Re: [-empyre-] transgression anyway

[geuzen@xs4all.nl]

Hello Empyre members,

This is my first post so forgive me for being a bit muddled.  There have
been many relevant issues raised and its pretty difficult to come up with
a cohesive response. I think about Virginia Woolf taking over three years
to answer a letter and sometimes I wish mailing lists could run at the
same speed.  I guess slowing down would be an act of transgression in and
of itself.

I think Ryan is right to point out the necessity of at least questioning
technology.  At the same time, this is one tool amongst many?as mentioned
by someone on the list, words are also a tool (I tried to retrace who said
it but couldn?t find their name in my never emptied folders so please
forgive me).  As a woman, I often think about the fact that I work with
many borrowed and gendered tools?words, software, discourses, licenses,
?the list goes on and on ? but nonetheless to a better or less degree, I
have to make them work for me. In other words, like some secondhand
gadget, I tinker, tweak and sometimes obliterate until it does what I need
it to do.  And in the end, I can only hope my modifications are visible as
form of appropriation.

Moving away from this idea of tools, several posts made me think about
other subtle forms of transgression.  In a way, it is easier to jump to
more visible notions of transgressions ie. Hackers?.or rebels on the
fringes of culture.  While I understand the significance/necessity of such
practices, not only practically but symbolically,  I actually wonder about
not so obvious forms of transgression.  Lately, I have been thinking about
the immense power of remembering.  Given that politicians and the media
are currently willing us to forget, the act of remembering seems quite a
radical gesture. It seems to me that dominant memories should be
problematized and countered with other less visible memories.

I have also been thinking about something Rosalyn Deutsche said at a
lecture at the Tate.  She talked about the necessity of opening up space
for non-indifferent forms of vision.  (the lecture is online at:
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/eventseducation/talksdiscussions/rosalyndeutscheandjanerendell2689.htm

Right now, like many have noted here on this list by bringing up Guy
Debord and the Society of the Spectacle, we are bombarded by images. 
Worlds come to us but they are ultimately unreachable.  I guess what I am
very clumsily getting at is how can that specific border be transgressed?
How can we, as artists, writers, theorists, students?etc.  create 
?non-indifferent? relations to media images and moreover a non-indifferent
relation to what or who they represent?


The last thing I want to mention is actually more of an aside.  Since
Debord?s name has been circulating on a few posts, I wanted to say  that
over the past few months we, meaning De Geuzen ( this is the name of the
art group with which I work) have been building a project called ?A Séance
with Guy?.  It is a sort of chat bot where you can ask questions about the
Situationists or current affairs. As a visual research project, it has
been quite something for us as three women to dwell in the house of
revolutionary masculinity.  That too, is predominately a HIStory and not a
HERstory?that said we still felt many of his thoughts were relevant
today?especially his perspective on terrorism as a sort constructed foe. 
To view the project in its entirety go to (it takes some time and
broadband is necessary?) : http://www.geuzen.org/guy/index.html

If you want to do the chat only:
http://www.geuzen.org/guy/pages/framesetMAN.html

Btw: if you view the chat as source you will immediately see that many of
our keywords are already out of date. It is quite revealing that no one
seems to ask Guy about Abu Ghraib anymore.

xxx Renee
www.geuzen.org