[-empyre-] Starting the First Week / Valente and Ziyalan

Mon Nov 7 14:40:16 AEDT 2016

"The “male gaze” is specifically about authority and power, not about
maleness as we (men and women and others) share that (which we all do).
It’s far to general a category to cover all the bases – i.e. it’s about
patriarchy’s visual field, not "males," many of whom gaze with desire but
without authority."

Michael, thank you for stressing the power dimension that underlies the
discussions on "the male gaze" -- as a short cut for an authoritarian
framing (in the West historically patriarchal) that belittles or suppresses
the desires, the point of view of the person that is looked at. That is
what is radical about 19th century photography --even as opposed to cinema
or video. The lens always as a "robot" seeing more than the photographer
does and technically not quite being efficient enough to reproduce a
"perfect" image, an ambiguous field of "imperfection" is created where
who/what is before the lens can speak and be visible, even only for an
instant. In that photographic instant, the "subject" before the lens
escapes the photographer's gaze. That photographer could be a man or a
woman.

The best example of this is perhaps Manet's painting "A Bar at the Folie
Bergere" where the woman who is painted stands up, her arms spread open on
the table in full independence; or in "Olympia" where the courtesan is
looking straight at the "lens" (yes, Manet is the most photographic of
painters, intensely conscious of the radical nature of this medium), with
zero embarrassment of her occupation. The painting captures her gaze as a
powerful act (something Godard refers to in *Histoire Du Cinema*). It is
the equal of the photographer/painter's gaze. The is no "maleness" on
either side.

In other words, one should separate seeing or looking (which can be erotic,
as well as assertive) from exploitative power. They may, but do not have to
go together. A gaze may be ecstatic, assertive or liberating.

I think that moment of ecstasy and pleasure (what Valente calls innocence)
is what his photographs are exploring.

For instance, in the pen-ultimate photograph where the woman subject lying
back is looking at the camera, in what sense is that photograph
exploitative of its subject?

