Re: [-empyre-] the invisible subject

[Susana Mendes Silva <arslonga@netcabo.pt>]

On Jul 12, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Ana Valdes wrote:

> Almost all the women were covered by veils, some of them wore burkha
> similar clothes which covered the whole body, gloves too, the only you
> could see were the eyes and many wore dark sunglasses.
> The invisibilization of the body made the body only more desirable and
> the itch to peel the layers of clothes and see behind was very clear
> for all of us who were not fully clothed.


and Michele writes of
> However, the subject is rendered invisible not only because of these
> associations, but because of the restrictions in place regarding  
> access
> to the outside world.

> the ways women are both rendered
> invisible as subjects and are hyper-visible as
> objects.

I have always been fascinated with the possibilities of undermining  
expectations.
If one is by moral laws forced (or willing) to become invisible as a  
subject, it is quite disturbing to find that as an "object" or an  
anonymous she becomes an object of desire.
The question of uniformization - I wouldn't simple call it a dress  
code - is due to issues of identification and control. The use of  
uniforms bring up a lot of questions about the society of control.  
Ana even refers the hair cutting, which is seen as something to  
withdraw some seductive appeal, but is also seen in some cultures as  
a punishment (or part of it).

Imagine that this object underneath those burkhas, veils and  
sunglasses there were some men?

In 2001, I presented an installation called "Tchador", that consisted  
on two walls, in each wall there were 300 repeated 10x15 cm photos  
(set in a grid, almost as a tile repetition). on the left side, the  
photo was a veiled head (white veil, with a crochet stripe for the  
eyes). on the right side, the photo showed the veil pulled away just  
before the eye level- you could see part of the face. and it was a  
man face.

Some reactions were very curious: people could not believe that it  
was the same model in two pictures. For them the first was  
"obviously" a woman, and the second was a man (because it was visibly  
a man's face, even if you could not see his eyes).
The question was really about how do we deal with our own  
expectations, with our prejudice, with our conceptual frames?

What is really a "human person" (beyond all distinctions of gender,  
ethny, etc...)?

How people address issues if you change/undermine the rules, or if  
you change the point of view?


susana mendes silva
www.susanamendessilva.com
arslonga@netcabo.pt