Hi Robert what moments of danger or passing intimacies do you have in mind?
i tend to think (am not thinking of October actually and hardly see them as having or being a model of dominat art history in the US, surely not beyond) site specific art or other art, relational or digital or non, the discussion itself reflects what someone -- i believe in reference to Francis Alÿs moving a bit of sand on the mountains or rather having it moved by hired hands - has cynically called "futile gestures". Why would "queer" (being queer or protesting to be so or performing queer) be dangerous to anyone? of course the question is site specific. our little county capital will go queer this weekend and celebrate its christopher street fest, everyone will have a good time, it's been normalized, the festival and the love parades. regards Johannes --->>>>> So indeed -- and via ones angle(s) of vision, ones orientation(s) (sexual and positional and ???), ones political, aesthetic, ethical, and embodied subjectivity -- how, why, and when are some "things" left out and other "things" left in? How to use one project in a way that can highlight queer relations, aesthetics, etc. -- even if said project was never meant to "queer"? What can be said (more than has been said) of "queer relational" -- as well as a "queer politics of aesthetics"? What politics -- normative ones, to be sure -- are at work in dominate art history, which October is an exemplary model/mode of dominate art history in the US (and beyond)? What antagonisms -- or agonisms -- need to take place for queer to emerge -- flash up in that moment of danger? What -- or more to the point -- how and when is queer ... relational? Backing up ... is "queer" dangerous, anymore? Robert Summers, PhD/ABD >>>>>
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
