#eatingtheself

#repression

#thingsiwanttoknow

#uglyfeelings

#skin

#brownsugar

#allfleshisgrass

#browngrass

#eatingtheself

things I want to know 1
things I want to know 1
things I want to know 2
things I want to know 2
things I want to know 3
things I want to know 3
things I want to know 4
things I want to know 4
things I want to know 5
things I want to know 5
things I want to know 6
things I want to know 6

things I want to know/ all flesh is grass/ brown grass/ fur extensions/ wigs as armor/ commodity fetish

Statement of Work things I want to know/ all flesh is grass/ brown grass/  fur extensions/ wigs as armor/ commodity fetish This newest performative piece is in the middle stages of development for The Invisible Boundaries, the annual resident group exhibition at Redline Denver. I've collected items my father made from deer, rabbits and porcupine and then archived the objects (pictured above) in my performance art pedestal. Making quasi-objects out of loaded materials, I'm interested in my ability to reduce, or repress the most personal and distracting into abstracted undetermined objects. Objects/ moments/ thoughts that can be perceived to destruct the self (like Darth Vader masturbating) also build the body into something new. A GRRlnimal Perhaps? I'm thinking about those lumps/ objects that are inside that I hold outside (like fake breasts) or cancerous growths as new protections like a wig as armor cactus growing off the head or my arms extending off into fur and claws. The soft plush and pliable become the instance of cover. Covering those things that others would chide and also saying (most formally) that which is the most difficult to tell you. I'm repressing my rejection. I'm adding it to my body like a wound and armor. My repression is a shield.  What does my inability to speak look like? How does it feel? What are quasi-objects? (A question proposed by Bruno Latour in We Have Never Been Modern*) The question leads me to the actor-network theory where the object plays a part in shaping social networks- a constructivist theory of mapping relations between material and concept.  Intermediaries are entities that make no difference. Mediators multiply difference. I come to these conclusions from an intuitive method working as a mediator between nature and nuture (social), object (material) and subject (concept). ___________________________________________________________

*"For instance, a sociologist might take silk and nylon as intermediaries, holding that the former “means”, “reflects”, or “symbolizes” the upper classes and the latter the lower classes. In such a view the real world silk–nylon difference is irrelevant — presumably many other material differences could also, and do also, transport this class distinction. But taken as mediators these fabrics would have to be engaged with by the analyst in their specificity: the internal real-world complexities of silk and nylon suddenly appear relevant, and are seen as actively constructing the ideological class distinction which they once merely reflected."

an excerpt- “When the two critical resources are put together we now understand why it is so difficult for social scientists to reach agreement on objects. They, too, ‘see double.’ In the first denunciation objects count for nothing; they are just there to be used as the white screen on to which society projects its cinema. But in the second, they are so powerful that they shape the human society, while the social construction of the sciences that have produced them remains invisible. Objects, things, consumer goods, works of art are either too weak or too strong” (53).

With two opposites “the ‘soft’ list of the nature pole” and “the ‘hard’ list of all the sciences” (53).  The soft list features items social scientists despise, whereas the hard list features those which they hold belief.

“And if religion, arts, or styles are necessary to ‘reflect’, ‘reify’, ‘materialize’, ‘embody’ society — to use some of the social theorists’ favourite verbs — then are objects not, in the end, its co-producers? Is not society built literally — not metaphorically — of gods, machines, sciences, arts, and styles?... Maybe social scientists have simple forgotten that before projecting itself on to things society has to be made, built, constructed? And out of what material could it be built if not out of nonsocial, non-human resources?” (54).
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *