DAY 6: Reading group




Today WITHOUT actually felt like a lived project for the first time. It’s not like I’m asking people to pose for ‘process’ photographs (well apart from this gorgeous shot of Solate and Marcus in their helmets) or asking them to do anything they’re not comfortable doing – it’s just that I wasn’t being the usual anxious host and that the reading group’s familiarity with the space, activity and dynamic was instilling a sense of ownership over the proceedings. There was the usual paranoid ‘did my utterances make any sense’ reflection at the end but I’m beginning to think that these discussions are (or should be) a space where we practice verbalising those uncharted thoughts that are filed neatly away. Some sentences will invariably make no sense – but I think that’s ok – not in a pedagogical “we only learn from our mistakes’ kind of way but in an active pursuit of experimenting with verbal language in its potential to communicate in these garbled and fraught states. The reading group met in the afternoon and this time we concentrated on two texts: Judith Butler’s “Against Proper Objects “ in Differences – A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies (Feminism meets Queer Theory), Volume 6 Summer – Fall 1994, Volume 6, Numbers 2+ 3 and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s “Epistemology of the Closet” that was sourced from the Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (Edited by Abelove, Barale abd Halperin). It was originally printed in a book by the same name, p 67 –90, University Of California Press, 1990. I am really running out of steam at the moment – so here is the second day that I put off an extended reflection.

1 Comments:
Hey Spiros and Reading Group
Was put onto your website by Fiona Mcdonald and noted the renewed discussion on queer. You'll forgive me I hope for not really offering anything of value to the discussion but I left the academic and other art scene some 7 years ago and am a little out of the loop on whats happening. For the record, I now live in Berlin and am running a gay/lesbian bar in Mitte which, if you're ever in town, please feel free to visit and say hello.
As to the blog, I agree that Dean Kiley's essay for BAD GAY ART was not art laden and that was intentional. I did have the opportunity to write it myself but that seemed too indulgent and I really wanted to resist the whole curator as mouthpeice of their own vision schtick.
The only real comment I wanted to make was that when I was developing BAD GAY ART, I really wanted to get gay male artists to make really bad art. At the time, there was this avalanche of gay art which was basically dull soft and sometimes not so soft porn. I wanted artists to respond to this lack of critical consumption of bodies. Juan Davila's work is testament to the fact that the gay body can be used in hypercritical ways.
The problem was that nobody wanted to make bad art (which by the way is a pun on the essay 'Bad Aboriginal Art' by Eric Michaels). The only other option was to create a kind of decor in the space (Andrews work in particular made this point) which made the body absent.
I am interested in the comment you make about BAD GAY ART was really bad. Has the point lost its irony? The show was after all a conceit in the literary sense of the term.
So, hope the 'show' went well and good to see some debate about queer still happening.
All the best
Robert Schubert
Post a Comment
<< Home