels turning,
the lips moving
to emit sounds that assemble into
perfunctory rationalizations for our benefit.

The abuse of power makes an honest man of you
the addictive thrill of unconcealed contempt
the exhilarating buzz of sadistic anger
the obsessive fascination with victims there to receive your cruelty,
all these throw your profile into sharp relief
and gain your entry to the universal brotherhood.
The travesty would be to pretend among the company you keep
to believe in the appearances you keep up,
the casual appearance of earnest good intentions.


IT'S FINE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. I DIDN'T NOTICE ANYTHING WRONG. IT SEEMS FINE TO ME. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU SAY THAT. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM. I'M AMAZED THAT YOU SEE THINGS THAT WAY. I JUST DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY AT ALL. IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM. JUST CALM DOWN. TRY TO GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF. THIS IS A COMPLETE SURPRISE TO ME. THE THOUGHT NEVER CROSSED MY MIND. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO MAKE OF THIS. ISN'T THIS A LITTLE BIT MUCH? THAT'S A WEIRD WAY TO THINK ABOUT THINGS. I JUST CAN'T RELATE. WE CERTAINLY DO HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THINGS. YOU'RE MAKING TOO MUCH OF THIS. NOTHING'S THE MATTER. STOP GETTING EMOTIONAL. YOU'RE BLOWING THE WHOLE THING OUT OF PROPORTION. EVERYTHING'S FINE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? YOU'RE BEING PARANOID. YOU'RE OVERSENSITIVE. YOU'RE READING TOO MUCH INTO IT. STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO ME. YOU'RE OVERINTERPRETING THE DATA. I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. IT WAS JUST A SIMPLE MISTAKE. IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. YOU'RE SEEING TOO MUCH IN THIS. NOTHING'S GOING ON. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. I REALLY THINK YOU'RE OVERDOING IT. YOU'RE JUST TIRED. DON'T TAKE EVERYTHING SO SERIOUSLY. IT'S NO BIG DEAL. YOU'RE JUST PROJECTING. YOU'RE OVERREACTING. NOTHING HAPPENED. DID I NOTICE WHAT? I DON'T SEE ANYTHING TO GET UPSET ABOUT. I DON'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. WHAT'S THE MATTER? YOU'LL GET OVER IT. DID SOMEONE DO SOMETHING WRONG? WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT'S THIS ABOUT? WHAT'S WRONG? STOP MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT. EVERYONE DOES THAT. SO WHAT? BIG DEAL. WHO CARES? NO, NOTHING LIKE THAT. JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING, THAT'S ALL. MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I'M MYSTIFIED BY YOUR REACTION. I DON'T GET IT. SO? WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT? IT WAS JUST AN INNOCENT SLIP-UP. I REGARD THAT AS PERFECTLY NORMAL BEHAVIOR. I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. YOU'RE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM. WHY BRING THIS UP? YOU SEE EVERYTHING IN TERMS OF YOUR OWN PROBLEMS. WHY IS THAT OBJECTIONABLE? YOU'RE COOKING UP PROBLEMS WHERE THERE ARE NONE. YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HAPPENED. I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE LYING, I'M JUST SAYING YOUR PERCEPTIONS ARE DISTORTED. IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO SEE THINGS IN THAT LIGHT. YOU'RE TOO UPSET TO THINK CLEARLY. WE'LL DISCUSS IT LATER. NO, NOT NOW, I'M BUSY. STOP MAKING TROUBLE. YOU'RE SEEING THINGS THAT AREN'T THERE. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO HOW ARE YOU OTHERWISE? I REFUSE TO DISCUSS THIS. WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH THAT? CHANGE THE SUBJECT. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. I'M NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO THIS. YOU TAKE EVERYTHING TOO PERSONALLY. YOU MUST HAVE PERCEIVED THAT INCORRECTLY. I'M SURE YOU'RE MISTAKEN. I'M SURE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN QUITE THE WAY YOU DESCRIBE IT. SURELY YOU'RE EXAGGERATING JUST A LITTLE. YOU'RE BEING IRRATIONAL. YOU CAN'T MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT. THIS IS SO UNNECESSARY. YOU'RE WAY OUT OF LINE. IT'S NOT YOUR PLACE TO SAY THAT. DON'T PUSH IT. YOU'RE GOING TOO FAR. GET OFF IT. YOU'RE SPEAKING OUT OF PLACE. LIGHTEN UP. YOU'RE ASKING FOR TROUBLE. YOU'RE BEING INAPPROPRIATE. NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK. YOU'RE LEAVING YOURSELF WIDE OPEN. YOU'RE CRUISIN' FOR A BRUISIN'. PUT A LID ON IT. CAN IT. STUFF IT. BAG IT. FORGET IT. DROP IT. I WOULDN'T PURSUE THIS ANY FURTHER IF I WERE YOU. YOU'RE REALLY ASKING FOR IT. DO YOU WANT TO GET IN TROUBLE? YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT. YOU'RE STICKING YOUR NECK OUT. YOU'RE DIGGING YOUR OWN GRAVE. A REAL GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT. YOU CAN'T GET AWAY WITH THIS. YOU'RE DEAD MEAT. I HATE TO DO THIS. I'M REALLY SORRY THIS IS NECESSARY. THIS HURTS ME MORE THAN IT HURTS YOU. I'M DOING THIS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD. YOU'LL APPRECIATE THIS LATER. I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP YOU. SOMEDAY YOU'LL THANK ME FOR THIS. ACTUALLY I'M DOING YOU A FAVOR. IN TIME YOU'LL UNDERSTAND. YOU'LL LEARN TO SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

