Re: [-empyre-] the invisible subject

[Aliette <aliette@criticalsecret.org>]

This time from my point of view I approve this remark by Ana, by the way
that nowadays there is no rule in matter of sense in symbolic criticism:
just different events are changing the former signs by taking sense
otherwise depending of the environment and this is a plastic process (always
moving even more or less fast).

Always we would have to regard the context as predictable structure
interpreting the fact more the mediate aspects of the situations. That is
still of Art, may be, to anticipate the predictable collective situations,
not in the terms of the prophecy as bare life, but in the terms of the
prediction of emergent sense through critical event ? disrupting the
chronology by anachronistic or broken chains of comparisons)?  (homage to
Nelson Goodman on "languages of Art" regarding "Facts, fictions,
predictions")
A.


On 12/07/06 11:00, "Ana Valdes" <agora158@gmail.com> probably wrote:

> I am raised by German nuns, also a very fundamentalist community. For
> them the issue was to make the body invisible, to hidden it behind
> black dresses and coifs, according to them "the body was only the
> vessel of the soul", a source of sin and decay and foul odours.
> Later, on the jail, we were also hidden in grey uniforms and our hair
> was cut, to avoid "tempt the male jailers and soldiers we were guarded
> by".
> When I was in Palestine, in Gaza, I spent the 8th March, International
> Womens Day, with several hundred women, performing and acting.
> 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.
> Ana
> 
> On 7/12/06, Christina McPhee <christina112@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> When I was a little girl, I could not get my dad (an academic) to
>> admit that there was  such a thing as  women's history (he was a
>> professional historian).    He argued that to label history as
>> women's was to stereotype history.
>> 
>> At the same time it was agonizingly obvious that there were 'no women
>> artists'' . The grammar  that  insisted the term 'woman' was just a
>> subset (subject?) of the term 'man' made for a violent erasure.
>> 
>> in the fundamentalist community in which I grew up, the talent and
>> intellect required of an artist,  could never be actualized if born
>> female.  I began to devise,   visual art, as a tool  to bash a way
>> through the barriers.   I had to leave that community or die.
>> Because I learned this as a child  I experience life from a certain
>> remove.
>> 
>> When in the seventies  American culture put 'differential' into
>> descriptive language about human beings,  so that you always were
>> obliged to say, '\he or she' , instead of 'he' , this was a step
>> towards actual speech in real words, in actions, in art,  things
>> like, how 'exposure' and 'gaze ' are different for women than for men.
>> 
>> Being 'erased' in that culture caused a resort to trying any means
>> available, any resource, to create a communication.  Drawing.
>> Writing. Making grades so I could get the fuck out of there.   Living
>> in the 'bare' of being invisible.  how to make visible work when you
>> are invisible.
>> 
>> Art practice is an inflammatory speech against,  the making invisible
>> of the individual subject.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -cm
>> 
>> 
>> www.christinamcphee.net
>> www.strikeslip.tv
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>> 
>