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

I have been spending some time with the truly extraordinary textile artist Anni Albers. I have two new images banks of Anni Albers' work from the catalog of a 1999 Guggenheim exhibition and a 1985 Smithsonian exhibit. These are all scans, mostly color, directly from the books so they don't have my usual scribbled commentary.

Here are the ideas I was thinking about...

1. Light -- the way light reflects off of things that are thought of as flat like fabric or paper

2. Texture -- two dimensional representations of textured surfaces (like knotted-looking fabric or woven art), this is basically about light too

3. Metallics -- again an interest in light reflection, also hidden or subtle use of metallics (like metallic thread)

4. Tests/experiments (the art of art research) -- much of Anni Albers' work was about performing studies to allow herself to experiment and gather ideas, such as laying out bits of twisted paper in patterns to explore the possibilities of woven patterns

5. Color -- most of my tearsheet work/research has been with b&w xeroxes so I'm now starting to think about color, particularly the use of bold(er) colors that don't overwhelm

I'm adding to the mess (of ideas and images and images that represent ideas)! Soon there will be a huge tearsheet throwdown involving
a. all of my tearsheets
b. tape
c. markers
d. a wall to be covered with all of the tearsheets
e. a boombox and a lot of pacing

but in the meantime...
1. Some images from the Graphis DesignAnnual2005.
2. Some images from the book Specials by Booth-Clibborn (publisher of art/graphic design titles).

There's one or two image banks still in the works
and
who keeps listening to Piece of Me?

This was one of the many "cute" email forwards that are passed around again and again, designed to give a quick laugh. But, unfortunatly, no one ever really seems to think critically about what it is before they pass it on (or about whom they are passing it on TO.)

on to the sterotypical gendering of objects... 

Male or Female?

You might not have known this, but a lot of non-living objects are actually either male or female. Here are some examples:

FREEZER BAGS: They are male, because they hold everything in, but you can see right through them.

PHOTOCOPIERS: These are female, because once turned off; it takes a while to warm them up again.
They are an effective reproductive device if the right buttons are pushed, but can also wreak havoc if you push the wrong Buttons.

TIRES: Tires are male, because they go bald easily and are often over inflated

HOT AIR BALLOONS: Also a male object, because to get them to go anywhere, you have to light a fire under their butt.

SPONGES: These are female, because they are soft, squeezable and retain water.

WEB PAGES:
Female, because they're constantly being looked at and frequently getting hit on.

TRAINS: Definitely male, because they always use the same old lines for picking up people.
< BR>EGG TIMERS: Egg timers are female because, over time, all the weight shifts to the bottom.

HAMMERS: Male, because in the last 5000 years, they've hardly changed at all, and are occasionally handy to have around.

THE REMOTE CONTROL: Female. Ha! You probably thought it would be male, but consider this: It easily gives a man pleasure, he'd be lost without it, and while he doesn't always know which buttons to push, he just keeps trying.

It was an interesting movie and I can now see how it has affected many movies that came after it. Dr. Strangelove is one of the movies that seems to draw a straight line back to Metropolis.  The doctor in Metropolis has a hand in a black glove that he lost to the creation of the robot.  In Dr. Strangelove, Dr. Strangelove has a black-gloved hand that he has no control over and randomly snaps into the Hitler solute.  Whether this was done out of a sign of respect or if it was done to lampoon Metropolis I’m not sure, but it was defiantly a reference to the older film.  There are also other links that can be drawn to countless other Sci-fi movies that use (better quality) but essentially the same effects as they used in the libratory.  When Rotwang was coping Maria the light that covered her body and transferring energy to the robot has been used for years in similar situations.

         So in Beauty Parlor one of the groups went over Facebook and how it tries to digitally represent a body.  One of the options that it has is the relationship status option.  This function has now defiantly one of the steps on courtship.  A relation ship is not final until it is declared on Facebook.  And it is officially over when it is taken off.  Its just interesting how important it has become, or at least amongst the younger generations.  It has even interred into the culture, every so often the term “facebook final”.  Meaning that its something is final once it is posted.  Even beyond just that one function it is a way to catch up on people with out even talking to them.  It is just interesting how much it is affecting how we interact.

