[-empyre-] Exposure

[M White <mwhite@michelewhite.org>]

Thanks for the thoughts on the concept of bare life
and art.

I previously questioned Roger M. Buergel?s indication
in the Documenta texts that "absolute exposure is
intricately connected with infinite pleasure."
Foucault?s critique of the panopticon and feminist
film and art history considerations of the gaze would
suggest that "exposure" can be extremely painful,
regulating, and normalizing. Are we differntiating
between self-generated acts of personal exposing and
exposure. How do societal messages provide individuals
with limits or rules for such actions?

In this earlier post I noted that: Exposure should be
correlated to the histories of visibility and
invisibility that different cultures and individuals
face. Individuals that are described as CEO, tenured
faculty member, citizen, adult, artist, or married are
likely to associate exposure with different pleasures
and risks than those felt by the undocumented worker,
adjunct, "alien," juvenile, fan producer, and sex
worker. I am interested in considering the different
ways that bodies are put on display, the various
demands for exposure, and what it means when people
decide or are forced to become visible in the world.
Culture does not understand the flash of women's
breasts, men's breasts (that are supposed to be called
something else), and men's penises to have the same
meanings. 

Painting, photography, and other forms of art
production have a history of exposing some individuals
to the observational and regulatory gaze. This would
suggest that artists and producers might want to be
particularly aware of how exposure and looking are
facilitated by their work. What would an ethics of
looking and exposure contain? What are the ways to
theorize exposure? Certainly feminist art production
(Adrian Piper, Lorna Simpson, Laura Mulvey...) has
proposed some models for these engagements.

All my best,
Michele