Re: [-empyre-] Re: good point by Andrew

olga krause <aka.leafa@xtra.co.nz> · Sat, 9 Jun 2007 16:10:25 +1200

Kia ora Stacey et al
Andrew, like your comments.

I'm not too familiar with Buffy, but your discussion very much outlines the inquiry of my own practice.
Now, speaking of non-vampire kind, but the (possibly ueber-done) cultural theory facet perhaps, I really did not think of the construction as 'scratch' in many way because my own performance/ installation practice locates itself around the construction of a German Self. This German Self manifests herself through my brown Samoan body. I was named OLGA HEDWIG JANICE KRAUSE on my birth certificate, and over years of contemplating this alien self, I have instead 're-negotiated'/ constructed her as who I am as both performance and inquiry in to various realities about myself , 'body' as the site of installation. From here, I can 'be slain' and be created as many times as I like, as can anyone really, but, in this sense, my aim is to not so much deceive the perceiver or my work, but to allow them space to re-negotiate what is implicated in names as signifiers of race/culture or bodies as signifiers of race/ culture. Real life tells me that I am the unexpected recipient of such a name, but real life also tells me ( from my great grandfather's German-ness) that I am German.
I agree that construct / negotiation are important in discussing the real/virtual. This is the point of departure, for me which excites me.
Sorry if this sounds like a promo for my work, it isn't meant to be. I am just getting in to the groove . 
cheers
Leafa / OLGA.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:mbeOXRmLuPcJ:rspas.anu.edu.au/pah/NSinAustralasia/wilson.pdf+Olga+Hedwig+Krause&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=nz
---- Stacia Yeapanis <stacialy@yahoo.com> wrote: 

=============
Andrew,
I definitely hear your "voice of inquiry." No 
misunderstanding, just clarification. I really like
examining exactly what words mean. There's always a
clearer way to say something.

This may be too much of an aside for non-Buffy fans,
but I'll make a point. I think the plotline that
Andrew referenced is a great example and should be
clarified for non-Buffy viewers (Spoiler coming up) In
the story-line referenced by Andrew, Buffy, who was an
only child for 4 seasons, suddenly gets a sister in
the 2nd episode of the 5th season. The viewers were
confused because there seemed to be no explanation
until the 6th episode of the season. All the
characters acted as if she had always been there and
the entire history of show was overwritten. Later we
found out that Dawn (the sister) had been inserted
magically into their lives (I won't explain why-don't
want to ruin everything for would-be viewers). The
point I want to make is that Buffy CHOOSES to accept
Dawn as her sister in spite of the fact that she has
lost her "real" personal history in doing so. She
chooses Dawn because her sisterly feelings are real.
She redefines herself and makes the "virtual" "real"
in doing so. 

Stacia

--- Andrew Burrell <andrew@miscellanea.com> wrote:

> Hi Stacia and all,
> 
> I had meant to imply that the ÂconstructionÂ is
> happening in  
> association with the ÂnegotiationÂ (and
> re-negotiation). Your  
> definition of ÂnegotiationÂ does however include
> both of these  
> processes: Âworking with what's on the table, moving
> it around,  
> reordering it, and, yes, creating something new out
> of the materialÂ.  
> I also agree that no final agreement can ever be
> made, in fact it is  
> the ever failing struggle to find agreement that
> ultimately defines  
> the self.
> 
> If art and Buffy are tools for this kind of
> negotiation, then perhaps  
> it comes from the freedom to pose  (and attempt to
> answer)  
> challenging speculative philosophical and ethical
> questions? They  
> provide a space (a site of speculation) to step far
> enough outside of  
> the usual self in order to examine(negotiate) it
> from another angle.
> 
> (As an aside for non Buffy fans, but still on this
> point, intelligent  
> speculative fiction and screen writing has long been
> at the forefront  
> of philosophical investigations into the self.
> Indeed Buffy (the  
> show) presented us with the very question of
> real/un-real when it  
> asked: what is the difference between having a
> sister, whom you know  
> to be your sister because the narratives of your
> memory / imagination  
> informs you that you do, and having a sister that
> the narratives of  
> your memory / imagination informs you of, yet, your
> intellectual  
> deduction tells you otherwise. If your memory and
> imagination both  
> fill you with a love for your own sister, yet you
> know that these  
> memories have actually been planted by an outside
> force, does this  
> love (or indeed this sister) become any less real?
> (And what if this  
> outside force where a television script writer,
> rather than a group  
> of mystics trying to save the future of the planet?)
> And all of this  
> on prime(ish) time television.)
> 
> ps: I hope you read my posts with the voice of
> enquiry, stemming from  
> a strong appreciation for your work.
> 
> cheers
> andrew
> --------
> 
> andrew burrell
> http://www.miscellanea.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre