Fashioning the Body: Versions of the Citizen, the Self, and the Subject

Is this about death in the sense of destruction or is loss the same as death? Is my red raw silk jacket now dead because the version I knew of it is gone?

OBITUARY: The Red Raw Silk Jacket

The Red Raw Silk Jacket was purchased in late 1999 from a thrift store in Olympia, Washington. It fearlessly endured its teenage owner for a span of less than two years before moving on. The jacket was greatly accomplished in its presentation, featuring slightly wide, slightly cropped sleeves. It hit the upper thigh in length and closed with a single glorious oversize fabric button. The date of the original manufacture of the item was estimated to be from between 1950 to 1958 in the United States. In one of the few moments it was worn out-of-doors, it is fondly remembered that this garment was worn to the movie The Red Violin. Perhaps the greatest love and affection for the Red Raw Silk Jacket was known when the torn lining in the arms eye was sewn back together, in two places, with a slim, even blanket stitch.

Under a most unfortunate situation, the jacket made its way back to the establishment from which it was purchased. In 2002, the jacket was believed to be seen being worn by its new owner. However, it was never verified to be the one and the same Red Raw Silk Jacket. At this late date, the jacket is held in the hearts of those who still remember it: P. Williams, E. Phillips, A. Thornton, and a deeply saddened former owner.


Also in this post:

The Critical/Creative Cut-Up!

S.T.S. Performance Writing

Infinite Multiplication AKA Paper #1

I've been excited about this movie for a long time! It was playing all over the Bay Area this summer and I kept missing it! It is currently playing at the OFS.

www.olyfilm.org

There are two more showings.

Thursday: 9:00 PM
Friday: 6:30 PM

Rebecca Ann Rugg

One of my favorite pieces of non-fiction writing is the essay "How Does She Look?" by Rebecca Ann Rugg, which appears in the anthology Femme: Feminists, Lesbians, and Bad Girls. I've been rereading this essay and other parts of the book at least once a year for the past five years. It's fantastic. The essay delves into the issue of femme lesbian visibility and the various techniques/cues (and their many implications) which are used to develop a gender/presentation that is more readably queer.

In the essay, Peggy Shaw and Lois Weaver of Split Britches, who Scott Turner Schofield brought up in class, are discussed. Teresa de Lauretis is mentioned. Even the book "How Do I Look?" (referenced in the Judith Butler interview) is used as a text. Who knew that ten years ago Rebecca Ann Rugg would write this essay that would have so many connections with our class?

Other excellent pieces, among many, from Femme include:
“Passing Loqueria” by Gaby Sandoval
“Mysteries, Mothers, and Cops: An Interview with Mabel Maney”
“Forever Femme” by Madeline Davis

Femme: Feminists, Lesbians & Bad Girls
Edited by Laura Harris and Elizabeth Crocker
Routledge, 1997.


Powells
or... Amazon

If I can get one person to read this book, I'll feel like I've accomplished something with my life.

From the JB Artforum Interview

I am in love with the Liz Kotz interview with Judith Butler that we read for class. My copy of it is marked with exclamation points, notes, questions, and a heart next to "Joan Nestle."

This is one of my favorite parts, among many, in the interview:

Our friend J.B. said, "I... would love to sit down with Spinoza's Ethics and write commentaries that no one would ever read. And I don't want to have to justify that to anybody. I do think it is important to pursue intellectual questions that cannot be be readily justified through a direct or predictable relationship to politics. I don't want to think always in reference to that standard, and I worry about the effects on thinking that such a rigid notion of political accountability might have."

I drew a big asterisk next to this section and wrote "balancing utility with the sublime!" While my idea of doing something just for myself is definitely not reading and writing about a crusty philosophy book, I really appreciate what J.B. is saying. Not everything has to be for political output. In order to get to a point of producing work or thought that is politically effective, you can't confine yourself to one path or method. You have to let yourself have other pursuits, which can be enjoyable, to participate in the world, in politics, from a thoughtful perspective. I don't think there can or should be any activity or discipline that exists sheerly for political utility. All content and no form? How can that be effective in touching peoples lives?

Here's my argument: If people had no joy in their lives, if every activity had to be directly functional, we would all be so miserable that we could never get anything done. For example, I am obsessed with pop music. (When I say pop music, I almost always mean solo female vocal performers who I find to be the most brilliantly POP and not just "popular.") Yes, I do use pop music as a lens to view more "important" or identifiably academic issues like misogyny, power, consumerism, bodies, symbols, etc. However, I actually LIKE pop music. It's not some quaint, strange, low thing that normal, ill-advised people eat up while I study it anthropologically. I actually love it. We're led to believe that pop music is okay for dumb young girls and apolitical gay men. No "intelligent" person would ever admit to liking a song with a pop vocal that you can dance to. But no one is willing to broach the reality that the acceptability of Pop Music is so deeply tied in with sexism, classism, and homophobia. My love of pop has to become political then. But what's equally significant is that I would love it regardless.

Thank you, Judith Butler. Your intellectualism inspires me everyday to listen to more Janet. And you can work on your Spinoza.

I'm just getting started on this. There's so much more to say.

Language Control, Britney, and "Piece of Me"


For the most part, I do not believe in blogs. Sometimes I go so far as to say "I don't believe in the internet" but that's, well, a lie. I am willing to use/read blogs for exactly two reasons. 1) For school 2) To look up info on Britney's new album. Rumor had it that her new album would be called "Piece of Me" (it's now "Blackout" but "Piece of Me" remains one of the tracks) which blog posting people immediately began misapprehending/misnaming as "Pieces of Me." Sure, there was that Jewel album and that Ashlee Simpson song, both called "Pieces of Me," that individuals might be conjuring, but I believe it's a case of subconscious linguistic manipulation for the benefit of enforcing limitations on women.

"Pieces" implies something fractured, fragile, incomplete and more readable as appropriately feminine. If Britney's song is "Piece of Me" (which it is) she is asking/demanding "Do you want a piece of me?" It's a fight song. It shows intent. Particularly in Britney's current, haggard state, there is a cultural interest in showing her as weak or incompetent. But her songs can actually be tough, sarcastic, and smart. Her music may be the only area in which she is succeeding, but she is not even allowed that much by the mistyping populace.

Next up, Britney and the misreading of "Gimme More."
Or maybe In the Defense of Pop Music with Judith Butler.

This is my very long Beauty Parlor observation on the Computer Lab.