Hey this is going back to our "identity" week - but I thought it was really interesting - partly because I read Richard Scarry books when I was a kid too...
1963 vs. 1991 Corrections
Things like the ribbon addition to correct gender stereotypes are pretty funny, they're just trading one sign for another (driving a steamroller vs. wearing a ribbon).
Thursday, October 4, 2007
examples
While reading these articles, a few experiences immediately came to mind. When in Mexico I always wondered why the culture continues to be so Catholic. This question could probably only come from an atheist like myself - but I can't help seeing in the context of the Spanish conquest of Mexico - which was so brutal. And echos of it persist in the sense that Mexico is still colonized by Coca Cola, NAFTA, etc. Things that don't contribute to the independence and prosperity of Mexicans, just keep them in perpetual dependence. So in that context, I always think: I would reject Catholicism, and Coca Cola and the rest.
Mosqueras article was great in the sense that he clearly makes the case that it's silly to think you can cleanly separate what came from the outside, from what is original. I'm sure that within minutes of expose to the foreign, a mixture occurs, and there's no going back. We become hybrids.
Mosqueras article was great in the sense that he clearly makes the case that it's silly to think you can cleanly separate what came from the outside, from what is original. I'm sure that within minutes of expose to the foreign, a mixture occurs, and there's no going back. We become hybrids.
The statement from the Mosquera’s essay “to look like no one else or to look like Frida” really made me laugh and say “thank God I do graffiti.” I think statements like those are said when money is trying to be made. If one takes the money factor out, things are looked at a lot differently. I’m not trying to say that Identity needs to be excluded from work,or that cultural identity validates the work, but if the artist feels that it needs to be, then it should and vice versa. If Third World country artist, or any artist, feels some type of pressure from the Western Culture to be a certain way they should give up being an artist.
East meets West, North meets South
Oguibe kind of hit the nail on the head with this bit:
"We see double standards. But that is hardly the most important point. We also find that essential tendency to ignore indigenous historical perceptions and constructs."
The theme as old as time is the one where more "advanced" societies try to save or elevate the "primitive" societies they've "discovered" in "unclaimed" land. Many examples come to mind, most of which we've all read in one history book or another. Problem is, history is often written by the victors according to their specific perceptions accurate or not. Most recently, it's been Europeans running around "discovering" places, claiming them as their own and bestowing their clearly superior culture on the indigenous populations. This colonization has yielded some quite tasty cuisine, inexpensive diamonds, pilfered national treasures and some new takes on art.
Mosquera wrote: "The de-Eurocentralisation in art is not about returning to purity, but about adopting postcolonial "impurity" through which we might free ourselves and express our own thought." Taking this comment and the one that Margo made about capitalist colonization we see a whole new take on the art produced in those areas.
Take for instance the sub-Saharan part of Africa. Colonized, de-colonized and then left with partial infrastructure and poverty. The locals have taken the left0ver telephone wire that would have been considered waste in, say, France and have created a mini-industry by applying their local craft and custom to a new material by weaving traditional Zulu baskets with it. The best part? They're using the Internet (capitalist colonization) to sell these things back to the colonists!
In the modern world, East or West, North or South seems like it lacks definition other than a direction. If you travel eastward long enough, you'll hit the west. If you travel northward far enough, you'll end up going south.
"We see double standards. But that is hardly the most important point. We also find that essential tendency to ignore indigenous historical perceptions and constructs."
The theme as old as time is the one where more "advanced" societies try to save or elevate the "primitive" societies they've "discovered" in "unclaimed" land. Many examples come to mind, most of which we've all read in one history book or another. Problem is, history is often written by the victors according to their specific perceptions accurate or not. Most recently, it's been Europeans running around "discovering" places, claiming them as their own and bestowing their clearly superior culture on the indigenous populations. This colonization has yielded some quite tasty cuisine, inexpensive diamonds, pilfered national treasures and some new takes on art.
Mosquera wrote: "The de-Eurocentralisation in art is not about returning to purity, but about adopting postcolonial "impurity" through which we might free ourselves and express our own thought." Taking this comment and the one that Margo made about capitalist colonization we see a whole new take on the art produced in those areas.
Take for instance the sub-Saharan part of Africa. Colonized, de-colonized and then left with partial infrastructure and poverty. The locals have taken the left0ver telephone wire that would have been considered waste in, say, France and have created a mini-industry by applying their local craft and custom to a new material by weaving traditional Zulu baskets with it. The best part? They're using the Internet (capitalist colonization) to sell these things back to the colonists!
In the modern world, East or West, North or South seems like it lacks definition other than a direction. If you travel eastward long enough, you'll hit the west. If you travel northward far enough, you'll end up going south.
Mosquera calls for a "construction of a contemporary culture- one capable of acting in today's reality- from a plurality of perspectives." For a long time, Western domination in the countries it colonized suppressed the existing culture and tried to conform it to the standards they believed in. (It still happens in a capitalist colonization of culture by the way new McDonalds, Starbucks are popping up all over the world) This domination has set the structures for how non-Western art is viewed within the Western perspective only.
"Third World artists are constantly asked to display their identity, to be fantastic, to look like no one else or look like Frida..."
I found it interesting the way Mosquera points out that art that satisfies the stereotype of exotic is somehow more accepted at the center. He talks about the notion of the "other" as being a threat, rather than embracing it for what elements it might bring.
He also talks about the problems of intercultural communication, and the solution being not only accepatnce of other cultures but an understanding of them in order to "enrich [oneself] with his or her diversity." This is what Oguibe refers to as the Heart of Darkness, the unknown. There is a need to understand the Other, but to also understand where one exists in relationship to that term.
"Third World artists are constantly asked to display their identity, to be fantastic, to look like no one else or look like Frida..."
I found it interesting the way Mosquera points out that art that satisfies the stereotype of exotic is somehow more accepted at the center. He talks about the notion of the "other" as being a threat, rather than embracing it for what elements it might bring.
He also talks about the problems of intercultural communication, and the solution being not only accepatnce of other cultures but an understanding of them in order to "enrich [oneself] with his or her diversity." This is what Oguibe refers to as the Heart of Darkness, the unknown. There is a need to understand the Other, but to also understand where one exists in relationship to that term.
Give me a mutt
Mosquera made such sense of things for me. The Marco Polo Syndrome – where those of us in the egocentric, privileged West view difference as life-threatening rather than nutritional. Growing up in middle class US, and then having a good job and an affluent lifestyle as an adult – it took me some conscious paying attention and traveling to other areas of the world (which most Americans don’t do – only around 20% of Americans even have passports) to realize the value of diversity. My awareness increased when I learned of the richness of art from cultures that were composed of diversity and very tolerant, such as the Tang Dynasty on the Silk Road, and Al Andalus. There is a corollary in nature. The pedigreed dog is much less hardy than the mixed mutt. I no longer would choose to live in an area of the US that wasn’t highly diverse, and I really hope in my lifetime to have the opportunity to live outside the US and learn another language.
While I am very interested in the Eurocentric identification in the art world, I am concerned that the authors didn't clearly acknowledge the inability for international artists to separate themselves from the Eurocentric influence. I was reminded of a short story called Unaccompanied Sonata. In it, when the "artist" was introduced to other works, in an attempt to retain "identity," he unconsciously removed the similarities/crossovers between his work and others. Likewise, are transnational artists able to distinguish themselves apart from their Eurocentric roots without continuing to acknowledge the Eurocentric presence?
“Postmodern interest in the Other has opened some space in the “high art” circuits for vernacular and non western cultures. But it has introduced a new thirst for exoticism, the carrier of either a passive or a second- class Eurocentrism which, instead of universalizing its paradigms, conditions certain cultural productions from the periphery according to paradigms that are expected of it for consumption by the centeres. Many artists, critics and Latin American curators seem to be quite willing to become “othered” for the West.” Mosquera 220.