The Law

There's a thread in these articles about the law - or about power relationships. The Butler article starts off with the point about the subject being constituted when the law is imposed on them. The Wright article is a call to acknowledge the institutional power at play in the exhibition, and how it effects the content of the exhibition. And finally the Ronell article describes TV as "about the law."

I'm not sure I've digested in which ways this relates to identity - but, as I'm reading it now, I see it as working on an assumption that identity doesn't really come from some pure inner well of being. As Butler writes:

Identifying with a gender under contemporary regimes of power involves identifying with a set of norms that are and are not realizable ... This "being a man" and this "being a woman" are internally unstable affairs.

For Joel's class I'm also reading "We Have Never Been Modern" and so I can't help seeing the notion of a "pure" gender as a vestige of the modern program.

Along those lines, and in agreement with Fields notion of race (as paraphrased by Wright) as a "historically ritualized repetition of an ideology that sustains oppression through it's distinctions" - I have an anecdote. This is also in reply to "my problem" as presented by Adrian Piper: I noticed not long ago that on a couple of forms, where in the past my options for the 'race' question would have been 'caucasian,' 'chicano,' 'latin american,' etc. there was a new category - 'mixed.' I love this category, I was so happy when I saw it - it's really the only possible description of my race or my identity.

Haunted Identity

After reading the articles, I started to think about a new category of identity, which defines certain communities after 09/11, also inferred to in Chica-Iranian project in 2004: http://www.pochanostra.com/#Scene_14

Identity is subject to change and even transformation over time. Is this the media-and art at the service of the media- that manufacture identities for propaganda purposes?

I found it interesting in Butler's article when she refers to the camera as being "empowered as a phallic instrument" and a "vehicle through which the transubstantiation occurs". She also says the camera represents the "white gaze". As a photographer I really started to think about this relationship betweeen the model (subject) and the artist. It seems so much of our concepts of identity are based on the cultural media we are exposed to on a daily basis. We all strive to transform ourselves to some extent to fit some ideal identity norm, whether that be a specific gender role or the role of a succesfull artist. Often those images that we associate with that idealized identity are created by the use of a camera (magazines, tv, movies, internet, etc..) by white executives. Its no wonder people are drawn to the camera as a tool to re-identiify themselves.

