[-empyre-] David, Christina, and Genet: An Antagonism or "Agonism"

[virginia solomon]

Robert

In the interest of agonism, precisely not antagonism, could you clarify your
strategy of recuperative readings? I agree wholeheartedly that just because
something evidences problems along one axis, that does not in any way mean
that it thereby loses any kind of efficacy. however, I do think that it is
important to be mindful of the problem that one strategy presents, so that
we might retain what is useful and adapt whatever is problematic, on the
basis of its blindspots.

I think Vaginal Davis' work, as presented by Jose Munoz, in fact, provides
us with a great example of this, and so I wonder if you see her work in
particular, qua her work, not qua Fanon, as making and employing tactics
that offer recuperative readings?

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Robert Summers <robtsum at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with much, _almost_ everything, that Christina wrote in her
> latest post (a response as an antagonism) to David, but I have one
> disagreement: Genet can be read in the way you read him, and I agree
> with much of your reading, but he can also be read in another way --
> the one I offered, probably too briefly, in my response to David.  I
> want to keep Genet as one example, on inroad into rethinking "queer
> politics" and "queer relationality."  I do not think it efficacious to
> close the book/s on Genet.
>
> I think that Genet can offer strategies or tactics for a (new?) "queer
> politics" _today_-- but, of course, there are others.  I am working on
> the writings of Fanon to write on "queer subjectivity" and "queers of
> color" (for example Vaginal Davis).  But, Fanon made some pretty
> outrageous and damning claims against "homosexuality" -- so does this
> mean we should though out Fanon?  I do not think we need to do this.
> We can take from "here and there," and not accept all his arguments
> wholesale.  We need not play at "good dog" - "bad dog" (or god).  I
> think this points to the openness of any text and the ways it can be
> used against the author's "intentions."  I am using Fanon for "queer
> artists of color" in ways he would neither support nor imagine, I
> think (and given his remarks on "homosexuality," I would say I know).
>
> I do not think it productive to shut down a debate -- not matter how
> volatile it is, or no matter how much we disagree.  In this sense "the
> political" emerges as that point of rupture, and that which causes a
> re-distribution of the sensible.  This is not to say that there are
> points in Genet (and Fanon) that are not highly problematic, but those
> points can be deployed in productive ways that do not reproduce the
> masculinst, micro-fascisms, and blind-spots in and of the text/s.  So,
> a "queering" of the text?  Deterritorializing the text in order to
> re-populate it with women (gay or straight), people of color (gay or
> straight), sissys and dandies (gay or straight), etc.
>
> This is may opinion and position on the matter at issue here, now.
>
> As ever, Robert
>
> Robert Summers, PhD/ABD
> Lecturer
> Art History and Visual Culture
> Otis College of Art and Design
> e: rsummers at otis.edu
> w: http://ospace.otis.edu/robtsum/Welcome
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>



-- 
Virginia Solomon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20090721/f86d85b4/attachment.html