I would respectfully yet disagree with many aspects of what Judith wrote,
One passage: *Robert's original call asked about the _possible_
heteronormativity of
*relational aesthetics.* I'm not interested in *torturing* anything, whether
bodies or the proper names of continental theorists, but I am
it refuses to find queer IN something, but to show
how something can be situated in a way that activates queer:
this is what I am trying to get at, though clearly less eloquently, by
insisting on queer as an operation and a tactic, rather than a thing or a
strategy. so it makes sense to me!
so in all of this talk of violence and the violence attendant to any sort of
queer operation or tactic, I very much understand Robert, Davin, and
Christina's arguments but I am nevertheless troubled, with Judith, about the
stakes of referring to that as violence. What are the stakes of calling an
On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:47 PM, virginia solomon wrote:
so in all of this talk of violence and the violence attendant to any
sort of queer operation or tactic, I very much understand Robert,
Davin, and Christina's arguments but I am nevertheless troubled,
with Judith, about the stakes of
Art Journal published a piece on images of falling after 9/11 that I thought
dealt with this question pretty well. Tough piece. Georges Bataille
reproduces a photo of death by a thousand cuts that I just can't look at.
Elkins reprints it, and I still can't look at it. Sorry, I guess I'm just
Judith Rodenbeck writes:
How could one make that image, when her eyes literally
go blank and the blood rivers out of her nose, swerve? I'd think a
3-Songs-of-Lenin treatment rather than Nam June wallpaper. Or Kali Ma.
the swerve as the swerve is happening physically and at the level of
the
Virginia,
I wouldn't necessarily say that my comments were meant to condemn
ontological violence, particularly as it has been deployed as a
defense against actual physical violence... only that it strikes me
as an area of caution (and the ethical aspects of it most certainly
depend on who holds
totally, which was the thrust of the not just the billy club point!
I wanted to make the point of ontologic/epistemologic violence and change
enacted by the minoritarian subject as being distinct from the violence,
either physical or let's say ideological, of the dominant. does that make
sense?
Absolutely! And, I must confess, that I am not entirely sure what I
think about it either way, only that I have been thinking about it.
Even my own professed pacifism is hard to trust, because pacifism
itself is only truly pacifism when survival would seem to require one
to be something other
speaking of peace, I 've got to head out to yoga but back in a few
hours.
thanks for the great exchange so far and we can keep it going shortly.
-moderator
naxsmash
naxsm...@mac.com
christina mcphee
http://christinamcphee.net
http://naxsmash.net
On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:02 PM, davin
Ooh, good catch, moderator!
For example, Rudolph Otto [9] in The Idea of the Holy produced a
battery of Latin terms that suggest aesthetic dimensions in religion.
He wrote of human confrontation with the numinous, which is wholly
other or outside normal experience and which is indescribable,
I do not mean to take people off their various (and intersecting)
lines of flight, which are highly intriguing, and I need to, want to
respond to several, but I would like to add another (line of flight),
and that is thinking relational aesthetics as one modality (among
many) of an aesthetics of
Here is a side exchange that has gone on between my partner Terry, who
teaches a design studio in architecture, and George, a former student
of Terry's who's been working on the problematics of violence in
architecture. Thought it would be worth sharing with the list.
George observes,
13 matches
Mail list logo