In a field where “the new”, “the different”, “the avant garde” is supposedly cutting edge that exotic look or feel is something that is so often sought after. The “Eurocentric” reality is this “gotta own”, “gotta have it” mindset that is at the center of killing cultures. To think of objects from another culture as being something that is collectable or even marketable is just a modern notion of European colonization now apparent in “THE ART WORLD”.
In a field where “the new”, “the different”, “the avant garde” is supposedly cutting edge that exotic look or feel is something that is so often sought after. The “Eurocentric” reality is this “gotta own”, “gotta have it” mindset that is at the center of killing cultures. To think of objects from another culture as being something that is collectable or even marketable is just a modern notion of European colonization now apparent in “THE ART WORLD”.
I think it is a misconception of historical and contemporary ideas of exotism and the notion of sub-saharan within the African cultures. Rarely do we see the functioning cities, the scholarly societies, contemporary art, that exist within these "primitive" cultures. National Geographics and publications of the sort paint an image of a Third World country so exotic to our own.
"This way history is constructed as a validating privilege that is the West's to grant, like United Nations recognition, to sections, nations, moments, discourses, cultures, phenomena, realities, and peoples". -Oguibe
It is though the Western eyes of the curators, gallery owners, art market, art publications, etc. that creates the discourse of art in our culture. If interested in the exotic, then they will display their ideas of what is exotic, typically this is foreign type, or primitve looking art works. Art work that reflects their notions of modern African Art, etc.
"This way history is constructed as a validating privilege that is the West's to grant, like United Nations recognition, to sections, nations, moments, discourses, cultures, phenomena, realities, and peoples". -Oguibe
It is though the Western eyes of the curators, gallery owners, art market, art publications, etc. that creates the discourse of art in our culture. If interested in the exotic, then they will display their ideas of what is exotic, typically this is foreign type, or primitve looking art works. Art work that reflects their notions of modern African Art, etc.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The one statement that really stands out to me in these readings is Mosquera's comment "The contemporary artistic scene is avery centralised system of aparthied". Is it me, or do we re-discover every week how the artworld represents everything evil in our society? It is funny how something so pure as creating, is surrounded by so much impurity. I guess it is money that makes the artworld so judgmental. This post-colonial attitude and approach to art is based on class structures created by wealth. The demands placed on third world art described by Mosquera (originality based on tradition=primative) is based on the worth ascribed by the west, which is a direct efffect of the market that deals with primative or primative based artwork. A pure and true understanding of the "Other" (as described by Oguibe) will only happen when there is a market for that kind of work. It is all good and fine for us to understand this issue as artists but a major shift in opinion about the Third World from the entire West must happen before people will spend money on social-driven contemporary art from places like South Africa.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
"the truth of history is that wherever there is a tradition of artistic practice, and that means every society and every culture, there is always a system of appreciation, assessment, definition of values and taste." (Olu Oguibe)
Olu Oguibe talks in his essay about the problematic question, what is modernity, when did it start and where does it belong to and if there is such a thing how did Africa respond to it?
I am asking myself, how do we judge a piece of art to be modern?
To me modernity has to do with funcion and taste in a certain moment- Oguibe mentions " popular art". I think art is linked very closely to a society and often represents its life and values. For example, "township" art reminds me of the very typical paintings and colorful works we find throughout Africa, which are made of local materials and represent the feel, look and funcion as a representation. This is modern to me- it presents the moment and it raises questions for now and future affairs. The art world in Africa is immense.
I believe the West makes a mistake in trying to search for modernity- however the west defines what's modern- in Africa. And why is it so important? Why does the West want to modernize african art?
I found this strong article of Olu Oguibe quite fitting:
"To all intents and purposes, we live in a segregated world where, for instance, the rest may know the West but the West seldom knows the rest, and within the rest only a few know enough beyond their own little home territories. The novelist Chinua Achebe noted long ago that this is indeed the state at which the West has arrived, at that juncture where it no longer has to erase or ignore others consciously, but as a matter of fact. It is a terrible world where this is the case. That it is the nature of our shared condition as cultures struggling to acknowledge one another, even to co-exist, is a tragedy indeed."
Saturday, September 29, 2007
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.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
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.
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
“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.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
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:
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.
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)