On a seperate note, the Wright article accuses the Whitney Curators of limiting the "definition of the human agent in order to call him/her the subject". I totally agree with Wright but isnt that what the public expects to see when going to a show of this kind? Not to justify the Museum not taking a different approach to diversity, but they first and formost cater to the public and shape their biennials accordingly.

Linda Butler hurts my brain

Last night I dreamt I stole a yellow highlighter from Walgreens and used it to highlight every 7th word in Butler's paragraphs. In doing so, I was able to decipher her coded verbosity.
I rented Paris is Burning and will watch it tonight in hopes that I can better understand the discussion and post something a bit more intellectual rather than sarcastic. I think the outrage and controversy around the '93 biennial was that it marginalized the white, heterosexual male and questioned the level of sanctioned training the artworld had and still has for what is "good art". The mere fact that there was more video and installation rather than traditional painting (the most "respected" of visual art forms) shook the foundation of art as a tangible commodity and brought into question the value of art masters.

We all know that art history is organized according to chronology, medium, nationality and geography. The '93 biennial cracked open the narrow pigeon hole documentation of the work/voices of a wider audience (race, gender, religion and orientation) both in producing and collecting. How far have we really come from the Guerrilla Girls?

Because of this exhibition scholars, critics and audiences see and understand the work of contemporary artists more clearly.

On Piper's satirical yet profound questioning of blackness, I was reminded of a poem written by Langston Hughes one of my favorite poets who just happened to be black and homosexual. The poem published in 1953follows:

"That Powerful Drop"

Leaning on the lampost in front of the barbershop, Simple was holding up a copy of the Chicago Defender and reading about how a man looks white had just been declared officially colored by an Alabama court. "It's powerful," he said. "What?"
"That one drop of Negro blood- because just one drop of black blood makes a man colored. One drop- you are a Negro! Now why is that? Why is Negro blood so much more powerful than any other kind of blood in the world? If a man has Irish blood in him they say, "He's part Irish" if he has Jewish blood in him, they say, "He's part Jewish" But if he has just a small bit of colored blood in him- BAM!- "He's a Negro" n ot part Negro, No, be it ever so little, if that blood is black, "He's a Negro"
Now, this is what I don't understand- why our one is so powerful. Take paint- white will not make black white. But black will make white black. One drop of black in white paint- and the white ain't white no more! Black is powerful. Yopu can have 99 drops of white blood in your veins down South- but if that other drop is black, shame on you! Even if you look white, you're black. That drop is really pwoerful. Expalin it to me. You're colleged."
"It has no basis in science," I said, "so there's no logical explanation."

So my question is this, is my son part lesbian?
more to come...

Disempowerment

In searching for more information on Paris Is Burning, I came across the following article
http://www.cpinternet.com/mbayly/filmandtheology5.htm . It referred bell hook’s article “Is Paris Burning” in greater depth than did Butler, and put words to some of my thoughts concerning Livingston’s documentary Paris is Burning, of which I have only seen clips on YouTube.

Quotes from ball participants (from bell hook’s article):
“To be real is to look like your straight counterpart”.
A minority’s dream is to “live and look and work as the white person”
One is a “marvel” if one has “captured the great white way of living and looking”

What bell says viewers see in Paris Is Burning is not black men seeking to become like or impersonate “real” black women, but “their obsession with an idealized fetishized vision of femininity that is white”. Becoming like a wealthy white female is what would liberate and empower the ball-goers.

hooks says that “longing to be in the position of the ruling-class women…means there is also a desire to act in partnership with the ruling-class white male. And so, the oppressive power structure, the “brutal imperial ruling-class capitalist patriarchal whiteness”, which marginalizes and disempowers the ball participants remains unchallenged.

She sees them worshiping at the sacrificial altar of a false god, at the throne of whiteness.

My response to Is Paris Burning was illuminated by bell hooks.

Michael Bayly’s theological analysis, about self-love and how the ball could be a force for positive personal and social transformation is interesting too.