Ciao,
Murat

On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Michael Boughn <mboughn at rogers.com> wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>
> I just wanted to quickly weigh in at the last moment about Peter’s
> project. My own sense of this conversation is that it has been stuck in an
> aging theoretical vocabulary that is inherently moralist. It’s the moralism
> that Peter’s work here is challenging, and its mode of addressing that is
> not utopian unless you are of the school that sees moralism as inescapable.
>
>
> The “male gaze” is specifically about authority and power, not about
> maleness as we (men and women and others) share that (which we all do).
> It’s far to general a category to cover all the bases – i.e. it’s about
> patriarchy’s visual field, not "males," many of whom gaze with desire but
> without authority. The critique of that tends to moralize the imaginary
> gaze itself. But the male gaze is just one generalized relation among many,
> isn't it?; and the more gazes the merrier. It seems to me that Peter
> attempts to represent or embody a male gaze that has moved beyond both the
> authority of the patriarchal gaze and the moralist implications of the
> feminist critique of the patriarchal gaze. That’s not utopian. That’s
> urgently necessary.
>
>
> Whether he succeeds is another question. The problem is that the images
> are isolated from those other gazes. What’s crucial to the project is
> relations; multiple, complex relational gazes that undo moralisms with
> their plenitude. I can understand the informed innocence (not utopia) he is
> shooting for with his images, but their isolation mutes that experience for
> me.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> It appears to me that underlying the heated arguments of the last few
>> days is the question of power.. Who has control on another through a medium
>> of technology, this time the camera. The posession of power is assigned
>> implicitly to the user of the camera. I would like to shift the focus a
>> little to the camera-- the camera's power, in other words, its efficiency
>> in enabling the photographer to control the final image. Is that power of
>> the machine a positive for the arts, does it not even have a moral
>> dimension?
>>
>> About two months ago I wrote a catalogue essay for the exhibition of the
>> Russian photographer and conceptual artist Olga Chernisheva's black and
>> white drawings "Vague Accent"  at The Drawing Center in Manhattan that is
>> open until December 18 (http://www.drawingcenter.org/
>> en/drawingcenter/5/exhibitions/6/current/ ). Here is a passage from the
>> essay "A Dialogue with Olga:
>>
>>             Olga's Weak Art
>>
>> iPhone6 destroyed photography, giving the photographer absolute power
>> over its subject. At the click of a finger, every milli-inch of one's
>> solipsistic reality is mastered, replicating or giving it an intensity of
>> codified, algorithmic hue—of a violet panoptical twilight zone. The weak
>> power of black and white images— rebelling.
>>
>>
>> Before hearing any argument about me calling a woman's art weak, I would
>> like to say Olga Chernisheva went out her way to say that this passage
>> represented the intention behind her drawings perfectly.
>>
>>
>> What this passage suggests is that "weakness" is an essential part of any
>> significant art in our our time --a vibrant weapon undercutting often from
>> within the all engrossing reality that the computer creates for us-- in
>> essence, a negative force.
>>
>>
>> One may argue about the content of Valente's photos; but there is no
>> question that in the processes involving the making of his films (as
>> described in his introductory statement) and his photographs he is trying
>> to create conditions of weakness where the controlling power of the framer
>> of the image is diminished. That is what William Bain's post is implying
>> when he says that the faults he saw in Valente's photos were due to a
>> glitch in the computer or intentional. Nevertheless, he found the blurry
>> intrusions or double-exposures emotionally enhancing.
>>
>>
>> That is also why I asked both Valente and Ziyalan to describe in detail
>> in their introductory statements the handling of their cameras creating
>> their images, how, for instance, Ziyalan dealt with photoshop or what kind
>> of cameras Valente used.
>>
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> Murat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh my, what a difference 8 hours make! Multiple questions to my mind.
>>> First, to Renate's question. Why are there not more responses from women?
>>> Except for Renate, up to now all the discussions pro and con have been
>>> among men. Tim's connection to Trump for example would have been more
>>> convincing if it had come from a woman. I don't want this discussion to be,
>>> as it has been historically, among men deciding "what women want" or what
>>> is fair or unfair to them.
>>>
>>> It seems to me it is very relevant in Peter's photos whether the women
>>> let their photos be taken willingly or unwillingly. (As I said in my
>>> introductory remarks, what is revolutionary about the camera is that who or
>>> what (plants, stone, a piece of wood, the water stain on a wall, etc. have
>>> an independence beyond the photographer (his or her "gaze").
>>>
>>> The second issue is that I understand some of the images in these
>>> photographs were harvested from the internet. Here I think the problem is
>>> completely different and has to do with the relationship with the computer.
>>> I have always found the "mining" of the computer for "images" or "bits of
>>> language" fraught with problems. Very often the images or language are
>>> deracinated, uprooted from its relation to its specific place--in other
>>> words, the independence of what is on the other side of the screen or the
>>> camera (isn't the computer window actually a virtual, moving photograph?)
>>> has been exploited. Here I think we can talk about a male or female gaze.
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Peter Valente <p.valente.film at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> Hi Timothy,
>>>>
>>>> Did you see the photos under discussion here? Did you watch the
>>>> youtube video I sent?
>>>>
>>>> I have trouble seeing your claim that my photos relate to Donald
>>>> Trump's misogyny in any way.
>>>>
>>>> But look at the photos and tell me what you think of them.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Timothy Conway Murray <tcm1 at cornell.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> > Thank you, Renate.  Yes, isn't the US being threatened as we speak
>>>> with a
>>>> > potential President who assumes that all women make themselves
>>>> sexually
>>>> > available to him?  Don't images, especially sexual ones, have complex
>>>> > discursive structures that we must continually grapple with? Speaking
>>>> of
>>>> > Mapplethorpe, didn't we learn from the many Mapplethorpe controversies
>>>> > that images read differently to different publics?  Remember the
>>>> > objections of Isaac Julien and Kobena Mercer that Mapplethorpe's
>>>> "Black
>>>> > Book" failed to account for the potential fetishization of the male
>>>> black
>>>> > body?  We must not take these issues lightly or merely smooth out
>>>> > resistance to particular sets of imagery as representing conservative
>>>> > prudishness in the face of some kind of unfiltered utopian desire.  As