         In our conversation this week on Brecht and his method of making the audience uneasy as to get them to think harder on the messages of his pay.  He does this through having his characters brake out in song and other tricks that disconcert the viewer.  One of the things that disconcert me when reading the play was the language.  Though the play is set in china, the dialogue is notably British.  Every so often there will be a word or phrase that links in my mind to the British pattern of speech from the early 20th century.  The thing is, I’m not sure is this was intentional or, if Brecht just couldn’t be bothered to do the dialogue to mach the setting.  Or did he write that way so the pattern of speech in the play would be easier for his British audience to understand.  If so, that would be a very anti Brechtion thing to do.  I jess I just always find it hard to tell when subtle things like that are intentional, especially when it is an older work.  Because I don’t know how the audience would have responded to it.  And how the audience responds defines how successful a technique is.  So I’m still undecided to whether or not the odd chose in dialect in the dialogue was intentional or not.

So this week we have been talking about some of the different styles of acting.  One of the styles is method acting, which is where the actors put themselves in the poison of the character they are playing and tries to play them as accurately as possible.  This week I was listening to the NPR show This American life, which is a show where they have different, stories often around one theme.  And this week they had just one story that was about a group of maximum-security prisoners who where pouting on a production of Act 5 of Shakespeare’s famous Hamlet.  This is an interesting look into character acting because the characters in Hamlet are contemplating committing a murder, and several of the people performing the play actually had murdered someone.  What a unique insight they must have had into exactly what their characters must be going though.

         The thing about this week of the class is, it seems to have glorified the celebrity body instead of looking at them with the contempt they disserve.  I’m just frustrated that in class the tone was more reverential than skeptical.  The discussion seamed to go more in the direction of gossip.  I just don’t understand why we give celebrities so much credit.  I was proud that I didn’t know who most of the celebrities where who we talked about, and if I did know their names I knew none of the other details of their life.  I was also proud that I had never seen a Michael Jackson video before.  I think that speaks well of my character.  My opinion of them is that they are just ridicules people who aren’t that good at what they do, but just have good publicists.  We shouldn’t be giving them more attention and power by talking about them, we should just ignore them and hope they will go away.

<!--StartFragment-->

This week we watched the movie Southern Comfort, which Ithought was a good film even though the production value was low budget.  What struck me particularly was howRobert and company where able to built such close community even it a part ofthe country that is not know for its tolerance.  I assumed that people in the trans community would chouse tomove to a city where the trans community is stronger.  But they didn’t move, they made there own community wherethey lived.  It’s amazing that theynot only lived in a rural aria but that they blended in so well.  I find it incredibly funny that Robertwas even asked to join the KKK. Despite how well they where doing in their own tight group, as soon asRobert needed medical care he was turned down because he was trans.  When Robert is diagnosed with ovariancancer he continually turned down because the doctors don’t want him sitting intheir waiting rooms, they are afraid that the other clients will feeluncomfortable.  Now this is what Idon’t get, if the doctors where just saying that they didn’t want it to lookodd to their other clients, why didn’t Robert just go with someone who dididentify as female?  Then Robertwould have a reason for being there; he would be there to support the femaleidentified person.  Then once theygot behind closed doors they could do the procedure.  I don’t know but it seems like that would have worked as away the doctor could have saved face and Robert could have receivedtreatment.  I don’t know I justcan’t believe that they couldn’t find treatment for him.  Though this is probably not the case,it felt like they could have done more. Even if they had just made the appointment and tolled the doctor oncethey got there that Robert was trans, and had brought the camera.  After being tolled that they where onfilm, and meeting Robert face to face, I bet not nearly as many would haveturned down treatment.  I justcan’t believe that a doctor would not treat some one, regardless of what they looked like.