>>>> > Renate points out, we have spent years on -empyre- and elsewhere
>>>> > reflecting on sexualities in much more complicated ways than this,
>>>> and, I
>>>> > might add for all of my male interlocutors on -empyre-, that we
>>>> shouldn't
>>>> > always need to rely on our female colleagues to point this out.
>>>> >
>>>> > I recognize that Peter is trying to find a space outside politics and
>>>> > where sexual pleasure is not "reduced" to fit some contemporary
>>>> theory.
>>>> > But isn't this precisely Donald Trump's response to his misogyny?
>>>> >
>>>> > Looking forward to a more political layering of this conversation,
>>>> even
>>>> > when I recognize that this might run against the grain of a desire for
>>>> > some kinds of utopian thought.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> >
>>>> > Tim
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Timothy Murray
>>>> > Professor of Comparative Literature and English
>>>> > Taylor Family Director, Society for the Humanities
>>>> > http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/
>>>> > Curator, Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art
>>>> > http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu
>>>> > A D White House
>>>> > Cornell University,
>>>> > Ithaca, New York 14853
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 11/2/16 9:12 AM, "Renate Terese Ferro" <rferro at cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> >>As an artist and a feminist I am puzzled by the lack of acknowledgment
>>>> >>here that there has been years of historical discussion and theorizing
>>>> >>about the male gaze, scopophilia, and the whole canon of gender,
>>>> >>sexuality and visual theory that has put characterizations such as
>>>> this
>>>> >>to rest I thought.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> R
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>On 11/2/16, 7:11 AM, "empyre-bounces at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au on
>>>> >>behalf of Peter Valente" <empyre-bounces at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> on
>>>> >>behalf of p.valente.film at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> >>>Murat, I was just trying to designate a space outside politics where
>>>> >>>sexual pleasure is not codified or politicized or reduced to fit some
>>>> >>>contemporary theory. Perhaps this remains an ideal, especially in
>>>> >>>anglophone countries. In the case of photographers like Gatewood or
>>>> >>>Mapplethorpe, whose work can be extreme i.e. potentially obscene to
>>>> >>>certain groups, it seems like political factions struggle to confine
>>>> >>>it, find a language for it, and failing that, instead reject it
>>>> >>>completely. That was the case with Mapplethorpe. I think, with regard
>>>> >>>to my own photos, the image of a woman who makes herself sexually
>>>> >>>available, i.e. a woman comfortable with her sexuality, is still a
>>>> >>>very provocative image in the U.S.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> >>>wrote:
>>>> >>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> >>>> Alan, are you not assuming the photos are all of women though many
>>>> >>>>are? There is at least one among these where the figure is a man.
>>>> Also,
>>>> >>>>I understand these are pictures from a much longer series. The
>>>> photos
>>>> >>>>reminded me of selfies also, I think because they are not
>>>> voyeuristic.
>>>> >>>>They are intimate. The photographer seems somehow to be in front of
>>>> the
>>>> >>>>lens also sharing the experience.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Peter, could you elaborate more why in an extreme world pleasure
>>>> needs
>>>> >>>>no defence?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Ciao,
>>>> >>>> Murat
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Peter Valente
>>>> >>>><p.valente.film at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> >>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I have no problem with 'selfies.' Of course, my own photos are not
>>>> >>>>> 'selfties' since no one in the photos took pictures of
>>>> themselves. I
>>>> >>>>> photographed all of them. But I can imagine ways in which
>>>> 'selfies'
>>>> >>>>> can be used to make interesting images. And I can't remember his
>>>> name,
>>>> >>>>> but a filmmaker shot an entire film on a smartphone and it won
>>>> some
>>>> >>>>> award in Berlin. I shot an entire film with the camera focused on
>>>> >>>>> myself.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I don't think my images are 'pornographic.' And there's an
>>>> interesting
>>>> >>>>> writer I'm translating, Guillaume Dustan, whose extreme
>>>> depictions of
>>>> >>>>> sex acts and drug use are without explanation, or defense, or
>>>> >>>>> rationalization. Edmund White's blurb on one of Dustan's books:
>>>> >>>>> "...the book features a narrator whose wants are to fuck, listen
>>>> to
>>>> >>>>> house music and visit London. 'Let the Good Times Roll' is the
>>>> motto
>>>> >>>>> of this ecstatic celebration of a way of life unaffected by the
>>>> >>>>> demands of safe sex and queer politics."
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Why only women? I found the images interesting. The nudes happen
>>>> to be
>>>> >>>>> of women. But admittedly my photos exist in a kind of extreme
>>>> world,
>>>> >>>>> you might even call it an ideal space, where pleasure is never
>>>> >>>>> political and needs no defense.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the questions, Alan.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Peter
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>wrote:
>>>> >>>>> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> > Hi Peter, I have a couple of questions. What do you 'think
>>>> about'
>>>> >>>>>selfies?
>>>> >>>>> > And do you see the pornographic images as a doubling in a sense,
>>>> >>>>>and why
>>>> >>>>> > women only? This isn't a critical query; I'm really curious.
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> > Thanks for the description and images, Alan
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, Peter Valente wrote:
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> > ==
>>>> >>>>> > email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
>>>> >>>>> > web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285
>>>> >>>>> > music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/
>>>> >>>>> > current text http://www.alansondheim.org/ug.txt
>>>> >>>>> > ==
>>>> >>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> > empyre forum
>>>> >>>>> > empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> >>>>> > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> empyre forum
>>>> >>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> >>>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>>> empyre forum
>>>> >>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> >>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>> >>>_______________________________________________
>>>> >>>empyre forum
>>>> >>>empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> >>>http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>> >>_______________________________________________
>>>> >>empyre forum
>>>> >>empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> >>http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > empyre forum
>>>> > empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20161106/7924b6f2/attachment.html>